Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2020View details →

Sex, shells, and weaponry: Coercive reproductive tactics in the Painted Turtle, Chrysemys picta

Abstract. Males and females have divergent reproductive interests arising from their unequal investments in offspring. This sexual conflict drives an antagonistic arms-race that influences sex-specific reproductive success. Alternative reproductive tactics are expected in long-lived species for which the reproductive strategy that maximizes mating success could differ across body sizes. The mating strategy of the painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) has been characterized as an elaborate and amiable male courtship display during which males use their elongate foreclaws to stroke females, coupled with female mate choice. Contrary to this long-held understanding, in situ field observations and experimental trials from our long-term study in Algonquin Provincial Park, Canada, demonstrate that males also exhibit an alternative, coercive mating strategy. Males are equipped with sexually-size dimorphic tomiodonts, tooth-like cusps of the beak, as well as a weaponized anterior shell, with which they wound the head and neck of females. Behavioral trials during the breeding periods showed that male reproductive tactics shift from courtship (foreclaw display) to coercion (striking, biting, and forced submergence) across ontogeny, and male size predicts the occurrence and frequency of coercive behavior. We found phenotype-behavior matching whereby small males invest in putatively ornamental foreclaws used for courtship and large males invest in weaponry for coercion, challenging existing knowledge of this well-studied species. As a group with a long evolutionary history and varied mating systems, Testudines are a particularly interesting taxon in which to ask questions about mating system evolution.

FIGURE 7 in Differentiating convergent pathologies in turtle shells using computed tomographic scanning of modern and fossil bone

FIGURE 7. Location and geologic position of the Woodbine Group. A. General stratigraphic sequence and timescale for the Cretaceous of central and north central Texas showing the position of the Woodbine Group. Position of the AAS within the Woodbine is marked with an arrowhead. Terrestrial deposits represented by stippled intervals. Time scale based on Denne et al. (2016). Modified from Adams et al. (2011). B. Generalized map of geological units present as surface exposures in the Fort Worth basin with location of AAS shown. Modified after Strganac (2015) and Barnes et al. (1972).

FIGURE 4 in Differentiating convergent pathologies in turtle shells using computed tomographic scanning of modern and fossil bone

FIGURE 4. Modern Trachemys scripta plastron elements (UTK 2317) with shell disease. Photograph (A) and orthographic model based on µCT data (B) shown in ventral view. Frames on the photograph and model highlight specific areas of shell disease, shown on the right as both direct µCT data (C, E, G) and heatmapped slices illustrating bone density changes (D, F, H). In the heatmapped cross sections, colors range from purple (lowest density), to orange (medium density), to white (highest density). Patches of shell disease are indicated with purple arrows. Scale bars in A and B equal 5 cm. Scale bars in C, E, and G equal 5 mm.

FIGURE 2 in Differentiating convergent pathologies in turtle shells using computed tomographic scanning of modern and fossil bone

FIGURE 2. Fossil turtle shell fragments (DMNH 2013-07-1319) with putative bite marks. Photographs (A, G) and orthographic models based on µCT data (B, H) shown in external view. Frames on the photograph and model highlight specific areas with bite marks as both direct µCT data (C, E, I) and heatmapped slices illustrating bone density changes (D, F, J). In the heatmapped cross sections, colors range from purple (lowest density), to orange (medium density), to white (highest density). Specific bite marks are indicated with purple arrows. Scale bars in A, B, G, and H equal 2 cm. Scale bars in C, E, and I equal 5 mm.

FIGURE 1 in Differentiating convergent pathologies in turtle shells using computed tomographic scanning of modern and fossil bone

FIGURE 1. Modern Trachemys scripta shell (SAAF) with bite marks attributed to Mecistops cataphractus. Orthographic models of the shell, based on µCT data shown in dorsal (A) and ventral (B) views. Frames on the models highlight specific bite marks, shown on the right as both direct µCT data (C, E, G) and heatmapped slices illustrating bone density changes (D, F, H). In the heatmapped cross sections, colors range from purple (lowest density), to orange (medium density), to white (highest density). Specific bite marks are indicated with purple arrows. Scale bars in A and B equal 5 cm. Scale bars in C, E, and G equal 5 mm.

FIGURE 6 in Differentiating convergent pathologies in turtle shells using computed tomographic scanning of modern and fossil bone

FIGURE 6. Fossil turtle shell fragment (DMNH 2013-07-0563) with putative shell disease.. Photograph (A) shown in external view. Frames on the photograph and highlight specific areas with shell disease as both direct µCT data (B, D) and heatmapped slices illustrating bone density changes (C, E). In the heatmapped cross sections, colors range from purple (lowest density), to orange (medium density), to white (highest density). Specific patches of shell disease are indicated with purple arrows. Scale bar in A equals 2 cm. Scale bars in B and D equal 5 mm.

FIGURE 8 in Differentiating convergent pathologies in turtle shells using computed tomographic scanning of modern and fossil bone

FIGURE 8. Characteristic examples of shell disease and bite marks in modern and fossil turtle shells. Modern shell disease on the plastron of Trachemys scripta, specimen UTK 2317 (A). Modern bite marks (bisected punctures) on the plastron of Trachemys scripta, specimen SAAF unnumbered (B). Fossil shell disease on a fragment of turtle shell, specimen DMNH 2013-07-0563 (C). Fossil bite marks (four scores and one pit) on a fragment of turtle shell, specimen DMNH 2013-07-1319 (D). Scale bars equal 10 mm.

FIGURE 3 in Differentiating convergent pathologies in turtle shells using computed tomographic scanning of modern and fossil bone

FIGURE 3. Fossil turtle shell fragment (DMNH 2013-07-0567) with putative bite marks. Photograph (A) and orthographic model based on µCT data (B) shown in external view. Frames on the photograph and model highlight specific areas with bite marks as both direct µCT data (C, E) and heatmapped slices illustrating bone density changes (D, F). In the heatmapped cross sections, colors range from purple (lowest density), to orange (medium density), to white (highest density). Specific bite marks are indicated with purple arrows. Scale bars in A and B equal 2 cm. Scale bars in C and E equal 5 mm.

FIGURE 5 in Differentiating convergent pathologies in turtle shells using computed tomographic scanning of modern and fossil bone

FIGURE 5. Modern Trachemys scripta plastron and partial carapace elements (UTK 1844) with shell disease. Photograph (A) and orthographic model based on µCT data (B) shown in ventral view. Frames on the photograph and model highlight specific areas of shell disease, shown on the right as both direct µCT data (C, E, G) and heatmapped slices illustrating bone density changes (D, F, H). In the heatmapped cross sections, colors range from purple (lowest density), to orange (medium density), to white (highest density). Patches of shell disease are indicated with purple arrows. Scale bars in A and B equal 5 cm. Scale bars in C, E, and G equal 5 mm.

Figure 9. NHMUK R9832 in New shell information and new generic attributions for the Egyptian podocnemidid turtles "Podocnemis" fajumensis (Oligocene) and "Podocnemis" aegyptiaca (Miocene)

Figure 9. NHMUK R9832, entoplastron of an indeterminate representative of Erymnochelyini (Pleurodira, Podocnemididae), from the lower or middle Eocene, found 25 km north-northeast of InTasit (Gao Region, Mali). (a) Ventral view. (b) Dorsal view.

Figure 1. AMNH 5086 in New shell information and new generic attributions for the Egyptian podocnemidid turtles "Podocnemis" fajumensis (Oligocene) and "Podocnemis" aegyptiaca (Miocene)

Figure 1. AMNH 5086, neotype of the podocnemidid turtle Shetwemys fajumensis comb. nov. (Erymnochelyini), from the lower Oligocene (Rupelian) of the Fayum Depression (Fayum Governorate, northern Egypt), in ventral (a) and dorsal (b) views.

Figure 4 in New shell information and new generic attributions for the Egyptian podocnemidid turtles "Podocnemis" fajumensis (Oligocene) and "Podocnemis" aegyptiaca (Miocene)

Figure 4. Plastral remains of the podocnemidid turtle Shetwemys fajumensis comb. nov. (Erymnochelyini), from the lower Oligocene (Rupelian) of the Fayum Depression (Fayum Governorate, northern Egypt). (a–b) NHMUK R3435, anterior plastral lobe, in ventral (a) and dorsal (b) views. (c–d) NHMUK R8441, plaster cast of the specimen CGM C8509, anterior plastral lobe, in ventral (c) and dorsal (d) views. (e–f) AMNH 5093, articulated epiplastra and entoplastron, in ventral (e) and dorsal (f) views. (g–h) SMNS 11233/6, anterior plastral lobe, in ventral (g) and dorsal (h) views. (i–j) NHMUK R3103, partial anterior plastral lobe, in ventral (i) and dorsal (j) views. (k–l) SMNS 11233/5, right hypoplastron, in ventral (k) and dorsal (l) views. (m–n) SMNS 11233/3, articulated left hypoplastron and xiphiplastron, in dorsal (m) and ventral (n) views, and detail of the outer ornamental pattern (o).

Figure 8 in New shell information and new generic attributions for the Egyptian podocnemidid turtles "Podocnemis" fajumensis (Oligocene) and "Podocnemis" aegyptiaca (Miocene)

Figure 8. Geographical (a) and stratigraphic (b) position of the type localities of all extinct representatives of Erymnochelyini (Pleurodira, Podocnemididae) currently known (1–6), and region where the only extant representative of this lineage lives (7): (1) JonquiŁres, Aude, France, Europe. Early Eocene. Type locality of Eocenochelus lacombiana. (2) Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Yvelines, France, Europe. Middle Eocene. Type locality of Eocenochelus eremberti. (3) Osona, Catalonia, Spain, Europe. Late Eocene. Type locality of Eocenochelus farresi. (4) North of Lake Qarun, Fayum Depression, Fayum Governorate, Egypt, Africa. Early Oligocene. Type locality of Shetwemys fajumensis comb. nov. (5) Moghra Oasis, Qattara Depression, Matruh Governorate, Egypt, Africa. Early Miocene. Type locality of Apeshemys aegyptiaca comb. nov. (6) Lothagam, southwest of Lake Turkana, Kenya, Africa. Late Miocene. Type locality of Kenyemys williamsi and Turkanemys pattersoni. (7) Western Madagascar, Africa, where the extant Erymnochelys madagascariensis lives. The identification of each taxon through the shell or through both the skull and the shell is indicated in (b). Panel (b) is modified from the fig. 1 of PØrez-García et al. (2017).

Figure 3 in New shell information and new generic attributions for the Egyptian podocnemidid turtles "Podocnemis" fajumensis (Oligocene) and "Podocnemis" aegyptiaca (Miocene)

Figure 3. Shell remains of the podocnemidid turtle Shetwemys fajumensis comb. nov. (Erymnochelyini), from the lower Oligocene (Rupelian) of the Fayum Depression (Fayum Governorate, northern Egypt). (a–c) SMNS 11233/2, partial carapace, in dorsal (a), ventral (b), and left lateral (c) views. (d) Ventral view of the anterior lobe the holotype of the species, currently lost, based on the fig. 2C in plate 8 of Andrews (1903). (e–g) SMNS 12647, plastron, in ventral (e), dorsal (f), and left lateral (g) views. (g') corresponds to an enlarged photograph of the posterior plastral lobe, in left lateral view, in which the thickness in the regions close to the hypo-xiphiplastral suture (in blue), between the pelvic scars (in green), and at the level of the anal notch (in red), have been represented by arrows (h–i), SMNS 12646, plastron, in ventral (h) and dorsal (i) views.

Figure 2 in New shell information and new generic attributions for the Egyptian podocnemidid turtles "Podocnemis" fajumensis (Oligocene) and "Podocnemis" aegyptiaca (Miocene)

Figure 2. Shell remains of the podocnemidid turtle Shetwemys fajumensis comb. nov. (Erymnochelyini), from the lower Oligocene (Rupelian) of the Fayum Depression (Fayum Governorate, northern Egypt). (a–f) AMNH 5087, carapace and partial plastron, in dorsal (a), ventral (b), anterior (c), posterior (d), left lateral (e), and right lateral (f) views. (g–h) SMNS 11233/1, partial carapace, in dorsal (g) and ventral (h) views.

Figure 6 in New shell information and new generic attributions for the Egyptian podocnemidid turtles "Podocnemis" fajumensis (Oligocene) and "Podocnemis" aegyptiaca (Miocene)

Figure 6. Plastron of the podocnemidid turtle Apeshemys aegyptiaca comb. nov. (Erymnochelyini), from the lower Miocene (Burdigalian) of the Qattara Depression (Matruh Governorate, northern Egypt). (a–d) Type specimen. (a) Drawing of the ventral view of the plastron, corresponding to fig. 2 on plate 1 of Andrews (1900). (b–c) Plastron of the plaster cast NHMUK R2927, corresponding to the holoplastotype of the specimen, in ventral (b) and dorsal (c) views. (d) Drawing of the dorsal view of the posterior area of the posterior plastral lobe, corresponding to fig. 3 on plate 1 of Andrews (1900). (e) Ventral view of the partial plastron of another shell, currently lost, based on fig. 21 of Fourteau (1920).

opencc-by-4.0Sep 2019View details →

Turtle Shell Rattle Use by Indigenous Peoples of the Contiguous United States: Ethnographic Documentation

**When using this data and information, please cite all of the following: <blockquote> Gillreath-Brown, Andrew. 2019. Creation to Rhythm: An Ethnographic and Archaeological Survey of Turtle Shell Rattles and Spirituality in the United States. Journal of Ethnobiology 39(3):425–444. <a href="http://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-39.3.425">http://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-39.3.425</a> Gillreath-Brown, Andrew. 2019*. Turtle Shell Rattle Use by Indigenous Peoples of the Contiguous United States: Ethnographic Documentation. Version 1. Zenodo. Available at: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2545989">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2545989</a>. Date of use: day month year.** *Please update year and DOI if you cite a newer version. The DOI changes with each version in Zenodo, or you can use the DOI to cite all versions. **Example: Date of use: 17 April 2019. </blockquote> OVERVIEW OF CONTENTS The purpose of this work is to summarize information from published and unpublished ethnographies that document how Indigenous Peoples of the contiguous United States used—and, in some cases, continue to use—turtle shell rattles. The data contained herein have been used to suggest and support interpretations of turtle shell rattle remains recovered from the archaeological record across the United States. This compendium draws on an extensive database compiled and maintained by the author. The compendium lists the relevant ethnographic references; it gives the state and region of the United States and the Indigenous group that use(d) turtle shell rattles; it identifies the turtle shell rattle type and the various chelonian taxa by both their scientific and common names; and it describes the documented uses for turtle shell rattles for specific ethnic groups. I intend this compendium to serve as a summary of, and a guide to, the extensive ethnographic literature, which I encourage the reader to consult for additional, more-detailed information, as well as to understand the unique context. I used several criteria for deciding which information to include in the compendium. First, I was interested in what Indigenous Peoples used turtle shell rattles or turtle substitute rattles for (see Gillreath-Brown 2019) across the United States. I also try to include alternate or contemporary preferred names of the Native American groups in addition to the group name used in the literature. Second, I include primary ethnographic references in addition to other supporting references. In addition to providing the references in a word document, references are also compiled in the author’s Paperpile account, which is publically available at <a href="https://paperpile.com/shared/KU55Rg">https://paperpile.com/shared/KU55Rg</a>. Third, I was also interested in the type of rattle that was used and what turtle taxa (given by its scientific name according to Turtle Taxonomy Working Group 2017) was used in the construction of the rattle(s). I also provide the common name for scientific names. Fourth, I provide a use category for the rattles, which is comprised of ritual/ceremonial, medicinal/healing, and myth/creation. Finally, an ethnographic description and additional comments are provided to give further context for the turtle shell rattles and to further expand on the use categories. For example, for a use category of ritual/ceremonial, the description and comments field will generally list the dances or ceremonies where turtle shell rattles were used. A goal of the compendium is to aid researchers in their interpretations of archaeological turtle shell rattle remains, as well as to understand and document Indigenous music. Although turtle shell rattles have been present in the United States since the Archaic Period (ca. 8000–1000 BC), the specific uses of turtle shell rattles vary from group to group and over time. Some Indigenous Peoples may not have traditionally used turtle shell rattles or at least not for specific dances (e.g., Stomp Dance). For example, Howard and Kurath (1959:6) explain that the Ponca (of the midwestern United States) likely borrowed the stomp dance from eastern groups. Many Indigenous Peoples were forced from their traditional homelands and were placed in close proximity to other Indigenous Peoples, such as in the state of Oklahoma, that they may not have interacted with the past. Additionally, the Seminoles of Oklahoma may have learned about the use of condensed-milk can rattles as a substitute for turtle shell rattles from the Natchez-Cherokees around 1920 in Gore, Oklahoma (Howard and Lena 1984:117). Turtle shell rattle type is defined by the author and is presented in Gillreath-Brown 2019 (see also Gillreath-Brown and Peres 2017, 2018). In published literature, “turtle shell rattle” is phrased many different ways including: turtle shell rattle, terrapin carapace rattles, turtle carapace rattle, shell shakers, terrapin rattle, turtle shell shakers, terrapin shell rattle, turtle shell shackles, tortoise shell rattle, turtle shell leggings, and tortoise rattle (see Gillreath-Brown 2019: Supplemental Content, Supplementary Table 4). Additionally, sometimes turtle shell is hyphenated (i.e., turtle-shell). Tortoise and terrapin are also used as substitutes for “turtle.” Download the current version of the excel file below. References cited in the description above are in the word document “References Cited” and in Paperpile, except for Turtle Taxonomy Working Group (2017). Turtle Taxonomy Working Group [Rhodin AGJ, Iverson JB, Bour R, Fritz U, Georges A, Shaffer HB, et al]. 2017. Turtles of the world: Annotated checklist and atlas of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution, and conservation status. 8th ed. In: Rhodin AGJ, Iverson JB, van Dijk PP, Saumure RA, Buhlmann KA, Pritchard PCH, et al, editors. Conservation biology of freshwater turtles and tortoises: A compilation project of the IUCN/SSC tortoise and freshwater turtle specialist group. Chelonian Research Monographs 2017;7: 1–292. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3854/crm.7.checklist.atlas.v8.2017">https://doi.org/10.3854/crm.7.checklist.atlas.v8.2017</a> Acknowledgments This publication would not have been possible without the support of many people and institutions. I also thank the editors and reviewers for the original article (DOI) that was published in the Journal of Ethnobiology Special Issue, “Ethnobiology Through Song.” I also thank my colleague Dr. Tanya Peres, who I have worked extensively with on this topic. Andrew Gillreath-Brown is currently a PhD Candidate in the Department of Anthropology at Washington State University.

opencc-by-4.0Jul 2017View details →

Fig. 9 in Unusual shell anatomy and osteohistology in a new Late Cretaceous panchelid turtle from northwestern Patagonia, Argentina

Fig. 9. Strict consensus tree from the four MPT's obtained from the morphological cladistic analysis of Rionegrochelys caldieroi gen. et sp. nov. The stars show the alternative positions of Pseudemydura umbrina. The numbers in the left of the lines are Bremer support values, whereas the numbers in the right of the lines are Jackknife and Bootstrap support values, respectively, that exceed 50%. Abbreviations: Af, Africa, SAm, South America, NAm, North America, Au, Australia; l-n, long-necked panchelids, s-n, short-necked panchelids.

opencc-by-4.0Jul 2017View details →

Fig. 7 in Unusual shell anatomy and osteohistology in a new Late Cretaceous panchelid turtle from northwestern Patagonia, Argentina

Fig. 7. Comparison of thoracic vertebrae 1–3 in some extinct and extant pleurodiran turtles. A. Chelodina colliei Gray, 1856 (NHMUK 64-12-22-66). B. Elseya dentata (Gray, 1863) (NHMUK 76-5-19-27). C. Rionegrochelys caldieroi gen. et sp. nov. (MPCA-AT 258). D. Chelus fimbriatus (Schneider, 1783) (MZUSP 2619). E. Phrynops hilarii (Duméril and Bibron, 1835) (MHNSR H-1550). F. Platemys platycephala (Schneider, 1792) (MHNSR H-1554). G. Rheodytes leukops Legler and Cann, 1980 (QMJ 7693). H. Acanthochelys macrocephala (Rhodin, Mittermeier, and McMorris, 1984) (MACN H-8288). I. Hydromedusa tectifera Cope, 1870 (MHNSR-H 1615). J. Mesoclemmys nasuta (Schweigger, 1812) (MACN H-11967). K. Podocnemis sextuberculata Cornalia, 1849 (MZUSP 2501). L. Pelomedusa subrufa (Bonnaterre, 1789) (SMF 7953). M. Yaminuechelys gasparinii de la Fuente, Lapparent de Broin, and Manera de Bianco, 2001 (MPA 86-86-IC). Scale bars 20 mm.