Disentangling true shape differences and experimenter bias: are dextral and sinistral snail shells exact mirror images?
IN THEORY, SNAILS CAN COME IN TWO ENANTIOMORPHS: either dextral (coiling clockwise) or sinistral (coiling counter-clockwise). In snail species where both forms are actually present, coiling direction is determined by a single gene with delayed maternal inheritance; there is no predictable relationship between a snail's own coiling genotype and its actual coiling direction. Because of this genetic decoupling, it might be expected that dextral and sinistral individuals would be exact mirror images of one another. However, indications exist that there is a subtle but detectable shape difference between dextral and sinistral individuals that derive from the same gene pool. In this paper, we attempt to detect such differences in 50 dextral and 50 sinistral individuals of Amphidromus inversus, a species of land snail that is consistently chirally dimorphic. Four out of 18 volunteers who measured the shells with Vernier calipers found that sinistrals are stouter to a significant degree. A similar result was found by one out of five volunteers who measured the shells from photographs. These results do not allow distinguishing between real shape differences and a handling bias of sinistral as compared with dextral shells. However, when the same set of shells was subjected to a geometric morphometric analysis, we were able to show that sinistrals indeed exhibit a slight but significant widening and twisting of the shell near the palatal and parietal apertural areas. This result is surprising because species of the subgenus Amphidromus s. str. share a long history of chiral dimorphism, and the species would be expected to have been purged from disadvantageous interactions between direction of coil and general shell shape. We conclude that selection on the shape differences is either very weak or constrained by the fact that the pleiotropic effects of the chirality gene are of importance very early in development only.
M
M
Schilthuizen
M
M
Haase
Evolution. 1988 Jul;42(4):826-828
28563870
Naturwissenschaften. 2005 Nov;92(11):504-15
16217668
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986 Sep;83(18):6897-901
16593760
Biol Lett. 2009 Feb 23;5(1):20-2
19004750
J Evol Biol. 2007 Mar;20(2):661-72
17305832
Mol Ecol. 2003 Jul;12(7):1869-78
12803638
J Hered. 2010 Jan-Feb;101(1):11-9
19617526
Evolution. 1987 May;41(3):672-675
28563811
Evolution. 1989 May;43(3):485-503
28568400
Am Nat. 1998 Aug;152(2):225-36
18811387
J Evol Biol. 2007 Sep;20(5):1941-9
17714311
Evolution. 1989 Jan;43(1):223-225
28568501
Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1979 Sep 21;205(1161):581-98
42062
Heredity (Edinb). 2005 Sep;95(3):216-20
16077741
Science. 1923 Oct 5;58(1501):269-70
17837785
Curr Biol. 2004 Aug 24;14(16):1462-7
15324662
Evolution. 1985 Nov;39(6):1364-1379
28564252
Genet Res. 1990 Jun;55(3):189-97
2394377
Heredity (Edinb). 2009 Sep;103(3):268-78
19401714