Egg size is a widely-studied trait and yet the causes and consequences of variation in this trait remain poorly understood. Egg size varies greatly within many avian species, with the largest egg in a population generally being at least 50% bigger, and sometimes twice as large, as the smallest. Generally, approximately 70% of the variation in egg mass is due to variation between rather than within clutches, although there are some cases of extreme intra-clutch egg-size variation. Despite the large amount of variation in egg size between females, this trait is highly consistent within individuals between breeding attempts; the repeatability of egg size is generally above 0·6 and tends to be higher than that of clutch size or laying date. Heritability estimates also tend to be much higher for egg size (> 0·5) than for clutch size or laying date (< 0·5). As expected, given the high repeatability and heritability of egg size, supplemental food had no statistically significant effect on this trait in 18 out of 28 (64%) studies. Where dietary supplements do increase egg size, the effect is never more than 13% of the control values and is generally much less. Similarly, ambient temperature during egg formation generally explains less than 15% of the variation in egg size. In short, egg size appears to be a characteristic of individual females, and yet the traits of a female that determine egg size are not clear. Although egg size often increases with female age (17 out of 37 studies), the change in egg size is generally less than 10%. Female mass and size rarely explain more than 20% of the variation in egg size within species. A female’s egg size is not consistently related to other aspects of reproductive performance such as clutch size, laying date, or the pair’s ability to rear young. Physiological characteristics of the female (e.g. endogenous protein stores, oviduct mass, rate of protein uptake by ovarian follicles) show more promise as potential determinants of egg size. With regards to the consequences of egg-size variation for offspring fitness, egg size is often correlated with offspring mass and size within the first week after hatching, but the evidence for more long-lasting effects on chick growth and survival is equivocal. In other oviparous vertebrates, the magnitude of egg-size variation within populations is often as great or greater than that observed within avian populations. Although there are much fewer estimates of the repeatability of egg size in other taxa, the available evidence suggests that egg size may be more flexible within individuals. Furthermore, in non-avian species (particularly fish and turtles), it is more common for female mass or size to explain a substantial proportion of the variation in egg size. Further research into the physiological basis of egg-size variation is needed to shed light on both the proximate and ultimate causes of intraspecific variation in this trait in birds.

There is growing evidence from both experimental and non-experimental studies that fluctuating asymmetry does not consistently index stress or fitness. The widely held – yet poorly substantiated – belief that fluctuating asymmetry can act as a universal measure of developmental stability and predictor of stress-mediated changes in fitness, therefore staggers. Yet attempts to understand why the reported relationships between fluctuating asymmetry, stress and fitness are so heterogeneous – i.e. whether the associations are truly weak or non-existent or whether they become confounded during different stages of the analytical pathways – remain surprisingly scarce. Hence, we attempt to disentangle these causes, by reviewing the various statistical and conceptual factors that are suspected to confound potential relationships between fluctuating asymmetry, stress and fitness. Two main categories of factors are discerned: those associated with the estimation of developmental stability through fluctuating asymmetry, and those associated with the effects of genotype and environment on developmental stability. Next, we describe a series of statistical tools that have recently been developed to help reduce this noise. We argue that the current lack of a theoretical framework that predicts if and when relationships with developmental stability can be expected, urges for further theoretical and empirical research, such as on the genetic architecture of developmental stability in stressed populations. If the underlying developmental mechanisms are better understood, statistical patterns of asymmetry variation may become a biologically meaningful tool.

The proposal to implement a phylogenetic nomenclatural system (governed by the PhyloCode), in which taxon names are defined by explicit reference to common descent, has met with strong criticism from some proponents of phylogenetic taxonomy (taxonomy based on the principle of common descent in which only clades and species are recognized). We examine these criticisms and find that some of the perceived problems with phylogenetic nomenclature are based on misconceptions, some are equally true of the current rank-based nomenclatural system, and some will be eliminated by implementation of the PhyloCode. Most of the criticisms are related to an overriding concern that, because the meanings of names are associated with phylogenetic pattern which is subject to change, the adoption of phylogenetic nomenclature will lead to increased instability in the content of taxa. This concern is associated with the fact that, despite the widespread adoption of the view that taxa are historical entities that are conceptualized based on ancestry, many taxonomists also conceptualize taxa based on their content. As a result, critics of phylogenetic nomenclature have argued that taxonomists should be free to emend the content of taxa without constraints imposed by nomenclatural decisions. However, in phylogenetic nomenclature the contents of taxa are determined, not by the taxonomist, but by the combination of the phylogenetic definition of the name and a phylogenetic hypothesis. Because the contents of taxa, once their names are defined, can no longer be freely modified by taxonomists, phylogenetic nomenclature is perceived as limiting taxonomic freedom. We argue that the form of taxonomic freedom inherent to phylogenetic nomenclature is appropriate to phylogenetic taxonomy, in which taxa are considered historical entities that are discovered through phylogenetic analysis and are not human constructs.

Unlike the great apes and most other primates, all species of gibbons are known to produce elaborate, species-specific and sex-specific patterns of vocalisation usually referred to as “songs”. In most, but not all, species, mated pairs may characteristically combine their songs in a relatively rigid pattern to produce coordinated duet songs. Previous studies disagree on whether duetting or the absence of duetting represented the primitive condition in gibbons. The present study compares singing behaviour in all gibbon species. Various vocal characteristics were subjected to a phylogenetic analysis using previously published phylogenetic trees of the gibbon radiation as a framework. Variables included the degree of sex-specificity of the vocal repertoire, the occurrence of solo songs, and the preference for a specific time of day for song-production. The results suggest the following scenario for the evolution of gibbon songs: (1) The last common ancestor of recent gibbons produced duet songs. (2) Gibbon duets probably evolved from a song which was common to both sexes and which only later became separated into male-specific and female-specific parts (song-splitting theory). (3) A process tentatively called “duet-splitting” is suggested to have led secondarily from a duetting species to a non-duetting species, in that the contributions of the pair-partners split into temporally segregated solo songs. This appears to be the first time that a non-duetting animal can be shown to be derived from a duetting form. (4) The return to exclusive solo singing may be related to the isolated island distribution of the non-duetting species.

In most social ungulate species, males are larger than females and the sexes live in separate groups outside the breeding season. It is important for our understanding of the evolution of sociality to find out why sexual segregation is so widespread not only in ungulates but also in other mammals. Sexual body size dimorphism was proposed as a central factor in the evolution of sexual segregation in ungulates. We tested three hypotheses put forward to explain sexual segregation: the predation-risk, the forage-selection, and the activity budget hypothesis. We included in our analyses ungulate species ranging from non-dimorphic to extremely dimorphic in body size. We observed oryx, zebra, bighorn sheep and ibex in the field and relied on literature data for 31 additional species. The predation-risk hypothesis predicts that females will use relatively predator-safe habitats, while males are predicted to use habitats with higher predation risk but better food quality. Out of 24 studies on different species of ungulates, females and their offspring chose poorer quality but safer habitat in only eight cases. The forage-selection hypothesis predicts that females would select habitat based on food quality, while males should prefer high forage biomass. In fact, females selected higher quality food in only six out of 18 studies where males and females segregated, in eight studies there was no difference in forage quality and in four studies males were in better quality habitat. The activity budget hypothesis predicts that with increasing dimorphism in body size males and females will increasingly differ in the time spent in different activities. Differences in activity budgets would make it difficult for males and females to stay in mixed-sex groups due to increased costs of synchrony to maintain group cohesion. The predictions of the activity budget hypothesis were confirmed in most cases (22 out of 23 studies). The heavier males were compared to females, the more time females spent foraging compared to males. The bigger the dimorphism in body mass, the more males spent time walking compared to females. Lactating females spent more time foraging than did non-lactating females or males. Whether species were mainly bulk or intermediate feeders did not affect sexual differences in time spent foraging. We conclude that sexual differences in activity budgets are most likely driving sexual segregation and that sexual differences in predation risk or forage selection are additive factors.

The small highly aerobic avian species have morphometrically superior lungs while the large flightless ones have less well-refined lungs. Two parabronchial systems, i.e. the paleopulmo and neopulmo, occur in the lungs of relatively advanced birds. Although their evolution and development are not clear, understanding their presence is physiologically important particularly since the air- and blood flow patterns in them are different. Geometrically, the bulk air flow in the parabronchial lumen, i.e. in the longitudinal direction, and the flow of deoxygenated blood from the periphery, i.e. in a centripetal direction, are perpendicularly arranged to produce a cross-current relationship. Functionally, the blood capillaries in the avian lung constitute a multicapillary serial arterialization system. The amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide exchanged arises from many modest transactions that occur where air- and blood capillaries interface along the parabronchial lengths, an additive process that greatly enhances the respiratory efficiency. In some species of birds, an epithelial tumescence occurs at the terminal part of the extrapulmonary primary bronchi (EPPB). The swelling narrows the EPPB, conceivably allowing the shunting of inspired air across the openings of the medioventral secondary bronchi, i.e. inspiratory aerodynamic valving. The defence stratagems in the avian lung differ from those of mammals: fewer surface (free) macrophages (SMs) occur, the epithelial cells that line the atria and infundibula are phagocytic, a large population of subepithelial macrophages is present and pulmonary intravascular macrophages exist. This complex defence inventory may explain the paucity of SMs in the avian lung.