International Journal of Primatology

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 707–727 | Cite as

Taxonomic Implications of Molar Morphology Variability in Capuchins

  • Mónica Nova Delgado
  • Jordi Galbany
  • Katarzyna Górka
  • Alejandro Pérez-PérezEmail author


Tooth morphology has been widely used to infer taxonomic affinities. Both morphological and genetic analyses have revealed significant differences among capuchins, suggesting that two distinct monophyletic groups exist: the gracile capuchins (Cebus) and the robust capuchins (Sapajus). We developed a geometric morphometrics (GM) model to determine if the two groups also show distinct molar shapes and to explore the influence of size, phylogeny, and biogeography in shaping molar morphology. We characterized first and second molar crown shape variability in seven species representative of the two genera (Cebus albifrons, C. olivaceus, Sapajus apella, S. robustus, S. libidinosus, S. nigritus, and S. xanthosternos), using two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) GM. The results showed that 2D GM discriminated the two groups better than 3D GM, possibly because it accounted for cusp position and crown contour, but not cusp height, which may be a useful trait for inferring adaptive foraging ecology but presents a risk of homoplasy. In addition, the presence of a phylogenetic signal in the first molar shape (2D) is likely to reflect similarity to the ancestral condition and provides evidence of gradual evolution of molar robustness in the robust clade. We suggest that the shape of the first molar is informative about phylogenetic affinities, whereas the shape of the second molar is more informative about biogeographic variability. However, molar shape similarities may be affected by convergent evolution, as environmental factors in different biogeographical regions may have a significant effect on molar morphology, as seen in the closely related capuchins.


Cebus Geometric morphometrics Phylogeny Sapajus Tooth shape 



This work was funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Educación Cultura y Deporte via projects CGL2011-22999 and SGR2009-884. We thank the curators and institutions for facilitating our access to specimens and resources: Mario de Vivo and Juliana Gualda Barros (Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo) and Leandro de Oliveira Salles (Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro). We are especially grateful to Sergio Maia Vaz (Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro) for his support and help with data acquisition. We also thank Júlia Arias Martorell and Beatriz Gamarra for advice on mathematical and statistical issues. We are grateful to the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their editorial modifications and comments at various points in the manuscript’s development.


  1. Adams, D. C., Rohlf, F. J., & Slice, D. (2004). Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the ‘revolution’. Italian Journal of Zoology, 71, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anapol, F., & Lee, S. (1994). Morphological adaptation to diet in platyrrhine primates. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 94, 239–261.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, S. E. (2004). A morphometric analysis of maxillary molar crowns of Middle-Late Pleistocene hominins. Journal of Human Evolution, 47(3), 183–98.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, S. E., Benazzi. S., Souday, C., Astorino, C., Paul, K., & Hublin, J. J. (2014). Taxonomic differences in deciduous upper second molar crown outlines of Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus. Journal of Human Evolution, 72, 1–9.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, S. E., Skinner, M. M., & Hublin, J.-J. (2011). What lies beneath? An evaluation of lower molar trigonid crest patterns based on both dentine and enamel expression. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 145, 505–518.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Begun, D. R. (2007). How to identify (as opposed to define) a homoplasy: Examples from fossil and living great apes. Journal of Human Evolution, 52, 559–572.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Benazzi, S., Fantini, M., De Crescenzio, F., Persiani, F., & Gruppioni, G. (2009). Improving the spatial orientation of human teeth using a virtual 3D approach. Journal of Human Evolution, 56, 286–293.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Benazzi, S., Coquerell, M., Fiorenza, L., Bookstein, F., Katina, S., & Kullmer, O. (2011). Comparison of dental measurement systems for taxonomic assignment of first molars. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 144, 342–354.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bookstein, F. L. (1991). Morphometric tools for landmark data. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bookstein, F. L. (1996). Combining the tools of geometric morphometrics. In L. F. Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G. J. P. Naylor, & D. Slice (Eds.), Advances in morphometrics (pp. 131–151). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boubli, J. P., Rylands, A. B., Farias, I., Alfaro, M. E., & Lynch Alfaro, J. W. (2012). Cebus phylogenetic relationships: A preliminary reassessment of the diversity of the untufted capuchin monkeys. American Journal of Primatology, 74, 381–393.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Boyer, D. M. (2008). Relief index of second mandibular molars is a correlate of diet among prosimian primates and other euarchontan mammals. Journal of Human Evolution, 55, 1118–1137.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bunn, J., Boyer, D. M., Lipman, Y., Clair, E. M., Jernvall, J., & Daubechies, I. (2011). Comparing Dirichlet normal surface energy of tooth crowns, a new technique of molar shape quantification for dietary inference, with previous methods in isolation and in combination. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 145, 247–261.Google Scholar
  14. Byron, C. D. (2009). Cranial suture morphology and its relationship to diet in Cebus. Journal of Human Evolution, 57, 649–655.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Claverie, T., & Patek, S. N. (2013). Modularity and rates of evolutionary change in a power-amplified prey capture system. Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution, 67(11), 3191–3207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Cooke, S. B. (2011). Paleodiet of extinct Platyrrhines with emphasis on the Caribbean forms: Three-dimensional geometric morphometrics of mandibular second molars. Anatomical Record, 294, 2073–2091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drake, A. G., & Klingenberg, C. P. (2008). The pace of morphological change: Historical transformation of skull shape in St. Bernard dogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275, 71–76.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Galbany, J., Estebaranz, F., Martínez, L. M., Romero, A., De Juan, J., Turbón, D. & Pérez-Pérez, A. (2006). Comparative analysis of dental enamel polyvinylsiloxane impression and polyurethane casting methods for SEM research. Microscopy Research and Technique, 69, 246–252.Google Scholar
  19. Gamarra, B. G. (2014). Implicacions filogenètiques i adaptatives de la variabilitat morfològica de la dentició dels primats Catarrhini actuals i fòssils. PhD Dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  20. Gilbert, C. C. (2011). Phylogenetic analysis of the African papionin basicranium using 3-D geometric morphometrics: The need for improved methods to account for allometric effects. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 144(1), 60–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gómez-Robles, A., & Polly, P. D. (2012). Morphological integration in the hominin dentition: evolutionary, developmental, and functional factors. Evolution, 66, 1024–1043.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gómez-Robles, A., Martinón-Torres, M., Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., Margvelashvili, A., Bastir, M., Arsuaga, J.L., Pérez-Pérez, A., Estebaranz, F., & Martínez, L. M. (2007). A geometric morphometric analysis of hominin upper first molar shape. Journal of Human Evolution, 53, 272–285.Google Scholar
  23. Gómez-Robles, A., Martinón-Torres, M., Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., Prado, L., Sarmiento, S., & Arsuaga, J. L. (2008). Geometric morphometric analysis of the crown morphology of the lower first premolar of hominins, with special attention to Pleistocene Homo. Journal of Human Evolution, 55(4), 627–38.Google Scholar
  24. Gómez-Robles, A., Olejniczak, J., Martinón-Torres, M., Prado-Simón, L., & Bermúdez de Castro, J. M. (2011). Evolutionary novelties and losses in geometric morphometrics: A practical approach through hominin molar morphology. Evolution, 65, 1772–1790.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Grant, P. R., & Grant, B. R. (2006). Evolution of character displacement in Darwin’s finches. Science, 313, 224–226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Groves, C. P. (2001). Primate taxonomy. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  27. Groves, C. P. (2005). Order Primates. In D. E. Wilson & D. M. Reeder (Eds.), Mammal species of the world: A taxonomic and geographic reference (pp. 111–184). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Guy, F., Gouvard, F., Boistel, R., Euriat, A., & Lazzari, V. (2013). Prospective in (Primate) dental analysis through tooth 3D topographical quantification. PloS One, 8(6), e66142. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066142.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., & Ryan, P. D. (2001). PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4, 1–9.Google Scholar
  30. Henderson, E. (2007). Platyrrhine dental eruption sequences. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 134, 226–239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hershkovitz, P. (1949). Mammals of northern Colombia. Preliminary report No. 4: Monkeys (Primates), with taxonomic revisions of some forms. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 98, 323–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hershkovitz, P. (1955). Notes on the American monkeys of the genus Cebus. Journal of Mammalogy, 36, 449–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hill, W. C. O. (1960). Primates comparative anatomy and taxonomy IV. Cebidae Part A. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  34. IUCN. (2012). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Available at: (Accessed October 17, 2012).
  35. Jernvall, J., & Jung, H. S. (2000). Genotype, phenotype, and developmental biology of molar tooth characters. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 43, 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones, K. E., Rose, K. D., & Perry, J. M. G. (2014). Body size and premolar evolution in the early-middle eocene euprimates of Wyoming. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 153(1), 15–28.Google Scholar
  37. Kamilar, J. M. (2009). Environmental and geographic correlates of the taxonomic structure of primate communities. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 139(3), 382–393.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Kawecki, T. J., & Ebert, D. (2004). Conceptual issues in local adaptation. Ecology Letters, 7(12), 1225–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kay, R. F. (1981). The nut-crackers: A new theory of the adaptations of the ramapithecines. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 55, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kay, R. F. (1990). The phyletic relationships of extant and extinct fossil Pitheciinae (Platyrrhini, Anthropoidea). Journal of Human Evolution, 19, 175–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kay, R. F., & Cozzuol, M. A. (2006). New platyrrhine monkeys from the Solimões Formation (late Miocene, Acre State, Brazil). Journal of Human Evolution, 50, 673–686.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Kinzey, W. G. (1974). Ceboid models for the evolution of hominoid dentition. Journal of Human Evolution, 3, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Klingenberg, C. P. (1996). Multivariate allometry. In L. F. Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G. J. P. Naylor, & D. E. Slice (Eds.), Advances in morphometrics (pp. 23–49). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Klingenberg, C. P. (2011). MorphoJ: An integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Molecular Ecology Resources, 11, 353–357.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Klingenberg, C. P., & Gidaszewski, N. A. (2010). Testing and quantifying phylogenetic signals and homoplasy in morphometric data. Systematic Biology, 59, 245–261.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Latrubesse, E. M., Cozzuol, M. A., Silva-Caminha, S., Rigsby, A. C., Absy, M. L., & Jaramillo C. (2011). The Late Miocene paleogeography of the Amazon Basin and the evolution of the Amazon River system. Earth-Science Reviews, 99, 99–124.Google Scholar
  47. Lazzari, V., & Guy, F. (2014). Quantitative three-dimensional topography in taxonomy applied to the dental morphology of catarrhines. Bmsap. doi: 10.1007/s13219-014-0099-9.Google Scholar
  48. Lehman, S. M., Sussman, R. W., Phillips-Conroy, J., & Prince, W. (2006). Ecological biogeography of primates in Guyana. In S. M. Lehman & J. G. Fleagle (Eds.), Primate biogeography (pp. 105–130). Developments in primatology: Progress and prospects. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.Google Scholar
  49. Lynch Alfaro, J. W., Boubli, J. P., Olson, L. E., Di Fiore, A., Wilson, B., Gutierrez-Espeleta, G. A., Chiou, K. L., Schulte, M., Neitzel, S., Ross, V., Schwochow, D., Farias, I., Nguyen, M. T. T., Janson, C. H., & Alfaro, M. E. (2012a). Explosive Pleistocene range expansion leads to widespread Amazonian sympatry between robust and gracile capuchin monkeys. Journal of Biogeography, 39, 272–288.Google Scholar
  50. Lynch Alfaro, J. W., Silva, J. D., & Rylands, A. B. (2012b). How different are robust and gracile capuchin monkeys? An argument for the use of Sapajus and Cebus. American Journal of Primatology, 74, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Makedonska, J., Wright, B. W., & Strait, D. S. (2012). The effect of dietary adaption on cranial morphological integration in capuchins (order Primates, genus Cebus). PLoS One, 7, e40398.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Marroig, G., Shirai, L. T., Porto, A., De Oliveira, F. B., & De Conto, V. (2009). The evolution of modularity in the mammalian skull. II. Evolutionary consequences. Evolutionary Biology, 36, 136–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Martinón-Torres, M., Bastir, M., Bermudez de Castro, J. M., Gómez, A., Sarmiento, S., Muela, A., & Arsuaga, J. L. (2006). Hominin lower second premolar morphology: Evolutionary inferences through geometric morphometric analysis. Journal of Human Evolution, 50, 523–533.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Nova Delgado, M., Gamarra, B., Nadal, J., Mercadal, O., Olesti, O., Guàrdia, J., Pérez-Pérez, A., & Galbany, J. (2014). Dental shape variability in cercopithecoid primates: A model for the taxonomic attribution of macaques from roman archaeological contexts. Folia Primatologica, 85(6), 361378.Google Scholar
  55. O’Higgins, P., & Jones, N. (2006). Tools for statistical shape analysis. Hull York Medical School. Available at: resources (Accessed October 15, 2011).
  56. Oliveira, M. M., & Langguth, A. (2006). Rediscovery of Marcgrave’s capuchin monkey and designation of a neotype for Simia flavia Schreber, 1774 (Primates, Cebidae). Boletim do Museu Nacional, nova serie, Rio de Janeiro, 523, 1–16.Google Scholar
  57. Polychronis, G., Christou, P., Mavragani, M., & Halazonetis, D. J. (2013). Geometric morphometric 3D shape analysis and covariation of human mandibular and maxillary first molars. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 152(2), 186–196.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Queiroz, H. L. (1992). A new species of capuchin monkey, genus Cebus Erxleben 1977 (Cebidae, Primates), from eastern Brazilian Amazonia. Goeldiana Zoologia, 15, 1–3.Google Scholar
  59. Rohlf, F. J. (2004). TpsDig, version 1.40 [software and manual]. Stony Brook: Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
  60. Rohlf, F. J. (2005). Geometric morphometrics simplified. Review of “Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer.”. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20, 13–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rohlf, F. J., & Marcus, L. E. (1993). A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rosenberger, A. L. (2012). New World monkey nightmares: Science, art, use, and abuse (?) in platyrrhine taxonomic nomenclature. American Journal of Primatology, 74, 692–695.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Rosenberger, A. L., Tejedor, M. F., Cooke, S. B., Halenar, L., & Pekkar, S. (2009). Platyrrhine ecophylogenetics, past and present. In P. Garber, A. Estrada, J. C. Bicca-Marques, E. W. Heymann, & K. B. Strier (Eds.), South American primates: Comparative perspectives in the study of behavior, ecology and conservation (pp. 69–113). Developments in primatology: Progress and prospects. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.Google Scholar
  64. Rylands, A. B., Kierulff, M. C. M., & Mittermeier, R. A. (2005). Some notes on the taxonomy and distributions of the tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus, Cebidae) of South America. Lundiana, 6(Supplement), 97–110.Google Scholar
  65. Rylands, A. B., Coimbra-Filho, A. F., & Mittermeier, R. A. (2009). The systematics and distributions of the marmosets (Callithrix, Callibella, Cebuella, and Mico) and callimicos (Callimico) (Callitrichidae, Primates). In S. M. Ford, C. A. Porter, & L. C. Davis (Eds.), The smallest anthropoids: The marmoset/callimico radiation (pp. 25–62). Developments in primatology: Progress and prospects. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.Google Scholar
  66. Rylands, A. B., Mittermeier, R. A., & Silva, J. S. (2012). Neotropical primates: Taxonomy and recently described species and subspecies. International Zoo Yearbook, 46, 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Scott, J. E. (2011). Folivory, frugivory, and postcanine size in the cercopithecoidea revisited. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 146(1), 20–7.Google Scholar
  68. Scott, G. R., & Turner, C. G. (1997). The anthropology of modern human teeth: Dental morphology and its variation in recent human populations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shirai, L. T., & Marroig, G. (2010). Skull modularity in neotropical marsupials and monkeys: Size variation and evolutionary constraint and flexibility. Journal of Experimental Zoology B, 14, 663–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Silva, J. S., Jr. (2001). Especiação nos macacos-prego e caiararas, gênero Cebus Erxleben, 1777 (Primates, Cebidae). PhD Tthesis, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
  71. Silva, J.S., Jr. (2002). Taxonomy of capuchin monkeys, Cebus Erxleben, 1777. Neotropical Primates, 10, 29.Google Scholar
  72. Singleton, M., Rosenberger, A. L., Robinson, C., & O’Neill, R. (2011). Allometric and metameric shape variation in Pan mandibular molars: A digital morphometric analysis. Anatomical Record, 294, 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Skinner, M. M., Gunz, P., Wood, B. A., & Boesch, C. (2009). Discrimination of extant Pan species and subspecies using the enamel-dentine junction morphology of lower molars. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 10, 234–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Slice, D. E. (2005). Modern morphometrics. In D. E. Slice (Ed.), Modern morphometrics in physical anthropology. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Slice, D. E. (2007). Geometric morphometrics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36, 261–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Smits, P. D., & Evans, A. R. (2012). Functional constraints on tooth morphology in carnivorous mammals. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 12, 146.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Spencer, M. A. (2003). Tooth-root form and function in platyrrhine seed-eaters. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 122, 325–335.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Springer, M. S., Meredith, R. W., Gatesy, J., Emerling, C. A., Park, J., Rabosky, D. L., Stadler, T., Steiner, C., Ryder, O. A., Janecka, J. E., Fisher, C. A., & Murphy, W. J. (2012). Macroevolutionary dynamics and historical biogeography of primate diversification inferred from a species supermatrix. PLoS ONE, 7, e49521.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Taylor, A. B., & Vinyard, C. J. (2009). Jaw-muscle fiber architecture in tufted capuchins favors generating relatively large muscle forces without compromising jaw gape. Journal of Human Evolution, 57, 710–720.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Townsend, G., Richards, L., & Hughes, T. (2003). Molar intercuspal dimensions: Genetic input to phenotypic variation. Journal of Dental Research, 82, 350–355.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. White, J. (2009). Geometric morphometric investigation of molar shape diversity in modern lemurs and lorises. Anatomical Record, 292, 701–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wildman, D. E., & Goodman, M. (2004). Humankind’s place in a phylogenetic classification of living primates. In S. Wasser (Ed.), Evolutionary theory and processes: Modern horizons (pp. 293–231). Papers in Honour of Eviatar Nevo. Amsterdam: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
  83. Wiley, D. F., Amenta, N., Alcantara, D. A., Ghosh, D., Kil, Y. J., Delson, E., Harcourt-Smith, W., Rohlf, F .J., St. John, K., & Hamann, B. (2005). Evolutionary morphing. In C. T. Silva, E. Groeller, & H. E. Rushmeier (Eds.), Proceedings of the IEEE Visualization Conference. IEEE Computer Society Press (pp. 431–438). Los Alamitos, California.Google Scholar
  84. Williams, B. (2007). Comparing levels of homoplasy in the primate skeleton. Journal of Human Evolution, 52(5), 480–489.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Wright, B. W. (2005). Craniodental biomechanics and dietary toughness in the genus Cebus. Journal of Human Evolution, 48, 473–492.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Wright, K. A. (2007). The relationship between locomotor behavior and limb morphology in brown (Cebus apella) and weeper (Cebus olivaceus) capuchins. American Journal of Primatology, 69, 736–756.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Wright, B., Wright, K., Chalk, J., Verderane, M., & Fragaszy, D. (2009). Fallback foraging as a way of life: Using dietary toughness to compare the fallback signal among capuchins and implications for interpreting morphological variation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 140, 687–699.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Wright, K. A., Wright, B. W., Ford, S. M., Fragaszy, D., Izar, P., Norconk, M., Masterson, T., Hobbs, D. G., Alfaro, M. E., & Lynch Alfaro, J. W. (2014). The effects of ecology and evolutionary history on robust capuchin morphological diversity. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 82, 455–466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Zelditch, M. L., Swiderski, D. L., Sheets, H. D., & Fink, W. L. (2004). Geometric morphometrics for biologists: A primer. San Diego: Elsevier/Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mónica Nova Delgado
    • 1
  • Jordi Galbany
    • 2
  • Katarzyna Górka
    • 1
  • Alejandro Pérez-Pérez
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Secció d’Antropologia, Departament de Biologia AnimalUniversitat de Barcelona, and Grup d’Estudi de l’Evolució dels Homínids i altres PrimatsBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Center for the Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology, Department of AnthropologyThe George Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations