Morphological Disparity: A Primer

  • Matthew A. Wills
Part of the Topics in Geobiology book series (TGBI, volume 19)


It has always been obvious that organisms have properties making them ‘different’ from each other. Historically, taxonomists have sought to register these differences and similarities by assigning species to subjectively-delimited groups within hierarchical classifications. Many current methods in sys-tematics still have a subjective component, and classifications often reflect biases inherent in their construction (Hull 1988).


Kind Permission Canonical Variate Analysis Discrete Character Mathematical Geology Systematic Zoology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackerly, S.C. Kinematic analysis of accretionary shell growth, with examples from brachiopods and molluscs. Paleobiology 1989; 15:147–164.Google Scholar
  2. Agnèse, J.F., Teugels, G.G., Galbusera, P., Guyomard, R., and Volckaert, F. Morphometric and genetic characterization of sympatric populations of Ciarías gariepinus and C. anguillaris from Senegal. Journal of Fish Biology 1997; 50:1143–1157.Google Scholar
  3. Aldridge, A.E. Brachiopod outline and the importance of the logarithmic spiral. Paleobiology 1998; 24:215–226.Google Scholar
  4. Altman, D.G. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, T.W. An introduction to multivariate statistical analysis. New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
  6. Anstey, R.L., and Pachut, J.F. Phylogeny, diversity history, and speciation in Paleozoic bryozoans. In New approaches to speciation in the fossil record, D.H. Erwin and R.L. Anstey, eds., p. 239–284. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. Bachmann, K. Species as units of diversity: an outdated concept. Theory in Biosciences 1998; 117:213–230.Google Scholar
  8. Bard, J. The fifth day of creation. Bioessays 1990; 12:303–306.Google Scholar
  9. Benton, M.J. Diversification and extinction in the history of life. Science 1995; 268:52–58.Google Scholar
  10. Bergström, J. Metazoan evolution around the Precambrian-Cambrian transition. In The early evolution of Metazoa and the significance of problematic taxa, A. M. Simonetta and S. Conway Morris, eds., p. 25–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. Blackburn, T.M., and Gaston, K.J. Spatial patterns in the species richness of birds in the New World. Ecography 1996; 19:369–376.Google Scholar
  12. Blackith, R.E., and Reyment, R.A. Multivariate morphometrics. London: Academic Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  13. Bookstein, F.L. The measurement of biological shape and shape change. Berlin: Springer, 1978.Google Scholar
  14. Bookstein, F.L. Foundations of morphometrics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1982; 13:451–70.Google Scholar
  15. Bookstein, F.L. Size and shape spaces for landmark data in two dimensions. Statistical Science 1986; 1:181–242.Google Scholar
  16. Bookstein, F.L. Describing a craniofacial anomaly: finite element analysis and the biometrics of landmark location. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1987; 74:495–509.Google Scholar
  17. Bookstein, F.L. “Size and shape”: a comment on semantics. Systematic Zoology 1989a; 38:173–180.Google Scholar
  18. Bookstein, F.L. Principal warps, thin-plate splines ad the decomposition of deformations. IEEE Transactions in Pattern Analysis in Machine Intelligence 1989b; 11:567–585.Google Scholar
  19. Bookstein, F.L. Analytic methods: introduction and overview. In Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop. Special publication No. 2, F.J. Rohlf and F.L. Bookstein, eds., p. 61–74. Michigan: University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. Bookstein, F. L. A brief history of the morphometric synthesis. In Contributions to morphometrics. Museo Nacional de Ciencas Naturales 8, L.F. Marcus, E. Bello, and A. García-Valdecasas, eds., p. 18–40. Madrid, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. Bookstein, F.L. Can biometrical shape be a homologous character? In Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology, B.K. Hall, ed., p. 197–227. New York: Academic Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. Bookstein, F.L. Combining the tools of geometric morphometrics. In Advances in morphometrics, L.F. Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G. Naylor, and D.E. Slice, eds., p. 131–151. New York: Plenum, 1996a.Google Scholar
  23. Bookstein, F.L. Visualizing group differences in outline shape: methods frombiometrics of landmark points. Lecture Notes in Cioputer Science 1996b; 1131:405–410.Google Scholar
  24. Bookstein, F.L., Strauss, R.E., Humphries, J.M., Chernoff, B.C., Elder, R.L., and Smith, G.R. A comment on the uses of Fourier analysis in systematics. Systematic Zoology 1982; 31:85–92.Google Scholar
  25. Bookstein, F.L., Chernoff, B.C., Elder, R.L, Humphries, J.M, Smith, G.R., and Strauss, R.E. Morphometrics in evolutionary biology. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Special Publication 1985; 15.Google Scholar
  26. Bookstein, F.L., and Sampson, P.D. Statistical models for geometric components of shape change. In Proceedings of the Section on Statistical Graphics p. 18–30. Alexandria, Virginia: American Statistical Association, 1987.Google Scholar
  27. Bookstein, F.L., and Reyment, R.A. Microevolution in miocene Brizalina (Foraminifera) studied by canonical variate analysis and analysis of landmarks. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 1989; 51:657–679.Google Scholar
  28. Bowman T.E., and Iliffe, T.M. Mictocaris halope a new unusual peracaridan crustacean from marine caves in Bermuda. Journal of Crustacean Biology 1985; 5:58–73.Google Scholar
  29. Briggs, D.E.G., Fortey, R.A., and Wills, M.A. Morphological disparity in the Cambrian. Science 1992a; 256:1670–1673.Google Scholar
  30. Briggs, D.E.G., Fortey, R.A., and Wills, M.A. Cambrian and Recent morphological disparity. Science 1992b; 258:1817–1818.Google Scholar
  31. Briggs, D.E.G., Fortey, R.A., and Wills, M.A. How big was the Cambrian explosion? In Evolutionary patterns and processes. Linnean Society Symposium Series, D.R. Lees and D. Edwards, eds., p. 33–44. London: Linnean Society of London, 1993.Google Scholar
  32. Briggs, J.C. Biotic replacements—extinction or clade interaction? Bioscience 1998; 48:389–395.Google Scholar
  33. Brodsky, A.K. The evolution of insect flight. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  34. Brower, J.C., and Veinus, J. Multivariate analysis of allometry using point coordinates. Journal of Paleontology 1978; 52:1037–1053.Google Scholar
  35. Brower, J.C., Cubitt, J.M., Veinus, J., and Morton, M. Principal-components analysis, factor analysis and point coordinates in the study of multivariate allometry. In Geomathematical and petrophysical studies in sedimentology D. Gill, and D.F. Merriam, eds., p. 245–266. Oxford: Pergamon, 1979.Google Scholar
  36. Bryant, E.H., and Atchley, W.R. Multivariate statistical methods: within groups covariation. Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 1975.Google Scholar
  37. Burke, R.L., Leuteritz, T.E, and Wolf, A.J. Phylogenetic relationships of emydine turtles. Herpetologia 1996; 52:572–584.Google Scholar
  38. Cain, A.J. Variation in the spire index of some coiled gastropod shells and its evolutionary significance. Proceedings of the Royal Sociey of London 1977; B277:377–428.Google Scholar
  39. Cain, A.J. Possible ecological significance of variation in shape of Cerion shells with age. Journal of Conchology 1981; 30:305–315.Google Scholar
  40. Campbell, N.A., and Atchley, W.R. The geometry of canonical variate analysis. Systematic Zoology 1981; 30:268–280.Google Scholar
  41. Campbell, K.S.W., and Marshall, C.R. Rates of evolution among Paleozoic echinoderms. In Rates of Evolution, K.S.W. Campbell and M.F. Day, eds., p. 61–100. London: Allen and Unwin, 1987.Google Scholar
  42. Caravello, G., and Tasso, M. An analysis of the spatial distribution of surnames in the Lecco area (Lombardy, Italy). American Journal of Human Biology 1999; 11:305–315.Google Scholar
  43. Causton, D.R. A biologist’s advanced mathematics. London: Allen and Unwin, 1987.Google Scholar
  44. Chapman, R.E. Conventional Procrustes approaches. In Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop. Special publication No. 2, F.J. Rohlf and FL. Bookstein, eds. Michigan: University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, 1990.Google Scholar
  45. Chatfield, C., and Collins, A.J. Introduction to multivariate analysis. London: Chapman and Hall, 1980.Google Scholar
  46. Cheetham, A.H., and Jackson, J.B.C. Process from pattern: tests for selection versus random change in punctuated bryozoan speciation. In New approaches to speciation in the fossil record, D.H. Erwin and R.L. Anstey, eds., p. 184–207. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  47. Cheverud, J.M., Dow, M.M., and Leutenegger, W. The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution 1985; 39:1335–1351.Google Scholar
  48. Chou, Y.H. Spatial pattern and spatial autocorrelation. Lecture notes in Computer Science 1995; 988:365–376.Google Scholar
  49. Christopher, R.A., and Waters, J.A. Fourier series as a quantitative descriptor of microspore shape. Journal of Paleontology 1974; 48:697–709.Google Scholar
  50. Cisne, J.L. Evolution of the world fauna of aquatic free-living arthropods. Evolution 1974; 28:337–366.Google Scholar
  51. Clark, P. J., and Evans, EC. Distance to nearest-neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 1954; 35:445–453.Google Scholar
  52. Claus, C. Uber den Organismus der Nebaliden und die systematische Stellung der Leptostraken. Arbeiteten aus dem Zoologischen Institut der Universität Wien 1888; 6:1–108.Google Scholar
  53. Cohn, P.M. Algebra, Volume 1. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1988.Google Scholar
  54. Conway Morris, S. Burgess Shale-type faunas in the context of the “Cambrian explosion”: a review. Journal of the Geological Society of London 1992; 149:631–636.Google Scholar
  55. Conway Morris, S. The fossil record and the early evolution of the Metazoa. Nature 1993; 361:219–225.Google Scholar
  56. Conway Morris, S. The cuticular structure of the 495-Myr-old type species of the fossil worm Palaeoscolex, P. piscatorum (?Priapulida). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 1997; 119:69–82.Google Scholar
  57. Conway Morris, S. Metazoan phylogenies: falling into place or falling to pieces? A palaeontological perspective. Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 1998a; 6:662–667.Google Scholar
  58. Conway Morris, S. The crucible of creation: the Burgess Shale and the rise of animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998b.Google Scholar
  59. Conway Morris, S. The evolution of diversity in ancient ecosystems: a review. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 1998c; 353:327–345.Google Scholar
  60. Coomes, D.A., Rees, M., and Turnbull, L. Identifying aggregation and association in fully mapped spatial data. Ecology 1999; 80:554–565.Google Scholar
  61. Corsi, M., and Crosetti, D. Geographic variation in the grey mullet: a geometric morphometry analysis using partial warp scores. Journal of Fish Biology 1996; 48:255–269.Google Scholar
  62. Coutinho, C.C., Seack, J., Vandevyver, G., Borojevic, R., and Muller, E.G. Origin of the metazoan body plan: characterization and functional testing of the promoter of the homeobox gene emh-3 from the freshwater sponge ephydatia muelleri in mouse 3t3 cells. Biological Chemistry 1998; 379:1243–1251.Google Scholar
  63. Crampton, J.S. Elliptic fourier shape analysis of fossil bivalves: some practical considerations. Lethaia 1995; 28:179–186.Google Scholar
  64. Czaplewski, R.L., Reich, R.M., and Brechtold, W.A. Spatial autocorrelation in growth of undisturbed natural pine stands across Georgia. Forest Science 1994; 40:314–328.Google Scholar
  65. David, E.E., and David, C.W. Voronoi polyhedra as a tool for studying solvation structure. Journal of Chemical Physics 1982; 76:4611–4614.Google Scholar
  66. Davidson, E.H., Peterson, K.J., and Cameron, R.A. Origin of adult bilaterian body plans: evolution of developmental regulatory mechanisms. Science 1995; 270:1319–1325Google Scholar
  67. Davis, J.C. Statistics and data analysis in geology 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1986.Google Scholar
  68. Deleporte, P. Characters, attributes and tests of evolutionary scenarios. Cladistics 1993; 9:427–432.Google Scholar
  69. Derrida, B., and Peliti, L. Evolution in a flat landscape. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 1991; 53:255–382.Google Scholar
  70. Dodson, P. Comparative craniology of the ceratopsia. American Journal of Science 1993; 239A:200–234.Google Scholar
  71. Dunn, G., and Everitt, B.S. An introduction to mathematical taxonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  72. Ehrlich, R., Pharr Jr., R.B., and Healy Williams, N. Comments on the validity of Fourier descriptors in systematics: a reply to Bookstein et al. Systematic Zoology 1983; 31:85–92.Google Scholar
  73. Ehrlich, R., and Full, W.E. Comments on “Relationships among eigenshape analysis, Fourier analysis, and analysis of coordinates” by F James Rohlf. Mathematical Geology 1986; 18:855–857.Google Scholar
  74. Ehrlich, R., and Weinberg, R. An exact method for characterization of grain shape. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 1970; 40:205–212.Google Scholar
  75. Engel, H. A least squares method for estimation of Bezier-curves and surfaces and its applicability to multivariate analysis. Mathematical Biosciences 1986; 79:155–170.Google Scholar
  76. Erwin, D. H. The origin of bodyplans. American Zoologist 1999; 39:17–629.Google Scholar
  77. Erwin, D. H., Valentine, J.W., and Jablonski, D. The origin of animal body plans. American Scientist 1997; 85:126–137.Google Scholar
  78. Evans, D.G., Schweitzer, P.N., and Hanna, M. Parametric cubic splines and geologic shape descriptions. Mathematical Geology 1985; 17:611–624.Google Scholar
  79. Farris, J.S. A successive approximations approach to character weighting. Systematic Zoology 1969; 18:374–385.Google Scholar
  80. Farris, J.S. Phylogenetic classification of fossils with Recent species. Systematic Zoology 1976; 25:271–282.Google Scholar
  81. Farris, J.S. On the phenetic approach to vertebrate classification. In Patterns in vertebrate classification, M.K. Hecht, P.C. Goody, and B.M. Hecht., eds., p. 823–850. New York: Plenum, 1977.Google Scholar
  82. Feller, W. An introduction to probability theory and its applications. Volume I. Third Edition, revised. New York: Wiley, 1968.Google Scholar
  83. Felsenstein, J. Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist 1985a; 125:1–15.Google Scholar
  84. Felsenstein, J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 1985b; 39:783–791.Google Scholar
  85. Felsenstein, J., and Kishino, H. Is there something wrong with the bootstrap on phylogenies?—a reply. Systematic Biology 1993; 42:193–200.Google Scholar
  86. Ferson, S., Rohlf, F.J., and Koehn, R.K. Measuring shape variation in two dimensional outlines. Systematic Zoology 1985; 34:59–68.Google Scholar
  87. Fink, W.L., and Zelditch, M.L. Phylogenetic analysis and ontogenetic shape transformations: a reassessment of the piranha genus Pygocentrus (Teleostei). Systematic Biology 1995; 44:344–361.Google Scholar
  88. Fisher, R. A. The utilization of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Annals of Eugenics 1936; 7:179–188.Google Scholar
  89. Foote, M. Survivorship analysis of Cambrian and Ordovician trilobites. Paleobiology 1988; 14:258–271.Google Scholar
  90. Foote, M. Perimeter-based fourier analysis: a new morphometric method applied to the trilo-bite cranidium. Journal of Paleontology 1989; 63:880–885.Google Scholar
  91. Foote, M. Nearest-neighbor analysis of trilobite morphospace. Systematic Zoology 1990; 39:371–382.Google Scholar
  92. Foote, M. Morphological and taxonomic diversity in a clade’s history: the blastoid record and stochastic simulations. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, The University of Michigan 1991a; 28:101–140.Google Scholar
  93. Foote, M. Morphologic patterns of diversification: examples from trilobites. Palaeontology 1991b; 34:461–485.Google Scholar
  94. Foote, M. Analysis of morphological data. In Analytical Paleobiology. Short courses in paleontology, number 4, N.L Gilinsky, and P.W. Signor, eds., p. 59–86. Knoxville, Tennessee: Paleontological Society, 1991c.Google Scholar
  95. Foote, M. Rarefaction analysis of morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 1992a; 18:17–29.Google Scholar
  96. Foote, M. Paleozoic record of morphological diversity in blastozoan echinoderms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 1992b; 89:7325–7329.Google Scholar
  97. Foote, M. Discordance and concordance between morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 1993a; 19:185–204.Google Scholar
  98. Foote, M. Contributions of individual taxa to overall morphological disparity. Paleobiology 1993b; 19:403–419.Google Scholar
  99. Foote, M. Morphology of Ordovician-Devonian crinoids. Contributions to the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan 1994a; 29:1–39.Google Scholar
  100. Foote, M. Morpholgical disparity in Ordovician-Devonian crinoids and the early saturation of morphological space. Paleobiology 1994b; 20:320–344.Google Scholar
  101. Foote, M. Morphological diversification of paleozoic crinoids. Paleobiology 1995; 21:273–299.Google Scholar
  102. Foote, M. Perspective: evolutionary patterns in the fossil record Evolution 1996; 50:1–11.Google Scholar
  103. Foote, M. The evolution of morphological diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1997a; 28:129–152.Google Scholar
  104. Foote, M. Sampling, taxonomic description, and our evolving knowledge of morphological diversity. Paleobiology 1997b; 23:181–206.Google Scholar
  105. Foote, M. Estimating taxonomic durations and preservation probability. Paleobiology 1997c; 23:278–300.Google Scholar
  106. Foote, M. Morphological diversity in the evolutionary radiation of Paleozoic and post-Paleozoic crinoids. Paleobiology Memoirs (supplement to Paleobiology 1999; 25(2)).Google Scholar
  107. Foote, M. and Gould, S.J. Cambrian and Recent morphological disparity. Science 1992; 258:1816.Google Scholar
  108. Forey, P.L. Cladistics: a practical course in systematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  109. Fortey, R.A., and Owens, R.M. Evolutionary radiations in the Trilobita. In Major evolutionary radiations. Systematics Association Special Volume No. 42, P.D. Taylor and G.P. Larwood, eds., p. 139–164. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  110. Fortey, R.A., Briggs, D.E.G., and Wills, M.A. The Cambrian evolutionary ‘explosion’: decoupling cladogenesis from morphological disparity. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 1996; 57:13–33.Google Scholar
  111. Fortey, R.A., Briggs, D.E.G., and Wills, M.A. The Cambrian evolutionary ‘explosion’ recalibrated. Bioessays 1997; 5:429–434.Google Scholar
  112. Fricke, H. Living coelacanths: values, eco-ethics and human Responsibility. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 1997; 161:1–15.Google Scholar
  113. Full, W.E., and Ehrlich, R. Fundamental problems associated with “eigenshape analysis” and similar “factor” analysis procedures. Journal of Mathematical Geology 1986; 18:451–463.Google Scholar
  114. Gavrilets, S., Li H., and Vose, M.D. Rapid parapatric speciation on holey adaptive landscapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 1998; 265:1483–1489.Google Scholar
  115. Gavrilets, S. Dynamics of clade diversification on the morphological hypercube. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 1999; 266:817–824.Google Scholar
  116. Gellon, G., and McGinnis, W. Shaping animal body plans in development and evoltution by modulation of Hox expression patterns. Bioessays 1998; 20:116–125.Google Scholar
  117. Ghiselin, M.T. Summary of our present knowledge of metazoan phylogeny. In The hierarchy of life. Molecules and moprhology in phylogenetic analysis, B. Fernholm, K. Bremer, and H. Jörnvall, eds., p. 261–272. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica/Elsevier, 1989.Google Scholar
  118. Gilinksy, N.L. Stabilizing species selection in the Archaeogastropoda. Paleobiology 1981; 7:316–331.Google Scholar
  119. Gingerich, P.D. Rates of evolution: effects of time and temporal scaling. Science 1983; 22:158–161.Google Scholar
  120. Goodall, C.R. Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1991; B53:285–339.Google Scholar
  121. Gordon, A.D. Classification. Monographs on applied probability and statistics. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  122. Gordon, M.S., and Olson, E.C. Invasions of the land. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  123. Gould, S.J. Morphological channeling by structural constraint—convergence in styles of dwarfing and gigantism in cerion, with a description of 2 new fossil species and a report on the discovery of the largest Cerion. Paleobiology 1984; 10:172–194.Google Scholar
  124. Gould, S.J. Wonderful life. The burgess shale and the nature of history. New York: Norton, 1989a.Google Scholar
  125. Gould, S.J. A developmental constraint in Cerion with comments on the definition and interpretation of constraint in evolution. Evolution 1989b; 43:516–539.Google Scholar
  126. Gould, S.J. The disparity of the burgess shale arthropod fauna and the limits of cladistic analysis: why we must strive to quantify morphospace. Paleobiology 1991; 17:411–423.Google Scholar
  127. Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N. Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Palaeobiology 1977; 3:115–151.Google Scholar
  128. Gould, S.J., Raup, D.M., Sepkoski Jr., J.J., Schopf, T.J.M, and Simberloff, D.S. The shape of evolution: a comparison of real and random clades. Paleobiology 1977; 3:23–40.Google Scholar
  129. Gould, S.J., Gilinsky, N.L., and German, R.Z. Asymmetry of lineages and the direction of evolutionary time. Science 1987; 236:1437–1441.Google Scholar
  130. Gould, S.J., and Young, N.D. The consequences of being different: sinistral coiling in Cerion. Evolution 1985; 39:1364–1379.Google Scholar
  131. Gower, J.C. Some distance properties of latent roots and vectors used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika 1966; 53:325–338.Google Scholar
  132. Gower, J.C. Multivariate analysis and multidimensional geometry. The Statistician 1967; 17:13–28.Google Scholar
  133. Gower, J.C. A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 1971; 27:857–874.Google Scholar
  134. Gower, J.C. Multivariate analysis: ordination, multidimensional scaling and allied topics. In Handbook of applied mathematics, Vol VI: Statistics, E. Lloyd, ed., p. 727–781. New York: Wiley, 1984.Google Scholar
  135. Gower, J.C., and Ross, G.J.S. Minimum spanning trees and single-linkage cluster analysis. Applied Statistics 1969; 18:54–64.Google Scholar
  136. Grafen, A. The phylogenetic regression. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 1989; 326:119–156.Google Scholar
  137. Haidane, J.B.S. Suggestions as to the quantitative measurement of rates of evolution. Evolution 1949; 3:51–56.Google Scholar
  138. Hall, B.K. Bauplane, phylotypic stages, and constraint—why there are so few types of animals. Evolutionary Biology 1996; 29:215–261.Google Scholar
  139. Harris, R.J. A primer of multivariate statistics. New York: Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  140. Harvey, P.H., and Clutton-Brock, T.H. Primate home-range size, metabolic needs and ecology. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 1981; 8:151–155.Google Scholar
  141. Harvey, PH., and Clutton-Brock, T.H. Life history variation in primates. Evolution 1985; 39:559–581.Google Scholar
  142. Harvey, PH., and Pagel, M.D. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  143. Haszprunar, G. On the origin and evolution of major gastropod groups, with special reference to the Streptoneura. Journal of Molluscan Studies 1988; 54:367–441.Google Scholar
  144. Hennig, W. Phylogenetic systematics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1966.Google Scholar
  145. Hertel, F., and Lehman, N. A randomised nearest-neighbor approach for assessment of character displacement: the vulture guild as a model. Journal of Theoretical Biology 1998; 190:51–61.Google Scholar
  146. Hickman, CS. Theoretical design space: a new program for the analysis of structural diversity. N. Jb. Geol. Palaontol. Abh. 1993; 190:169–182.Google Scholar
  147. Hickman, CS., and McLean, J.H. Systematic revision and suprageneric classification of Trochacean gastropods. Science Series No. 35, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 1990.Google Scholar
  148. Higgins, L.E., and Rankin, M.A. Different pathways in arthropod postembryonic development. Evolution 1996; 50:573–582.Google Scholar
  149. Hills, M. Book review. Applied Statistics 1977; 26:339–340.Google Scholar
  150. Holdener, E.J., and Hageman, S.J. Implications of intracolonial variation in a paleozoic bryozoan. Journal of Paleontology 1998; 72:809–818.Google Scholar
  151. Horowitz, A.S., Blakely, R.F., and Macurda Jr., D.B. Taxonomic survivorship within the Blastoidea (Echinodermata). Journal of Paleontology 1985; 59:543–550.Google Scholar
  152. Huelsenbeck, J.P. Performance of phylogenetic methods in simulation. Systematic Biology 1995; 44:17–48.Google Scholar
  153. Huey, R.B., and E.R. Pianka, E.R. Temporal separation of activity and interspecific dietry overlap. In Lizard ecology, R.B. Huey, E.R. Pianka and W. Schoener, eds., p. 281–290. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  154. Hull, D.L. Science as a process: an evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  155. Hunter, J.R Key innovations and the ecology of macroevolution. Trends In Ecology & Evolution 1998; 13:31–36.Google Scholar
  156. Hutchings, M.J., and Discombe, R.J. The direction of spatial pattern in plant populations. Journal of Biogeography 1986; 13:225–236.Google Scholar
  157. Huxley, J.S. Problems of relative growth. London: Methuen, 1932.Google Scholar
  158. Jackson, J.B.C., and Cheetham, A.H. Phylogenetic reconstruction and the tempo of speciation in cheilostome Bryozoa. Paleobiology 1994; 20:407–423.Google Scholar
  159. James, F.C., and McCulloch, C.E. Multivariate analysis in ecology and systematics: panacea or Pandora’s box? Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1990; 21:129–166.Google Scholar
  160. Jardine, N., and Sibson, R. Mathematical Taxonomy. London: Wiley, 1971.Google Scholar
  161. Jeffers, J.N.R. Two case studies in the application of principal component analysis. Applied Statistics 1967; 16:225–236.Google Scholar
  162. Jenner, R.A. Metazoan phylogeny as a tool in evolutionary biology: current problems and discrepancies in application. Belgian Journal of Zoology 1999; 129:245–262.Google Scholar
  163. Jenner, R.A., and Schram, F.R. The grand game of metazoan phylogeny: rules and strategies. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 1999; 74:121–142.Google Scholar
  164. Johnston, M.R., Tabachnick, R.E., and Bookstein, F.L. Landmark-based morphometrics of spiral accretionary growth. Paleobiology 1991; 17:19–37.Google Scholar
  165. Joliffe, I.T. Principal component analysis. New York: Springer Verlag, 1986.Google Scholar
  166. Jöreskog, K.G, Klovan, J.E., and Reyment, R.E. Geological factor analysis. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1976.Google Scholar
  167. Kaesler, R.L., and Waters, J.A. Fourier analysis of the ostracod margin. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 1972; 83:1169–1178.Google Scholar
  168. Kardong, K.V. Vertebrates: comparative anatomy, function, evolution. Dubuque: Brown, 1995.Google Scholar
  169. Kauffman, S.A. The origins of order. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  170. Kemp, T.S. Fossils and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  171. Kendall, D.G. The statistics of shape. In Interpreting multivariate data, V. Barnett, ed., p. 75–80. New York: Wiley, 1981.Google Scholar
  172. Kendall, D.G. Shape-manifolds, Procrustean metrics and complex projective spaces. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 1984; 16:81–121.Google Scholar
  173. Kendrick, D.C. Computer modeling of crinoid calyx morphologies, and comparisons with real forms. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 1993; 25, A103.Google Scholar
  174. Kenkel, N.C., Hoskins, J.A., and Hoskins, W.D. Edge effects in the use of area polygons to study competition. Ecology 1989; 70:272–274.Google Scholar
  175. Kitchell, J.A., and MacLeod, N. Macroevolutionary interpretations of symmetry and synchroneity in the fossil record. Science 1988; 240:1190–1193.Google Scholar
  176. Klapper G., and Foster Jr., C.T. Quantification of outlines in Frasnian (Upper Devonian) platform conodonts. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 1986; 23:1214–1222.Google Scholar
  177. Knebe, A. and Muller, V. Formation of groups and clusters of galaxies. Astronomy and Astrophysics 1999; 341:1–7.Google Scholar
  178. Kovach, W. L. MVSP users’ manual. Aberystwyth: Cambrian Printers, 1990.Google Scholar
  179. Kowalewski, M., Dyreson, E., Marcot, J.D., Vargas, J.A., Flessa, K.W., and Hallman, D.P. Phenetic discrimination of biometric simpletons: paleobiological implications of morphospecies in the lingulide brachiopod Glottidia. Paleobiology 1997; 23:444–469.Google Scholar
  180. Labadie, L.V., and Palmer, A.R. Pronounced heterochely in the ghost shrimp, Neotrypaea californiensis (Decapoda: Thalassinidea: Callianassidae): allometry, inferred function and development. Journal of Zoology 1996; 240:659–675.Google Scholar
  181. Labandeira, C.C., and Hughes, N.C. Biometry of the late Cambrian trilobite genus Dikelocephalus and its implications for trilobite systematics. Journal of Paleontology 1994; 3:492–517.Google Scholar
  182. Lipscombe, D.L. Parsimony, homology and the analysis of multistate characters. Cladistics 1992; 8:45–65.Google Scholar
  183. Little, C. The colonisation of land: origins and adaptations of terrestrial animals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  184. Little, C.T.S., and Benton, M.J. Early Jurassic mass extinction—a global long-term event. Geology 1995; 23:495–498.Google Scholar
  185. Løvtrup, S. The phylogeny of the Vertebrata. London: Wiley, 1977.Google Scholar
  186. Lohman, G.P. Eigenshape analysis of microfossils: a general morphometric procedure for describing changes in shape. Mathematical Geology 1983; 15:659–672.Google Scholar
  187. Lohman, G.P, and Schweitzer, P.N. On eigenshape analysis. In Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop. Special publication No. 2, F.J. Rohlf and F.L. Bookstein, eds., p. 145–166. Michigan: University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, 1990.Google Scholar
  188. Lupia, R. Discordant morphological disparity and taxonomic diversity during the Cretaceous angiosperm radiation: North American pollen record. Paleobiology 1999; 25:1–28.Google Scholar
  189. Lynch, J.D. The gauge of speciation: on the frequencies of different modes of speciation. In Speciation and its consequences, D. Otte and J. Endler, eds., p. 527–553. Sunderland: Sinauer, 1989.Google Scholar
  190. Lynch, J.M., Wood, C.G., and Luboga, S.A. Geometric morphometrics in primatology: craniofacial variation Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes. Folia Primatologica 1996; 67:15–39.Google Scholar
  191. Lynch, M. Methods for the analysis of comparative data in evolutionary biology. Evolution 1991; 45:1065–1080.Google Scholar
  192. MacLeod, N. Generalising and extending the eigenshape method of shape space visualisation and analysis. Paleobiology 1999; 25:107–138.Google Scholar
  193. MacLeod, N., and Carr, T.R. Morphometrics and the analysis of shape in conodonts. In Conodonts: investigative techniques and applications, R.L. Austin, ed., p. 168–187. Chichester, England: Ellis Horwood, 1987.Google Scholar
  194. MacLeod, N., and Rose, K.D. Inferring locomotor behaviour in Paleogene mammals via eigenshape analysis. American Journal of Science 1993; 293-A:300–355.Google Scholar
  195. Manly, B.F.J. Multivariate statistical methods. London: Chapman and Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
  196. Marcus, L.F. Variation in selected skeletal elements of the fossil remains of Myotragus balearicus a Pleistocene bovid from Mallorca. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae 1998; 44:113–137.Google Scholar
  197. Mardia, K.V., Kent, J.T., and Bibby, J.M. Multivariate analysis. London: Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  198. Marshall, C.R. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges. Paleobiology 1990; 16:1–10.Google Scholar
  199. Marshall, C.R. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges: partial relaxation of the assumption of randomly distributed fossil horizons. Paleobiology 1994; 20:459–469.Google Scholar
  200. Martins, E.P, and Hansen, T.F. Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. American Naturalist 1997; 149:646–667.Google Scholar
  201. Mayr, E. Animal species and evolution. New York: Columbia Universiy Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  202. Meacham, CA. Phylogenetic-relationships at the basal radiation of angiosperms—further study by probability of character compatibility. Systematic Botany 1994; 19:506–522.Google Scholar
  203. Meglitsch, P.A., and Schram, F.R. Invertebrate zoology 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  204. McGhee, J. Jr. Theoretical morphgology: the concept and its applications. In Analytical paleobiology. Short courses in paleontology 4, p. 87–102. Knoxville: The Paleontological Society, 1991.Google Scholar
  205. McKinney, M.L. Extinction vulnerability and selectivity: combining ecological and paleontological views. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1997; 28:495–516.Google Scholar
  206. McShea, D.W. Arguments, tests, and the Burgess Shale—a commentary on the debate. Paleobiology 1993; 19:399–402.Google Scholar
  207. McShea, D.W. Possible largest-scale trends in organismal evolution: eight “Live Hypotheses.” Annual review of ecology and systematics 1998; 29:293–318.Google Scholar
  208. Meacham, C.A. Phylogenetic-relationships at the basal radiation of angiosperms—further study by probability of character compatibility. Systematic Botany 1994; 19:506–522.Google Scholar
  209. Metschnikov, E. The history of the development of Nebalia. Zapiski Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, St.-Petersburg 1968; 13:1–48.Google Scholar
  210. Mikhail, E.M. Observations and least squares. New York: IEP-Dunn-Donnelly, 1976.Google Scholar
  211. Miller, A.I., and Foote, M. Calibrating the Ordovician Radiation of marine life: implications for Phanerozoic diversity trends. Paleobiology 1996; 22:304–309.Google Scholar
  212. Moessner, R., and Jain, B. Angular cross-correlation of galaxies: a probe of gravitational lensing by large-scale structure. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 1998; 294:L18-L24.Google Scholar
  213. Moore, J., and Wilmer, P. Convergent evolution in invertebrates. Biological Reviews o the Cambridge Philosophical Society 1997; 72:1–60.Google Scholar
  214. Moss, M.L., Skalak, R., Patel, H., Sen, K., Moss-Salentijn, L., Shinozuka, M., and Vilmann, H. Finite element method modeling of craniofacial growth. American Journal of Orthodontics 1985; 87:453–472.Google Scholar
  215. Naylor, G.J.P. Can partial warp scores be used as cladistic characters? In Advances in morphometrics, L.F. Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G. Naylor and D.E. Slice, eds., p. 519–530. New York: Plenum, 1996.Google Scholar
  216. Neff, N.A., and Marcus, L.F. A survey of multivariate methods for systematics. New York: Privately published, 1980.Google Scholar
  217. Nielsen, C Animal evolution. Interrelationships of the living phyla. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  218. Nielsen, C Animal classification: then and now. Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France 1997; 122:243–253.Google Scholar
  219. Nielsen, C. Morphological approaches to phylogeny. American Zoologist 1998; 38:942–952.Google Scholar
  220. Niklas, K.J. Applications of finite element analysis to problems in plant morphology. Annals of Botany 1977; 41:133–153.Google Scholar
  221. Nixon, K.C., and Wheeler, Q.D. 1992. Measures of phylogenetic diversity. In Extinction and phylogeny M.J. Novacek and Q.D. Wheeler, eds., p. 216–234. New York: Columbia University Press,.Google Scholar
  222. Norberg, U.M. Vertebrate flight: mechanics, physiology, morphology, ecology and evolution. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  223. Okamoto, T. Analysis of heteromorph ammonoids by differential geometry. Palaeontology 1988; 31:35–52.Google Scholar
  224. Pachut, J.F, Anstey, R.L., and Horowitz, A.S. The H.A. Nicholson collection of paleozoic stenolaemate bryozoans: comparison of cladistic and phenetic classifications. Journal of Paleontology 1994; 68:978–994.Google Scholar
  225. Pagel, M.D., and Harvey, PH. Comparative methods for examining adaptation on evolutionary models. Folia Primatologica 1989; 53:203–220.Google Scholar
  226. Pearson, P.N. Apomorphy distribution is an important aspect of cladogram symmetry. Systematic Biology 1999; 48:399–406.Google Scholar
  227. Peebles, P.J.E. The large-scale structure of the Universe. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  228. Pielou, E.C. The interpretation of ecological data: a primer on classification and ordination. New York: Wiley, 1984.Google Scholar
  229. Pogue, M.G., and Mickevich, M.F. Character definitions and character state delineation—the bête-noire of phylogenetic inference. Cladistics 1990; 6:319–361.Google Scholar
  230. Purves, A., and Garland, T. Polytomies in comparative analyses of continuous characters. Systematic Biology 1993; 42:569–575.Google Scholar
  231. Rae, T.C. The logical basis for the use of continuous characters in Phylogenetic systematics. Cladistics 1998; 14:221–228.Google Scholar
  232. Raup, D.M. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: general problems. Journal of Paleontology 1966; 40:1178–1190.Google Scholar
  233. Raup, D.M. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: coiling in ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology 1967; 41:43–65.Google Scholar
  234. Raup, D.M. Cohort analysis of generic survivorship. Paleobiology 1978; 4:1–16.Google Scholar
  235. Raup, D.M. Biological extinction in earth history. Science 1986; 231:1528–1533.Google Scholar
  236. Raup, D.M., and Gould, S.J. Stochastic simulation and evolution of morphology—towards a nomothetic paleontology. Systematic Zoology 1974; 23:305–322.Google Scholar
  237. Raup, D.M., Gould, S.J., Schopf, T.J.M., and Simberloff, D.S. Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity. Journal of Geology 1973; 81:525–542.Google Scholar
  238. Raup, D.M., and Gould, S.J. Stochastic simulation and evolution of morphology—towards a nomothetic paleontology. Systematic Zoology 1974; 23:305–322.Google Scholar
  239. Raup, D.M, and Sepkoski, Jr., J.J. Periodic extinction of families and genera. Science 1986; 231:833–836.Google Scholar
  240. Ray, T.S. Application of eigenshape analysis to second order leaf shape ontogeny in Syngonium podophyllum (Araceae). In Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop. Special publication No. 2, F.J. Rohlf and EL. Bookstein, eds., p. 201–213. Michigan: University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, 1990.Google Scholar
  241. Ray, T.S. Landmark eigenshape analysis: homologous contours: leaf shape in Syngonium podophyllum (Araceae). American Journal of Botany 1992; 79:69–76.Google Scholar
  242. Remane, A. Die Grundlagen des naturlichen Systems der verleichenden Anatomie und Phylogenetik 2. Leipzig: Geest and Portig K.-G., 1956.Google Scholar
  243. Reyment, R.A. On the interpretation of the smallest principal component. Bulletin of the Geological institutions of the University of Uppsala NS 1979; 8, 1–4. (Translation of the original in publications of Akademia Nauk, USSR).Google Scholar
  244. Reyment, R.A. Morphological variation in time of a Paleocene species of Cytherella. In Fossil and Recent Ostracoda, R.H. Bate, E. Robinson, and L.M. Sheppard, eds., p. 165–168. Chichester: Ellis Horwood, 1982a.Google Scholar
  245. Reyment, R.A. Phenotypic evolution in a Cretaceous foraminifer. Evolution 1982b; 36:1182–1199.Google Scholar
  246. Reyment, R.A. Phenotypic evolution in micro-fossils. Evolutionary Biology 1983; 16:209–254.Google Scholar
  247. Reyment, R.A. Multivariate morphometrics and analysis of shape. Mathematical Geology 1985; 17:591–609.Google Scholar
  248. Reyment, R.A. Reification of classical multivariate statistical analysis in morphometry. In Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop. Special publication No. 2, F.J. Rohlf and F.J. Bookstein, eds., p. 122–144. Michigan: University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, 1990.Google Scholar
  249. Reyment, R.A. Multidimensional Paleobiology. Oxford: Pergamon, 1991.Google Scholar
  250. Reyment, R.A. Evolution of shape in oligocene and miocene Notocarinovalva (Ostracoda, Crustacea): a multivariate statistical study. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 1997a; 59:63–87.Google Scholar
  251. Reyment, R.A. Multiple group principal component analysis. Mathematical Geology 1997b; 29:1–16Google Scholar
  252. Reyment, R.A., and Banfield, C.F. Growth-free canonical variates applied to fossil foraminifers. Bulletin of the Geological Institutions of the University of Uppsala NS 1976; 7:11–21.Google Scholar
  253. Reyment, R.A., Blackith, R.E., and Campbell, N.A. Multivariate morphometrics, 2nd ed. London: Academic Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  254. Richtsmeier, J.T., and Cheverud, J.M. Finite element scaling analysis of human craniofacial growth. Journal of Craniofacial Genetics and Developmental Biology 1986; 6:289–323.Google Scholar
  255. Ricklefs, R.E., and Miles, D.B. Ecological and evolutionary inferences from morphology: an ecological perspective. In PEcological morphology,.C. Wainwright and S.M. Reilly, eds., p. 13–41. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  256. Ricklefs, R.E., and O’Rourke, K. Aspect diversity in moths: a temperate-tropical comparison. Evolution 1974; 29:313–324.Google Scholar
  257. Riedel, R. Order in living organisms. New York: Wiley, 1978.Google Scholar
  258. Riedel, R., and Jefferies, R.P.S. Order in living organisms: a systems analysis of evolution. Chichester, England: Wiley, 1978.Google Scholar
  259. Ripley, B.D. Statistical inference for spatial processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  260. Rohlf, F.J. Relationships among eigenshape analysis, Fourier analysis and analysis of coordinates. Mathematical Geology 1986; 18:845–854.Google Scholar
  261. Rohlf, F.J. Morphometrics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1990a; 21:299–316.Google Scholar
  262. Rohlf, F.J. The analysis of shape variation using ordinations of fitted functions. In Ordinations in the study of morphology, evolution and systematics of insects: applications and quantitative genetic rationales J.T. Sorensen and R.G. Foottit, eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1990b.Google Scholar
  263. Rohlf, F.J. On applications of geometric morphometrics to studies of ontogeny and phylogeny. Systematic Biology 1998; 47:147–158.Google Scholar
  264. Rohlf, F.J., and Archie, J.W. Least-squares mapping using interpoint distances. Ecology 1978; 59:126–132.Google Scholar
  265. Rohlf, F.J., and Archie, J.W. The comparison of Fourier methods for the description of wing shape in mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Systematic Zoology 1984; 33:302–317.Google Scholar
  266. Rohlf, F J., and Slice, D. Extension of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Biology 1990; 39:40–59.Google Scholar
  267. Rohlf, E.J., Loy, A., and Corti, M. Morphometry analysis of old world talpidae (mammalia, insectívora) using partial-warp scores. Systematic Biology 1996; 45:344–362.Google Scholar
  268. Ross, A.J.,and Jarzembowski, E.A. Arthropoda (Hexapoda; Insecta). In The fossil record 2, M. J. Benton, ed., p. 363–426. London: Chapman and Hall, 1993.Google Scholar
  269. Roukema, B.F., VallsGaboud, D., Mobahser, B., and Bajtlik, S. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 1999; 305:151–165.Google Scholar
  270. Roy, K., and Foote, M. Morphological approaches to mesuring biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 1997; 12:277–281.Google Scholar
  271. Sampson, P.D. Dental arch shape: a statistical analysis using conic sections. American Journal of Orthodontics 1981; 79:535–548.Google Scholar
  272. Sanders, H.L., Hessler, R.R., and Garner, S.P. Hirsutia bathyalis a new unusual deep-sea benthic peracaridan crustacean from the tropical Atlantic. Journal of Crustacean Biology 1985 5:30–57.Google Scholar
  273. Saunders, W.B., and Swan, A.R.H. Morphology and morphologic diversity of mid-carboniferous (namurian) ammonoids in time and space. Paleobiology 1984; 10:195–228.Google Scholar
  274. Schaefer, S.A., and Lauder, G.V. Testing historical hypotheses of morphological change: bio-mechanical decoupling in loricarioid catfishes. Evolution 1996; 50:1661–1675.Google Scholar
  275. Schank, J.C., and Wimsatt, W.C. Generative entrenchment and evolution. Philosophy of Science Association 1986; 2:33–60.Google Scholar
  276. Schram, F.R. On the classification of Eumalacostraca. Journal of Paleontology 1981; 55:126–137.Google Scholar
  277. Schram, F.R. Remipedia and crustacean phylogeny. In Crustacean phylogeny, F.R. Schram, ed., p. 23–28. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1983.Google Scholar
  278. Schram, F.R. Relationships within eumalacostracan Crustacea. Transactions of The San Diego Society of Natural History 1984; 20:301–312.Google Scholar
  279. Schram, F.R. Crustacea. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  280. Schudy, R.B., and Ballard, D.H. A computer model for extracting moving heart surfaces from four-dimensional cardiac ultrasound. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference for Computer-Aided Applications in Radiology 1979, 366–376.Google Scholar
  281. Schweitzer, P.N., and Lohman, G.P. Life-history and the evolution of ontogeny in the ostracod genus Cyprideis. Paleobiology 1990; 16:107–125.Google Scholar
  282. Scott, G.H. The value of outline processing in the biometry and systematics of fossils. Palaeontology 1980; 23:757–768.Google Scholar
  283. Scott-Ram, N.R. Transformed cladistics, taxonomy and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  284. Sepkoski, J.J. Biodiversity: past, present, and future. Journal of Paleontology 1997; 71:533–539.Google Scholar
  285. Sepkoski, J.J., and Miller, A.I. Analysing diversification through time. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1998; 13:158–159.Google Scholar
  286. Sereno, P. Definitions in phylogenetic taxonomy: critique and rationale. Systematic Biology 1999; 48:329–351.Google Scholar
  287. Skalak, R., Dasgupta, G., Moss, M.L., Otten, E., Dullemeijer, P., and Vilmann, H. A conceptual framework for the analytical description of growth. Journal of Theoretical Biology 1982; 94:555–577.Google Scholar
  288. Shepherd, U.L. A comparison of species diversity and morphological diversity across the North American latitudinal gradient. Journal of Biogeography 1998; 25:19–29.Google Scholar
  289. Siegel, A.E Robust regression analysis using repeated medians. Biometrika 1982; 69:242–244.Google Scholar
  290. Siegel, A.E, and Benson, R.H. A robust comparison of biological shapes. Biometrics 1982; 38:341–350.Google Scholar
  291. Simpson, G.G. Principles of animal taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961.Google Scholar
  292. Singh, G.D., McNamara, J.A., and Lozanoff, S. Thin-plate spline analysis of the cranial base in subjects with Class III malocclusion. European Journal of Orthodontics 1997; 19:341–353.Google Scholar
  293. Slatkin, M. Fixation probabilities and fixation times in a subdivided population. Evolution 1981; 35:477–488.Google Scholar
  294. Smith, A.B. Echinoderm phylogeny—morphology and molecules approach accord. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 1992; 7:224–229.Google Scholar
  295. Smith, A.B. Systematics and the fossil record: documenting evolutionary patterns. Boston: Black well Scientific, 1994.Google Scholar
  296. Smith, A.B., and Littlewood, D.J.T. Paleontological data and molecular phylogenetic analysis. Paleobiology 1994; 20:259–273.Google Scholar
  297. Sneath, P.H.A. Trend-surface analysis of transformation grids. Journal of Zoology 1967; 151:65–122.Google Scholar
  298. Sneath, P.H.A., and Sokal, R.R. Numerical taxonomy. San Francisco: Freeman, 1973.Google Scholar
  299. Soltan, R.R., and Sneath, P.H.A. Principles of numerical taxonomy. San Francisco: Freeman, 1963.Google Scholar
  300. Soltan, A.M., and Kudlicki, A.S. Nonuniform distribution of galaxies in very large-scale. Acta Astronomica 1994; 44:21–31.Google Scholar
  301. Sosa, V., and DeLuna, E. Morphometrics and character state recognition for cladistic analyses in the Bletia reflexa complex (Orchidaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 1998; 212:185–213.Google Scholar
  302. Spearman, C. ‘General intelligence,’ objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology 1904; 15:201–293.Google Scholar
  303. Stauffer, D.F., Garten, E.O., and Steinhorst, R.K. A comparison of principal components from real and random data. Ecology 1985; 66:1693–1698.Google Scholar
  304. Stearns, S.C. The influence of size and phylogeny on patterns of covariation among life-history traits in mammals. Oikos 1983; 41:173–187.Google Scholar
  305. Stone, J.R. Computer-simulated shell size and shape variation in the Caribbean land snail genus cerion: a test of geometrical constraints. Evolution 1996; 50:341–347.Google Scholar
  306. Stone, J.R. The spirit of D’arcy Thompson dwells in emirical morphospace. Mathematical Bioscience 1997; 142:13–30.Google Scholar
  307. Stone, J.R. Ontogenic tracks and evolutionary vestiges in morphospace. Biological Journal of The Linnean Society 1998; 64:223–238.Google Scholar
  308. Strait, D.S., Moniz, M.A., and Strait, RT. Finite mixture coding: a new approach to coding continuous characters. Systematic Biology 1996; 45:67–78.Google Scholar
  309. Strauch, J.G. Use of homoplastic characters in compatibility analysis. Systematic Zoology 1984; 33:167–177.Google Scholar
  310. Strauss, R.E., and Bookstein, F.L. The truss: body form reconstructions in morphometrics. Systematic Zoology 1982; 31:113–135.Google Scholar
  311. Strauss, D. and Sadler, RM. Classical confidence-intervals and Bayesian probability estimates for ends of local taxon ranges. Mathematical Geology 1989; 21:411–421.Google Scholar
  312. Stubblefield, C.J. Evolution in trilobites. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 1960; 115:145–162.Google Scholar
  313. Swiderski, D.L., Zelditch, M.L., and Fink, W.L. Why morphometrics is not special: Coding quantitative data for phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology 1998; 47:508–519.Google Scholar
  314. Swofford, D.L. PAUP—a computer-program for phylogenetic inference using maximum parsimony. Journal of General Physiology 1993; 102, 9.Google Scholar
  315. Temple, J.T. Standardisation of trilobite orientation and measurement. Fossils and Strata 1973; 4:461–467.Google Scholar
  316. Temple, J.T. The use of factor analysis in geology. Mathematical Geology 1978; 10:379–390.Google Scholar
  317. Temple, J.T. A numerical taxonomic study of the Trinucleidae (Trilobita) from the British Isles. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 1980; 71:213–233.Google Scholar
  318. Temple, J.T. Ordination of palaeontological data. Miscellaneous Papers of the Geological Society of London 1982a; 14:224–236.Google Scholar
  319. Temple, J.T. An empirical study of robustness of nearest-neighbor relations in numerical taxonomy. Mathematical Biology 1982b; 14:675–678.Google Scholar
  320. Temple, J.T. The progress of quantitative methods in paleontology. Paleontology 1992; 35:475–484.Google Scholar
  321. Temple, J.T., and Tripp, R.P. An investigation of the Encrinurinae (Trilobita) by numerical taxonomic methods. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 1979; 70:223–250.Google Scholar
  322. Temple, J.T., and Wu Hong-Ji. Numerical taxonomy of Encrinurinae (Trilobita): additional species from China and elsewhere. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 1990; 81:209–219.Google Scholar
  323. Thomas, R.D.K., and Reif, W.-E. Design elements employed in the construction of animal skeletons. In Constructional morphology and evolution, N. Schmidt-Kittler and G. Vogel, eds., p. 283–294. Berlin: Springer, 1991.Google Scholar
  324. Thomas, R.D.K., and Reif., W.-E. The skeleton space: a finite set of organic designs. Evolution 1993; 47:341–360.Google Scholar
  325. Thomson, K.S. The crossopterygian—a living fossil and its discovery. Ethology 1996; 192:792.Google Scholar
  326. Tobler, W.R. Comparison of plane forms. Geographical Analysis 1978; 10:154–162.Google Scholar
  327. Torgerson, W.S. Multidimensional scaling. I. Theory and method. Psychometrica 1952; 17:401–419.Google Scholar
  328. Turechek, WW., and Madden, L.V. Spatial pattern analysis of strawberry leaf blight in perennial production systems. Phytopathology 1999; 89:421–433.Google Scholar
  329. Tursch, B. Spiral growth: the ‘museum of all shells’ revisited. Journal of Molluscan Studies 1997; 63:547–554.Google Scholar
  330. Valentine, J.W. Evolutionary paleoecology of the marine biosphere. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1973.Google Scholar
  331. Valentine, J.W. Adaptive strategy and the origin of grades and ground plans. American Zoologist 1975; 15:391–404.Google Scholar
  332. Valentine, J.W., Collins, A.G., and Meyer, C.P. Morphological complexity increase in metazoans. Paleobiology 1994; 20:131–142.Google Scholar
  333. Valentine, J.W., Erwin, D.H., and Jablonski, D. Developmental evolution of metazoan bodyplans: the fossil evidence. Developmental Biology 1996; 173:373–381.Google Scholar
  334. Valentine, J.W, Jablonski, D., and Erwin, D.H. Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion. Development 1999; 126:851–859.Google Scholar
  335. Van Valen, L. Multivariate structural statistics in natural history. Journal of Theoretical Biology 1974; 45:235–247.Google Scholar
  336. Vonvaupelklein, J.C. Phyletic gradualism versus punctuated equilibria—why case histories do not suffice. Acta Biotheoretica 1995; 43:259–278.Google Scholar
  337. Wägele J.W. Review of methodological problems of ‘computer cladistics’ exemplified with a case study on isopod phylogeny (Crustacea: Isopoda). Zeitschrift fur zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 1994; 32:87–107.Google Scholar
  338. Wagner, A. Does evolutionary plasticity evolve? Evolution 1996; 50:1008–1023.Google Scholar
  339. Wagner, P.J. Phylogenetics of the early Paleozoic Archaeogastropoda. In Fifth North American Paleontological Convention, S. Lidgard and P.R. Crane, eds., p. 300. Knoxville, Tennessee: The Paleontological Society, 1992.Google Scholar
  340. Wagner, P.J. Testing evolutionary constraint hypothesis with early Paleozoic gastropods. Paleobiology 1995a; 21:248–272.Google Scholar
  341. Wagner, P.J. Morphologic diversification of early Paleozoic “archaegastropods.” In Origin and evolutionary radiation of the Mollusca J. Taylor, ed., p. 161–169. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995b.Google Scholar
  342. Wagner, P.J. Patterns of morphologic diversification among the Rostroconchia. Paleobiology 1997; 23:115–150.Google Scholar
  343. Wagner, P. J., and Erwin, D.H. Phylogenetic patterns as tests of speciation models. In New approaches to speciation in the fossil record D.H. Erwin and R.L. Anstey, eds., p. 87–122. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  344. Watson, G.S. Comment on D.G. Kendall “A survey of the statistical theory of shape.” Statistical Science 1989; 4:113–115.Google Scholar
  345. Whittaker, R.H. Communities and ecosystems. Second edition. New York: Macmillan, 1975.Google Scholar
  346. Whittington, H.B. Phylogeny and distribution of Ordovician trilobites. Journal of Paleontology 1966; 40:696–737.Google Scholar
  347. Whittington, H.B. The Burgess Shale. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  348. Wiley, E.O. Phylogenetics: the theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics. New York: Wiley, 1981.Google Scholar
  349. Wilkins, A.S. Canalization: a molecular genetic perspective. Bioessays 1997; 19:257–262.Google Scholar
  350. Wilkinson, M. Consensus, compatibility and missing data in phylogenetic inference. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bristol, 1992.Google Scholar
  351. Wilkinson, M. Weights and ranks in numerical phylogenetics. Cladistics 1994a; 10:321–329.Google Scholar
  352. Williams, PH., Humphries, C.J., and Vane-Wright, R.I. Measuring biodiversity: taxonomic relatedness for conservation priorities. Australian Systematic Botany 1991; 4:665–679.Google Scholar
  353. Wills, M.A. Crustacean disparity through the phanerozoic: comparing morphological and stratigraphic data. Biological Journal of The Linnean Society 1998a; 65:455–500.Google Scholar
  354. Wills, M.A. Cambrian and Recent disparity: the picture from priapulids. Paleobiology 1998b; 24:177–199.Google Scholar
  355. Wills, M.A. Congruence between phylogeny and stratigraphy: randomization tests and the gap excess ratio. Systematic Biology 1999; 48:559–580.Google Scholar
  356. Wills, M.A., Briggs, D.E.G., and Fortey, R.A. Disparity as an evolutionary index: a comparison of Cambrian and recent arthropods. Paleobiology 1994; 20:93–130.Google Scholar
  357. Wills, M.A., Briggs, D.E.G., and Fortey, R.A., and Wilkinson, M. The significance of fossils in understanding arthropod evolution. Verhandlungen der Deutschen Zoologischen Gesellschaft 1995; 57:13–33.Google Scholar
  358. Wills, M.A., Briggs, D.E.G., and Fortey, R.A.. Evolutionary correlates of arthropod tagmosis: scrambled legs. In Arthropod Relationships. Systematics Association, special volume 55, R.A. Fortey & R. Thomas, eds., p. 57–65. London: Chapman & Hall, 1998.Google Scholar
  359. Wimsatt, W.C., and Schänk, J.C. Two constraints on the evolution of complex adaptations and the means for their avoidance. In Evolutionary progress, M. H. Nitecki, ed., p. 231–237. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  360. Xu, Z.-B., Zhang, J.S., and Leung, Y.W An approximate algorithm for computing multidimensional convex hulls. Applied Mathematics and Computation 1998; 94:193–226.Google Scholar
  361. Yokoyama, S., Zhang, H., Radlwimmer, KB., and Blow, N.S. Adaptive evolution of color vision of the comoran coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1999; 96:6279–6284.Google Scholar
  362. Zahn, C.T., and Roskies, R.Z. Fourier descriptions for plane closed curves. IEEE Transactions, Computers 1972; C-21:269–281.Google Scholar
  363. Zelditch, M.L., and Fink, W.L. Allometry and developmental integration of body growth in a piranha, Pygocentrus nattereri (Teleostei: Ostariophysi). Journal of Morphology 1995; 223:341–355.Google Scholar
  364. Zelditch, M.L., Fink, W.L., and Swiderski, D.L. Morphometrics, homology, and phylogenetics: quantified characters as synapomorphies. Systematic Biology 1995; 44:179–189.Google Scholar
  365. Zweers, G.A., Berge, J.C.V, and Berkhoudt, H. Evolutionary patterns of avian trophic diversification. Zoology-Analysis of Complex Systems 1997; 100:25–57.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew A. Wills
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology and BiochemistryUniversity of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations