Landmarks, Localization, and the Use of Morphometrics in Phylogenetic Analysis

  • Norman MacLeod
Part of the Topics in Geobiology book series (TGBI, volume 19)

Abstract

Morphometries is the quantitative study of patterns of covariance with shape (Bookstein 1991). Since many morphological attributes of biological form are obviously reflections of evolutionary processes (e.g., Darwin 1859; Simpson 1944; Mayr 1963), and since assessments of patterns of morphological variation have been used traditionally to infer phylogenetic relations (e.g., Hennig 1966; Eldredge and Cracraft 1980; Mayr and Ashlock 1991) it would seem be natural to assume that morphometric analyses would play a large role in phylogenetic studies. This has not, however, been the case.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adrain, J.M., and Edgecombe, G.D. Silurian encrinurine trilobites from the central Canadian Arctic. Palaeontographica Canadiana 1997; 14:1–109.Google Scholar
  2. Blackith, R.E., and Reyment, R.A. Multivariate morphometrics. London: Academic Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  3. Bookstein, F.L. When one form is between two others: An application of biorthogonal analysis. American Zoologist 1980; 20:627–41.Google Scholar
  4. Bookstein, F.L. Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. Bookstein, F.L. “Can biometrical shape be a homologous character?” In Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology, B.K. Hall, ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. Bookstein, F.L. Biometrics, biomathematics and the morphometric synthesis. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 1996; 58:313–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bookstein, F.L. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: localizing group differences in outline shape. medical Image Analysis 1997; 1:225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bookstein, F., Chernoff, B., Elder, R., Humphries, J., Smith, G., and Strauss, R. Morphometrics in evolutionary biology. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. Chatfield, C., and Collins, A.J. Introduction to multivariate analysis. London: Chapman and Hall, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. Christopher, R.A., and Waters, J.A. Fourier analysis as a quantitative descriptor of miosphere shape. Journal of Paleontology 1974; 48:697–709.Google Scholar
  11. Cranston, P.S., and Humphries, C.J. Cladistics and computers: a chironomid conundrum. Cladistics 1988; 4:72–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darwin, C. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray, 1859.Google Scholar
  13. Eldredge, N., and Cracraft, J. Phylogenetic patterns and the evolutionary process. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  14. Falconer, D.S. Introduction to quantitative genetics. London: Longman, 1981.Google Scholar
  15. Felsenstein, J. Evolutionary trees from gene frequencies and quantitative characters: finding maximum-likelihood estimates. Evolution 1981; 35:1229–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fink, W.L., and Zelditch, M.L. Phylogenetic analysis of ontogenetic shape transformations: a reassessment of the Piranha genus Pygocentrus. Systematic Biology 1995; 44:343–360.Google Scholar
  17. Hennig, W. Phylogenetic systematics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1966.Google Scholar
  18. Hull, D.L. Science as a process: an evolutionary account of the social and conceptual developments in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  19. Jöreskog, K.G., Klovan, J.E., and Reyment, R.A. Geological factor analysis. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1976.Google Scholar
  20. Kendall, D.G. Shape manifolds, procrustean metrics and complex projective spaces. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 1984; 16:81–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lele, S., and Richtsmeier, J.T. Euclidean Distant Matrix Analysis: a coordinate free approach for comparing biological shapes using landmark data. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1991; 86:415–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lestrel, P.E. Fourier descriptors and their applications in biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lohmann, G.P. Eigenshape analysis of microfossils: A general morphometric method for describing changes in shape. Mathematical Geology 1983; 15:659–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lynch, J.M., Wood, C.G., Luboga, S.A. Geometric morphometries in primatology: craniofacial variation in Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes. Folia Primatologia 1996; 67:15–39.Google Scholar
  25. MacLeod, N. Lower and Middle Jurassic Perispyridium (Radiolaria) from the Snowshoe Formation, east-central Oregon. Micropaleontology 1988; 34:289–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacLeod, N. Testing morphometric data for phylogenetic and functional covariance. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Abstracts of Papers 1995; 15 (Supplement to No. 3):41A–42A.Google Scholar
  27. MacLeod, N. Generalizing and extending the eigenshape method of shape visualization and analysis. Paleobiology 1999; 25:107–138.Google Scholar
  28. MacLeod, N., and Rose, K.D. Inferring locomotor behavior in Paleogene mammals via eigenshape analysis. American Journal of Science 1993; 293-A:300–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maddison, W.P. Squared-change parsimony reconstructions of ancestral states for continuous-valued characters on a phylogenetic tree. Systematic Zoology 1991; 40:304–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayr, E. Animal species and evolution. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  31. Mayr, E. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  32. Mayr, E., and Ashlock, P.D. Principles of systematic zoology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991.Google Scholar
  33. Naylor, G.J.P. Can partial warps scores be used as cladistic characters? In Advances in morphometries, L.F. Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G.J.P. Naylor, and D.E. Slice, eds. New York: Plenum Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  34. Patterson, C. Morphological characters and homology. In Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction, K.A. Joysey, and A.E. Friday, eds. London and New York: Academic Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  35. Pessagno, E.A., Jr., and Blome, C.D. Bizarre nassellariina (Radiolaria) from the Middle and Upper Jurassic of North America. Micropaleontology 1982; 28:289–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pimentel, R.A, and Riggins, R. The nature of cladistic data. Cladistics 1987; 3:201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reippel, O. Homology, a deductive concept. Zeitschrift für Zoolgische, Systemaik und Evolutionforschung 1980; 18:315–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reyment, R.A., Blackith, R.E., and Campbell, N.A. Multivariate morphometries, second edition. London: Academic Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  39. Reyment, R.A., and Joreskog, K.G. Applied factor analysis in the natural sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rohlf, F.J. Relationships among eigenshape analysis, Fourier analysis, and analysis of coordinates. Mathematical Geology 1986; 18:845–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rohlf, F.J. Relative warp analysis and an example of its application to mosquito wings. In Contributions to morphometrics, L.F. Marcus, E. Bello, and A. García-Valdecasas, eds. Madrid, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales 8, 1993.Google Scholar
  42. Rohlf, F.J. On applications of geometric morphometries to studies of ontogeny and phylogeny. Systematic Biology 1998; 47:147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simpson, G.G. Tempo and mode in evolution. New York: Columbia University Press, 1944.Google Scholar
  44. Sneath, P.H.A, and Sokal, R.R. Numerical taxonomy: the principles and practice of numerical classification. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1973.Google Scholar
  45. Sokal, R.R., and Sneath, P.A. Principles of numerical taxonomy. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1963.Google Scholar
  46. Strauss, R.E., and Bookstein, F.L. The truss: body form reconstruction in morphometries. Systematic Zoology 1982; 31:113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Swiderski, D.L., Zelditch, M.L., Fink, W.L. Why morphometries is not special: coding quantitative data for phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology 1998; 47:508–19.Google Scholar
  48. Thompson, D.W. On growth and form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917.Google Scholar
  49. Wagner, G.P. Homology and the mechanisms of development. In Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology, B.K. Hall, ed. San Diego: Academic Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  50. Zelditch, M.L., Bookstein, F.L., and Lundrigan, B.L. Ontogeny of integrated skull growth in the cotton rat Sigmodon fulviventer. Evolution 1992; 46:1164–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zelditch, M.L., Bookstein, F.L., and Lundrigan, B.L. The ontogenetic complexity of developmental constraints. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 1993; 62:121–141.Google Scholar
  52. Zelditch, M.L., and Fink, W.L. Allometry and developmental integration of body growth in a piranha Pygocentrus nattereri (Teleosti: Ostariophysi). Journal of Morphology 1995; 223:341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zelditch, M.L., Fink, W.L., and Swiderski, D.L. Morphometries, homology, and phylogenetics: quantified characters as synapomorphies. Systematic Biology 1995; 44:179–189.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norman MacLeod
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PalaeontologyThe Natural History MuseumLondonUK

Personalised recommendations