Landmark-Based Size and Shape Analysis in Systematics of the Plecotine Bats

  • Wiesław Bogdanowicz
  • Robert D. Owen
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 284)


Morphometric divergence among the skulls of 10 species of plecotine bats (n = 105) was studied using x, y-coordinates of 11 homologous landmarks recorded from the left half dorsal view of each skull. Univariate and multivariate analyses of shape coordinates provided estimates of differences among taxa and between sexes. The differences in size among species were correlated with uniform shape differences. The centroid size to uniform factor allometry was more pronounced longitudinally (i.e., along the midline of the skull) than it was laterally. Significant shape differences among species were also detected in both uniform and non-uniform components. Non-uniform shape variation involved lateral rather than longitudinal displacement of landmarks on the skull. Sexual dimorphism was reflected by centroid size and was seen only in Otonycteris hemprichi, in which females were about 4.4% larger than males. The UPGMA phenograms of Mahalanobis D 2 of shape coordinates and of relative warp scores (in which the uniform shape component had been removed) revealed two consistent phenetic clusters. One was formed by O. hemprichi, with the remaining genera grouping in a second cluster. The relationships among genera in this second cluster varied depending on the phenogram generated. Nevertheless, the UPGMA phenogram derived from Mahalanobis D 2 computed on Bookstein shape coordinates (sexes combined) was entirely congruent with the current systematic hierarchy and phylogenetic hypothesis of the Plecotini sensu stricto recently put forward based on a parsimony analysis of 32 skin and skull characters. In our analysis, the most divergent species group was the monotypic O. hemprichi. A second group was formed by the genus Barbastella. The remaining clusters were composed of species of Corynorhinus; Plecotus; and a cluster containing Idionycteris and Euderma.


Sexual Dimorphism Minimum Span Tree Centroid Size Canonical Variate Analysis Relative Warp 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bookstein, F. L. 1986. Size and shape spaces for landmark data in two dimensions (with discussion and rejoinder). Statistical Science 1: 181–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bookstein, F. L. 1990. Higher-order features of shape change for landmark data. Pages 237–250. in F. J. Rohlf and F. L Bookstein, (eds.), Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Special Publication 2.Google Scholar
  3. Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Bookstein, F. L., B. Chernoff, R. L. Elder, J. M. Humphries, Jr., G. R. Smith, and R. E. Strauss. 1985. Morphometrics in evolutionary biology: The geometry of size and shape change, with examples from fish. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Special Publication 15.Google Scholar
  5. Felsenstein, J. 1988. Phylogenies and quantitative characters. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19: 445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frost, D. R., and R. M. Timm. 1992. Phylogeny of plecotine bats (Chiroptera: “Vespertilionidae”): Summary of the evidence and proposal of a logically consistent taxonomy. American Museum Novitates 3034: 1–16.Google Scholar
  7. Handley, Jr., C. O. 1959. A revision of American bats of the genera Euderma and Plecotus. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 110: 95–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hill, J. E., and D. L. Harrison. 1987. The baculum in the Vespertilioninae (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) with a systematic review, a synopsis of Pipistrellus and Eptesicus, and the description of a new genus and subgenus. Bulletin of the British Museum ( Natural History ), Zoology 52: 225–305.Google Scholar
  9. Horâcek, I. 1991. Enigma of Otonycteris: Ecology, relationship, classification. Myotis 29: 17–30.Google Scholar
  10. Loy, A., M. Corti, and L. F. Marcus. 1993. Landmark data: Size and shape analysis in systematics. A case study on Old World Talpidae (Mammalia, Insectivora). Pages 215–240. in L. F. Marcus, E. Bello, and A. Garcia-Valdecasas, (eds.), Contributions to morphometrics. Monografias del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales 8, Madrid.Google Scholar
  11. MacLeod, N., and J. A. Kitchell. 1990. Morphometrics and evolutionary inference: a case study involving ontogenetic and developmental aspects of foraminiferal evolution. Pages 283–299. in F. J. Rohlf and F. L Bookstein, (eds.), Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Special Publication 2.Google Scholar
  12. Marcus, L. F. 1993. Some aspects of multivariate statistics for morphometrics. Pages 95–130. in L. F. Marcus, E. Bello, and A. Garcia-Valdecasas, (eds.), Contributions to morphometrics. Monografias del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales 8, Madrid.Google Scholar
  13. Meacham C. A., and T. Duncan. 1990. MorphoSys. Version 1. 26. University Herbarium, University of California: Berkeley.Google Scholar
  14. Menu, H. 1987. Morphotypes dentairs actuels et fossiles des chiroptères vespertilioninés. Deuxième partie: Implications systématiques et phylogéniques. Palaeovertebrata 17 (3): 77–150.Google Scholar
  15. Miller, Jr., G. S. 1907. The families and genera of bats. Bulletin of the United States National Museum 57: 1–281.Google Scholar
  16. Nader, I. A., and D. F. Hoffmeister. 1983. Bacula of big-eared bats Plecotus, Corynorhinus, and Idionycteris. Journal of Mammalogy 64: 528–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Qumsiyeh, M. B. 1989. Chromosomal fissions and phylogenetic hypotheses: Cytogenetic and allozymic variation between species of Meriones ( Rodentia, Gerbillidae). Occasional Papers of The Museum of Texas Tech University 132: 1–16.Google Scholar
  18. Qumsiyeh, M. B., and J. W. Bickham. 1993. Chromosomes and relationships of long-eared bats of the genera Plecotus and Otonycteris. Journal of Mammalogy 74: 376–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reyment, R. A. 1991. Multidimensional palaeobiology. Pergamon Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  20. Richtsmeier, J. T., J. M. Cheverud, and S. Lele. 1992. Advances in anthropological morphometrics. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rohlf, F. J. 1993a. Relative warp analysis and an example of its application to mosquito wings. Pages 131–159. in L. F. Marcus, E. Bello, and A. Garcia-Valdecasas, (eds.), Contributions to morphometrics. Monografias del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales 8, Madrid.Google Scholar
  22. Rohlf, F. J. 1993b. NTSYS-pc numerical taxonomy and multivariate analysis system, version 1. 80. Exeter Software: Setauket, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Rohlf, F. J., and L. F. Marcus. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rohlf, F. J., and D. E. Slice. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology 39: 40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. SAS (Statistical Analysis System). 1985. SAS user’s guide: Statistics, version 5 edition. SAS Institute: Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  26. Slice, D. E. 1992. GRF-ND: Generalized rotational fitting of N-dimensional landmark data. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794.Google Scholar
  27. Sneath, P. H. A., and R. R. Sokal. 1973. Numerical taxonomy: The principles and practice of numerical classification. Freeman and Company: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  28. Stock, A. D. 1983. Chromosomal homologies and phylogenetic relationships of the vespertilionid bat genera Euderma, Idionycteris and Plecotus. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics 35: 136–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Storer, R. W. 1966. Sexual dimorphism and food habits in three North American accipiters. Auk 83: 423–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Swiderski, D. L. 1993. Morphological evolution of the scapula in tree squirrels, chipmunks, and ground squirrels ( Sciuridae ): An analysis using thin-plate splines. Evolution 47: 1854–1873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tabachnick, R. E., and F. L. Bookstein. 1990. The structure of individual variation in Miocene Globorotalia. Evolution 44: 416–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Topât, G. 1989. Tertiary and Early Quaternary remains of Corynorhinus and Plecotus from Hungary ( Mammalia, Chiroptera). Vertebrata Hungarica 23: 33–55.Google Scholar
  33. Tumlison, R., and M. E. Douglas. 1992. Parsimony analysis and the phylogeny of the plecotine bats ( Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Journal of Mammalogy 73: 276–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Volleth, M., and K.-G. Heller. 1994. Karyosystematics of plecotine bats: A reevaluation of chromosomal data. Journal of Mammalogy 75: 416–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiley, E. O. 1981. Phylogenetics: The theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics. Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
  36. Williams, D. F., J. D. Druecker, and H. L. Black. 1970. The karyotype of Euderma maculatum and comments on the evolution of the plecotine bats. Journal of Mammalogy 51: 602–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yoshiyuki, M. 1991. A new species of Plecotus (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) from Taiwan. Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Series A 17: 189–195.Google Scholar
  38. Zima, J., M. Volleth, I. Horâcek, J. Cerveny, and M. Macholân. 1992. Karyotypes of two species of bats, Otonycteris hemprichi and Pipistrellus tramatus (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae). Pages 237–242. in I. Horácek and V. Vohralik, (eds.), Prague studies in mammalogy. Charles University Press: Prague.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wiesław Bogdanowicz
    • 1
  • Robert D. Owen
    • 2
  1. 1.Mammal Research InstitutePolish Academy of SciencesBiałowieżaPoland
  2. 2.Department of BiologicalSciences Texas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations