Advertisement

Morphometric Analysis of Microscopic Hooks of Taeniid Tapeworms (Cestoda, Taeniidae)

Application of Graphics Software for Automated Computation of Landmarks and Outlines
  • András Gubányi
Chapter
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 284)

Abstract

Hooks of five species of taeniid tapeworms were scanned at high resolution. After tracing the objects, automated extraction of outline and landmark data was carried out using a computer program written in AutoLISP. Morphometric variation was studied by elliptical Fourier analysis, canonical variate analysis and minimum spanning trees for both landmark and outline data. A comparison of centroid size and the affine component of shape differences among specimens was carried out for the landmark data. Canonical variate analysis scores seemed to show different patterns for landmark and outline data. There was a linear association between size and shape for the species studied, which was more pronounced for larger hooks.

Keywords

Minimum Span Tree Canonical Variate Baseline Length Centroid Size Canonical Variate Analysis 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abuladze, K. I. 1964. Teniaty-lentochnye gel’minty zhivotnykh i cheloveka i vyzyvaemye imi zabolevaniia. Osnovy Tsestodologii 4: 1–530.Google Scholar
  2. AutoCAD release 12. 1992. Autodesk, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, E. W. and G. W. Wharton. 1952. An introduction to acarology. MacMillan: New York.Google Scholar
  4. Baer, J. G. 1952. Ecology of animal parasites. University of Illinois Press: Urbana.Google Scholar
  5. Beccerra, J. M., E. Bello and A. Garcia-Valdecasas. 1993. Building your own machine image system for morphometric analysis: A user point of view. Pages 65–92. 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
  6. Bookstein, F. L. 1989. “Size and Shape”: A comment on semantics. Systematic Zoology, 38: 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: Geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. CoreIDRAW. 1992. Coreldraw user’s manual 3. 0. Corel Corporation: Ottawa.Google Scholar
  10. Fink, W. L. 1990. Data acquisition for morphometric analysis in systematic biology. Pages 9–19. 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
  11. MacLeod, N. 1990. Digital images and automated image analysis systems. Pages 21–35. 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. Movsessian, S. O. 1989. Present views on the systematics of cestodes of the suborder Taeniata. Helminthologia 26: 3–14.Google Scholar
  13. Norusis, M. J. 1990. SPSS/PC+ Advanced Statistics TM 4.0 for the IBM PC/XT/AT and PS/2. SPSS: Chicago.Google Scholar
  14. Rausch, R. L. 1985. Presidental address. Journal of Parasitology 71 (2): 139–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rohlf, F. J. 1990a. An overview of image processing and analysis techniques for morphometrics. Pages 37–60. 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
  16. Rohlf, F. J. 1990b. NTSYS-pc. Numerical taxonomy and multivariate analysis system, version 1. 6 Exeter Software: Setauket, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Rohlf, F. J. 1990c. Fitting curves to outlines. Pages 167–177. 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
  18. Rohlf, F. J. 1993: Computer vision needs in systematic biology. (With discussion.) Pages 365–373. in R. Fortuner, (ed.), Advances in computer methods for systematic biology, artificial intelligence, databases, computer vision. John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  19. Rohlf, F. J. and D. E. Slice. 1990. Extension of the Procrustes method for the optimal superposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology, 39: 40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schmidt, G. D. 1986. CRC handbook of tapeworm identification. CRC Press: Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  21. Verster, A. 1969. A taxonomic revision of the genus Taenia Linnaeus, 1758 s. str. Onderstepoort. Journal of Veterinary Research 36 (1): 3–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Wardle, R. A. and J. A. McLeod. 1952. The zoology of tapeworms. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • András Gubányi
    • 1
  1. 1.Zoological DepartmentHungarian Natural History MuseumBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations