A practical, step-by-step, guide to taxonomic comparisons using Procrustes geometric morphometrics and user-friendly software (part B): group comparisons
Abstract
In this second part of the study, using a ‘clean’ dataset without very low precision landmarks and outliers, I describe how to compare mandibular size and shape using Procrustes methods in adult North American marmots. After demonstrating that sex differences are negligible, females and males are pooled together with specimens of unknown sex and species are compared using a battery of tests, that estimate both statistical significance and effect size. The importance of allometric variation and its potential effect on shape differences is also explored. Finally, to provide potential clues on founder effects, I compare the magnitude of variance in mandibular size and shape between the Vancouver Island marmot (VAN) and the hoary marmot, its sister species on the mainland. In almost all main analyses, I explore the sensitivity of results to heterogeneous sample size and small samples using subsamples and randomized selection experiments. For both size and shape, I find a degree of overlap among species variation but, with very few exceptions, mean interspecific differences are well supported in all analyses. Shape, in particular, is an accurate predictor of taxonomic affiliation. Allometry in adults, however, explains a modest amount of within-species shape change. Yet, there is a degree of divergence in allometric trajectories that seems consistent with subgeneric separation. VAN is the most distinctive species for mandibular shape and mandibular morphology suggests a long history of reduced variation in this insular population. Geometric morphometrics (GMM) is a powerful tool to aid taxonomic research. Regardless of the effectiveness of this family of methods and the apparent robustness of results obtained with GMM, however, large samples and careful measurements remain essential for accuracy. Even with excellent data, morphometrics is important, but its findings must be corroborated with an integrative approach that combines multiple lines of evidence to taxonomic assessment. The analytical protocol I suggest is described in detail, with a summary checklist, in the Appendix, not to miss important steps. All the analyses can be replicated using the entire dataset, which is freely available online. Beginners may follow all the steps, whereas more experienced researchers can focus on one specific aspect and read only the relevant chapter. There are limitations, but the protocol is flexible and easy to improve or implement using a programming language such as R.
References
Abouheif E. & Fairbairn D.J. 1997. A comparative analysis of allometry for sexual size dimorphism: Assessing Rensch’s rule. The American Naturalist 149 (3): 540–562. https://doi.org/10.1086/286004
Adams D.C. & Nistri A. 2010. Ontogenetic convergence and evolution of foot morphology in European cave salamanders (Family: Plethodontidae). BMC Evolutionary Biology 10 (1): 216. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-10-216
Adams D.C., Rohlf F.J. & Slice D.E. 2004. Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the ‘revolution’. Italian Journal of Zoology 71 (1): 5–16.
Adams D.C., Cardini A., Monteiro L.R., O’Higgins P. & Rohlf F.J. 2011. Morphometrics and phylogenetics: Principal components of shape from cranial modules are neither appropriate nor effective cladistic characters. Journal of Human Evolution 60: 240–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.02.003
Adams D.C., Rohlf F.J. & Slice D.E. 2013. A field comes of age: geometric morphometrics in the 21st century. Hystrix 24 (1): 7–14. https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6283
Albrecht G. 1992. Assessing the affinities of fossils using canonical variates and generalized distances. Human Evolution 7 (4): 49–69.
Álvarez A., Ercoli M.D., Olivares A.I., De Santi N.A. & Verzi D.H. 2021. Evolutionary patterns of mandible shape diversification of caviomorph rodents. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 28 (1): 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10914-020-09511-y
Amaral A.R., Coelho M.M., Marugán-Lobón J. & Rohlf F.J. 2009. Cranial shape differentiation in three closely related delphinid cetacean species: Insights into evolutionary history. Zoology 112 (1): 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zool.2008.03.001
Anderson T.W. 1996. R.A. Fisher and multivariate analysis. Statistical Science 11 (1): 20–34.
Armitage K.B. 1999. Evolution of sociality in marmots. Journal of Mammalogy 80 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/1383202
Armitage K.B. 2000. The evolution, ecology, and systematics of marmots. Oecologia Montana 9 (1–2): 1–18.
Armitage K.B. 2005. Intraspecific variation in marmots. In: Sánchez-Cordero V. & Medellίn R.A. (eds) Contribuciones mastozoológicas en homenaje a Bernardo Villa. Instituto de Biología, UNAM: 39–48.
Armitage K.B. 2009. Fur color diversity in marmots. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 21 (3): 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2009.9522474
Armitage K.B. 2013. Climate change and the conservation of marmots. Natural Science 5: 36–43. https://doi.org/10.4236/ns.2013.55A005
Armitage K.B. 2014. Marmot Biology: Sociality, Individual Fitness, and Population Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.
Armstrong R.A. 2014. When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 34 (5): 502–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12131
Ateş C., Kaymaz Ö., Kale H.E. & Tekindal M.A. 2019. Comparison of test statistics of nonnormal and unbalanced samples for multivariate analysis of variance in terms of type-I error rates. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine 2019: e2173638. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2173638
Berns C.M. & Adams D.C. 2013. Becoming different but staying alike: patterns of sexual size and shape dimorphism in bills of hummingbirds. Evolutionary Biology 40 (2): 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-012-9206-3
Blumstein D. 1999. Alarm calling in three species of marmots. Behaviour 136 (6): 731–757. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853999501540
Bookstein F.L. 1996. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: localizing group differences in outline shape. In: Kavanaugh M.E. (ed.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Mathematical Methods in Biomedical Image Analysis (IEEE), 1996: 279–289.
Bogdanović A.M., Ivanović A., Tomanović Ž., Žikić V., Starý P. & Kavallieratos N.G. 2009. Sexual dimorphism in Ephedrus persicae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae): intraspecific variation in size and shape. The Canadian Entomologist 141 (6): 550–560. https://doi.org/10.4039/n09-029
Brashares J.S., Werner J.R. & Sinclair A.R.E. 2010. Social ‘meltdown’ in the demise of an island endemic: Allee effects and the Vancouver Island marmot. Journal of Animal Ecology 79 (5): 965–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01711.x
Campbell N. & Mahon R. 1974. A multivariate study of variation in two species of rock crab of the genus Leptograpsus. Australian Journal of Zoology 22 (3): 417–425.
Cardini A. 2003. The geometry of the marmot (Rodentia: Sciuridae) mandible: phylogeny and patterns of morphological evolution. Systematic Biology 52 (2): 186–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150390192807
Cardini A. 2019. Integration and modularity in procrustes shape data: Is there a risk of spurious results? Evolutionary Biology (46): 90–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-018-9463-x
Cardini A. 2020a. Modern morphometrics and the study of population differences: Good data behind clever analyses and cool pictures? The Anatomical Record 303 (11): 2747–2765. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24397
Cardini A. 2020b. Less tautology, more biology? A comment on “high-density” morphometrics. Zoomorphology 139 (4): 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00435-020-00499-w
Cardini A. 2022. As fast as a hare: Did intraspecific morphological change bring the Hallands Väderö Island population of Lepus timidus close to interspecific differences in less than 150 years? Zoology 152: 126014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zool.2022.126014
Cardini A. 2023. Shall we all adopt, with no worries, the ‘within a configuration’ approach in geometric morphometrics? A comment on claims that the effect of the superimposition and sliding on shape data is “not an obstacle to analyses of integration and modularity”. EcoEvoRxiv, unpublished preprint. https://doi.org/10.32942/X2002C
Cardini A. & Elton S. 2007. Sample size and sampling error in geometric morphometric studies of size and shape. Zoomorphology 126 (2): 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00435-007-0036-2
Cardini A. & Elton S. 2008. Does the skull carry a phylogenetic signal? Evolution and modularity in the guenons. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 93 (4): 813–834. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.01011.x
Cardini A. & Elton S. 2009. The radiation of red colobus monkeys (Primates, Colobinae): morphological evolution in a clade of endangered African primates. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 157 (1): 197–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2009.00508.x
Cardini A. & Loy A. 2013. On growth and form in the computer era: from geometric to biological morphometrics. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 24 (1): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-24.1-8749
Cardini A. & O’Higgins P. 2005. Post-natal ontogeny of the mandible and ventral cranium in Marmota species (Rodentia, Sciuridae): allometry and phylogeny. Zoomorphology 124 (4): 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00435-005-0008-3
Cardini A. & Polly P.D. 2020. Cross-validated between group PCA scatterplots: A solution to spurious group separation? Evolutionary Biology 47 (1): 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-020-09494-x
Cardini A. & Tongiorgi P. 2003. Yellow-bellied marmots (Marmota flaviventris) ‘in the shape space’ (Rodentia, Sciuridae): sexual dimorphism, growth and allometry of the mandible. Zoomorphology 122 (1): 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00435-002-0063-y
Cardini A. & Verderame M. 2022. Procrustes shape cannot be analyzed, interpreted or visualized one landmark at a time. Evolutionary Biology 49 (2): 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-022-09565-1
Cardini A., Thorington R.W. & Polly P.D. 2007. Evolutionary acceleration in the most endangered mammal of Canada: speciation and divergence in the Vancouver Island marmot (Rodentia, Sciuridae). Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20 (5): 1833–1846. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01398.x
Cardini A., Nagorsen D., OʼHiggins P., Polly P.D., Thorington R.W. & Tongiorgi P. 2009. Detecting biological distinctiveness using geometric morphometrics: an example case from the Vancouver Island marmot. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 21 (3): 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2009.9522476
Cardini A., Filho J.A.F.D., Polly P.D. & Elton S. 2010. Biogeographic analysis using geometric morphometrics: clines in skull size and shape in a widespread African arboreal monkey. In: Elewa A.M.T. (ed.) Morphometrics for Nonmorphometricians: 191–217. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Cardini A., Seetah K. & Barker G. 2015. How many specimens do I need? Sampling error in geometric morphometrics: testing the sensitivity of means and variances in simple randomized selection experiments. Zoomorphology 134 (2): 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00435-015-0253-z
Cardini A., O’Higgins P. & Rohlf F.J. 2019. Seeing distinct groups where there are none: Spurious patterns from between-group PCA. Evolutionary Biology 46 (4): 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-019-09487-5
Cardini A., Elton S., Kovarovic K., Strand Viđarsdóttir U. & Polly P.D. 2021. On the misidentification of species: sampling error in primates and other mammals using geometric morphometrics in more than 4000 individuals. Evolutionary Biology 48 (2): 190–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-021-09531-3
Cardini A., de Jong Y.A. & Butynski T.M. 2022. Can morphotaxa be assessed with photographs? Estimating the accuracy of two-dimensional cranial geometric morphometrics for the study of threatened populations of African monkeys. The Anatomical Record 305 (6): 1402–1434. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24787
Castiglione S., Serio C., Tamagnini D., Melchionna M., Mondanaro A., Febbraro M.D., Profico A., Piras P., Barattolo F. & Raia P. 2019. A new, fast method to search for morphological convergence with shape data. PLOS ONE 14 (12): e0226949. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226949
Caumul R. & Polly P.D. 2005. Phylogenetic and environmental components of morphological variation: skull, mandible, and molar shape in marmots (Marmota, Rodentia). Evolution 59 (11): 2460–2472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb00955.x
Claes M., Mens T. & Grosjean P. 2014. On the maintainability of CRAN packages. In: 2014 Software Evolution Week - IEEE Conference on Software Maintenance, Reengineering, and Reverse Engineering (CSMR-WCRE): 308–312. 2014 Software Evolution Week - IEEE Conference on Software Maintenance, Reengineering, and Reverse Engineering (CSMR-WCRE).
Claude J. 2008. Morphometrics with R. Springer Verlag, New York (US).
Corti M. & Rohlf F.J. 2001. Chromosomal speciation and phenotypic evolution in the house mouse. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 73 (1): 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2001.tb01349.x
Damuth J. 1993. Cope’s rule, the island rule and the scaling of mammalian population density. Nature 365 (6448): 748–750. https://doi.org/10.1038/365748a0
Dayrat B. 2005. Towards integrative taxonomy. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 85 (3): 407–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00503.x
de Groot C., Perdigao A.L. & Deurenberg P. 1996. Longitudinal changes in anthropometric characteristics of elderly Europeans. SENECA Investigators. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50 Suppl 2: S9–15.
de Moura Bubadué J., Cáceres N., dos Santos Carvalho R. & Meloro C. 2016. Ecogeographical variation in skull shape of South-American canids: Abiotic or biotic processes? Evolutionary Biology 43 (2): 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-015-9362-3
de Queiroz K. & Good D.A. 1997. Phenetic clustering in biology: A critique. The Quarterly Review of Biology 72 (1): 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1086/419656
Djurakic M.R. & Milankov V.R. 2020. The utility of plastron shape for uncovering cryptic diversity in Hermann’s tortoise. Journal of Zoology 310 (2): 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12736
Drake A.G. & Klingenberg C.P. 2010. Large-scale diversification of skull shape in domestic dogs: Disparity and modularity. The American Naturalist 175 (3): 289–301.
Dryden I.L. & Mardia K.V. 1998. Statistical Shape Analysis. John Wiley & Sons New York.
Eglen S.J. 2009. A quick guide to teaching R programming to computational biology students. PLoS Computational Biology 5 (8): e1000482. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000482
Elton S., Dunn J. & Cardini A. 2010. Size variation facilitates population divergence but does not explain it all: an example study from a widespread African monkey. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 101 (4): 823–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01504.x
Emerson S. & Bramble D. 1993. Scaling, allometry and skull design. In: Hanken J. & Hall B.K. (eds) The Skull: Volume 3, Functional and Evolutionary Mechanisms: 384-421.
Evin A., Cucchi T., Cardini A., Strand Vidarsdottir U., Larson G. & Dobney K. 2013. The long and winding road: identifying pig domestication through molar size and shape. Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (1): 735–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.08.005
Felsenstein J. 2004. Inferring Phylogenies. Sinauer Associates, Incorporated, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Fontaneto D., Panisi M., Mandrioli M., Montardi D., Pavesi M. & Cardini A. 2017. Estimating the magnitude of morphoscapes: how to measure the morphological component of biodiversity in relation to habitats using geometric morphometrics. The Science of Nature 104 (7): 55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-017-1475-3
Foote M. 1997. The evolution of morphological diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 129–152.
Foster J.B. 1964. Evolution of mammals on islands. Nature 202 (4929): 234–235. https://doi.org/10.1038/202234a0
Fox J. 2005. The R commander: A basic-statistics graphical user interface to R. Journal of Statistical Software 14: 1–42. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v014.i09
Fox J. & Weisberg S. 2019. An R Companion to Applied Regression. Third. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Frost S.R., Marcus L.F., Bookstein F.L., Reddy D.P. & Delson E. 2003. Cranial allometry, phylogeography, and systematics of large-bodied papionins (primates: Cercopithecinae) inferred from geometric morphometric analysis of landmark data. The Anatomical Record Part A: Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology 275A (2): 1048–1072. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.a.10112
Gastwirth J.L., Gel Y.R. & Miao W. 2009. The impact of Levene’s test of equality of variances on statistical theory and practice. Statistical Science 24 (3): 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS301
Gayon J. 2000. History of the concept of allometry. American Zoologist 40 (5): 748–758. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/40.5.748
Gidaszewski N.A., Baylac M. & Klingenberg C.P. 2009. Evolution of sexual dimorphism of wing shape in the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup. BMC Evolutionary Biology 9 (1): 110. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-9-110
Glorfeld L.W. 1995. An improvement on Horn’s parallel analysis methodology for selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educational and Psychological Measurement 55 (3): 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055003002
González S., Álvarez-Valin F. & Maldonado J.E. 2002. Morphometric differentiation of endangered pampas deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus), with description of new subspecies from Uruguay. Journal of Mammalogy 83 (4): 1127–1140. https://doi.org/fw65d4
Goossens B., Graziani L., Waits L.P., Farand E., Magnolon S., Coulon J., Bel M.-C., Taberlet P. & Allainé D. 1998. Extra-pair paternity in the monogamous Alpine marmot revealed by nuclear DNA microsatellite analysis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 43 (4): 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050492
Grossnickle D.M. 2020. Feeding ecology has a stronger evolutionary influence on functional morphology than on body mass in mammals. Evolution 74 (3): 610–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.13929
Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J. & Anderson R.E. 2013. Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson Education Limited.
Hallgrímsson B., Katz D.C., Aponte J.D., Larson J.R., Devine J., Gonzalez P.N., Young N.M., Roseman C.C. & Marcucio R.S. 2019. Integration and the developmental genetics of allometry. Integrative and Comparative Biology 59 (5): 1369–1381. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icz105
Harvati K., Frost S.R. & McNulty K.P. 2004. Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: Implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 (5): 1147–1152. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0308085100
Hayssen V. 2008. Patterns of body and tail length and body mass in Sciuridae. Journal of Mammalogy 89 (4): 852–873. https://doi.org/10.1644/07-MAMM-A-217.1
Herler J., Kerschbaumer M., Mitteroecker P., Postl L. & Sturmbauer C. 2010. Sexual dimorphism and population divergence in the Lake Tanganyika cichlid fish genus Tropheus. Frontiers in Zoology 7 (1): 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-7-4
Herler J., Lipej L. & Makovec T. 2007. A simple technique for digital imaging of live and preserved small fish specimens. Cybium 31 (1): 39–44.
Hoffmann R.S., Koeppl J.W. & Nadler C.F. 1979. The relationship of the amphiberigian marmots (Mammalia, Sciuridae). Occasional Papersof the Museum of Natural History of the University of Kansas 83: 1–56.
Howell D.C. 2013. Statistical Methods for Psychology (Eight Edition). Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Wadsworth (US).
Ivanović A., Sotiropoulos K., Džukić G. & Kalezić M.L. 2009. Skull size and shape variation versus molecular phylogeny: a case study of alpine newts (Mesotriton alpestris, Salamandridae) from the Balkan Peninsula. Zoomorphology 128 (2): 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00435-009-0085-9
Jackson C., Baker A., Doyle D., Franke M., Jackson V., Lloyd N., McAdie M., Stephens T. & Traylor-Holzer K. 2015. Vancouver Island Marmot Population and Habitat Viability Assessment Workshop Final Report. IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN: 70.
Jarman P.J. 1974. The social organisation of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48 (1–4): 215–267. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853974X00345
Kerhoulas N.J., Gunderson A.M. & Olson L.E. 2015. Complex history of isolation and gene flow in hoary, Olympic, and endangered Vancouver Island marmots. Journal of Mammalogy 96 (4): 810–826. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyv089
Klenovšek T. & Kryštufek B. 2013. An ontogenetic perspective on the study of sexual dimorphism, phylogenetic variability, and allometry of the skull of European ground squirrel, Spermophilus citellus (Linnaeus, 1766). Zoomorphology 132 (4): 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00435-013-0196-1
Klingenberg C.P. 1996. Multivariate allometry. In: Marcus L.F., Corti M., Loy A., Naylor G.J.P. & Slice D.E. (eds) Advances in Morphometrics: 23–49. Plenum Press, New York.
Klingenberg C.P. 1998. Heterochrony and allometry: the analysis of evolutionary change in ontogeny. Biological Reviews 73 (1): 79–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1997.tb00026.x
Klingenberg C.P. 2011. MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Molecular Ecology Resources 11 (2): 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02924.x
Klingenberg C.P. 2013. Visualizations in geometric morphometrics: how to read and how to make graphs showing shape changes. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 24 (1): 15–24. https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-24.1-7691
Klingenberg C.P. 2016. Size, shape, and form: concepts of allometry in geometric morphometrics. Development Genes and Evolution 226 (3): 113–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00427-016-0539-2
Klingenberg C.P. 2022. Methods for studying allometry in geometric morphometrics: a comparison of performance. Evolutionary Ecology 36 (4): 439–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-022-10170-z
Klingenberg C.P. & Monteiro L.R. 2005. Distances and directions in multidimensional shape spaces: Implications for morphometric applications. Systematic Biology 54 (4): 678–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150590947258
Klingenberg C.P., Barluenga M. & Meyer A. 2002. Shape analysis of symmetric structures: Quantifying variation among individuals and asymmetry. Evolution 56 (10): 1909–1920. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00117.x
Kovarovic K., Aiello L.C., Cardini A. & Lockwood C.A. 2011. Discriminant function analyses in archaeology: are classification rates too good to be true? Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (11): 3006–3018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.06.028
Kruckenhauser L., Bryant A.A., Griffin S.C., Amish S.J. & Pinsker W. 2009. Patterns of within and between-colony microsatellite variation in the endangered Vancouver Island marmot (Marmota vancouverensis): implications for conservation. Conservation Genetics 10 (6): 1759–1772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-008-9779-7
Krzywinski M. & Altman N. 2014. Comparing samples—part II. Nature Methods 11 (4): 355–356. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2900
Kyle C.J., Karels T.J., Davis C.S., Mebs S., Clark B., Strobeck C. & Hik D.S. 2007. Social structure and facultative mating systems of hoary marmots (Marmota caligata). Molecular Ecology 16 (6): 1245–1255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03211.x
Lahr M.M. 2021. The complex landscape of recent human evolution. Science 372 (6549): 1395–1396. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj3077
Larson J.R., Manyama M.F., Cole J.B., Gonzalez P.N., Percival C.J., Liberton D.K., Ferrara T.M., Riccardi S.L., Kimwaga E.A., Mathayo J., Spitzmacher J.A., Rolian C., Jamniczky H.A., Weinberg S.M., Roseman C.C., Klein O., Lukowiak K., Spritz R.A. & Hallgrimsson B. 2018. Body size and allometric variation in facial shape in children. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 165 (2): 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23356
Lele S. 1991. Some comments on coordinate-free and scale-invariant methods in morphometrics. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 85 (4): 407–417. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330850405
Lindenfors P., Gittleman J. L., Jones K. E. (2007). Sexual size dimorphism in mammals. In: Fairbairn D.J., Blanckenhorn W.U. & Szekely T. (eds) Sex, Size, and Gender Roles: Evolutionary Studies of Sexual Size Dimorphism: 16–26. Oxford University Press.
Loison A., Gaillard J.-M., Pélabon C. & Yoccoz N.G. 1999. What factors shape sexual size dimorphism in ungulates? Evolutionary Ecology Research 1 (5): 611–633.
Lomolino M.V., van der Geer A.A., Lyras G.A., Palombo M.R., Sax D.F. & Rozzi R. 2013. Of mice and mammoths: generality and antiquity of the island rule. Journal of Biogeography 40 (8): 1427–1439. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12096
Machado F.D.A. & Hingst-Zaher E. 2009. Investigating South American biogeographic history using patterns of skull shape variation on Cerdocyon thous (Mammalia: Canidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 98 (1): 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01274.x
Maher C.R. & Duron M. 2010. Mating system and paternity in woodchucks (Marmota monax). Journal of Mammalogy 91 (3): 628–635. https://doi.org/10.1644/09-MAMM-A-324.1
Marcus L.F., Bello E. & García-Valdecasas A. 1993. Contributions to Morphometrics. Editorial CSIC, CSIC Press, Madrid.
Marcus L.F., Hingst-Zaher E. & Zaher H. 2000. Application of landmark morphometrics to skulls representing the orders of living mammals. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 11 (1): 24–47. https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-11.1-4135
Marroig G. & Cheverud J.M. 2005. Size as a line of least evolutionary resistance: diet and adaptive morphological radiation in new world monkeys. Evolution 59 (5): 1128–1142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01049.x
Matějů J. & Kratochvíl L. 2013. Sexual size dimorphism in ground squirrels (Rodentia: Sciuridae: Marmotini) does not correlate with body size and sociality. Frontiers in Zoology 10 (1): 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-10-27
Maurer B.A., Brown J.H. & Rusler R.D. 1992. The micro and macro in body size evolution. Evolution 46 (4): 939–953. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1992.tb00611.x
Meloro C., Guidarelli G., Colangelo P., Ciucci P. & Loy A. 2017. Mandible size and shape in extant Ursidae (Carnivora, Mammalia): A tool for taxonomy and ecogeography. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 55 (4): 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzs.12171
Michaux J., Chevret P. & Renaud S. 2007. Morphological diversity of Old World rats and mice (Rodentia, Muridae) mandible in relation with phylogeny and adaptation. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 45 (3): 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2006.00390.x
Milella M., Franklin D., Belcastro M.G. & Cardini A. 2021. Sexual differences in human cranial morphology: Is one sex more variable or one region more dimorphic? The Anatomical Record 304 (12): 2789–2810. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24626
Millien V. 2006. Morphological evolution is accelerated among island mammals. PLoS Biology 4 (10): e321. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040321
Millien V. & Damuth J. 2004. Climate change and size evolution in an island rodent species: New perspectives on the island rule. Evolution 58 (6): 1353–1360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01713.x
Mills K.K., Everson K.M., Hildebrandt K.B.P., Brandler O.V., Steppan S.J. & Olson L.E. 2023. Ultraconserved elements improve resolution of marmot phylogeny and offer insights into biogeographic history. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 184: 107785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2023.107785
Mitteroecker P., Gunz P., Windhager S. & Schaefer K. 2013. A brief review of shape, form, and allometry in geometric morphometrics, with applications to human facial morphology. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 24 (1): 59–66. https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6369
Moore D.S. & McCabe G.P. 2005. Introduction to the Practice of Statistics. WH Freeman & Co., New York.
Moyers R.E. & Bookstein F.L. 1979. The inappropriateness of conventional cephalometrics. American Journal of Orthodontics 75 (6): 599–617.
Nagorsen D.W. & Cardini A. 2009. Tempo and mode of evolutionary divergence in modern and Holocene Vancouver Island marmots (Marmota vancouverensis) (Mammalia, Rodentia). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 47 (3): 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2008.00503.x
Neff N.A. & Marcus L.F. 1980. A Survey of Multivariate Methods for Systematics. American Museum of Natural History, New York.
O’Higgins P. 1997. Methodological issues in the description of forms. In: Lestrel P. (ed.) Fourier Descriptors and their Applications in Biology: 74–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529870.005
O’Higgins P. 2000. The study of morphological variation in the hominid fossil record: biology, landmarks and geometry. Journal of Anatomy 197 (1): 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-7580.2000.19710103.x
O’Keefe F.R., Meachen J.A. & Polly P.D. 2022. On information rank deficiency in phenotypic covariance matrices. Systematic Biology 71 (4): 810–822. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syab088
Oksanen J., Simpson G.L., Blanchet F.G., Kindt R., Legendre P., Minchin P.R., O’Hara R.B., Solymos P., Stevens M.H.H., Szoecs E., Wagner H., Barbour M., Bedward M., Bolker B., Borcard D., Carvalho G., Chirico M., De Caceres M., Durand S., Antoniazi Evangelista H.B., Fitzjohn R., Friendly M., Furneaux B., Hannigan G., Hill M.O., Lahti L., McGlinn D., Ouellette M.-H., Ribeiro Cunha E., Smith T., Stier A., Ter Braak C.J.F. & Weedon J. 2022. vegan: Community Ecology Package. Available from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html [accessed 9 Apr. 2024].
Olsen A.M. & Westneat M.W. 2015. StereoMorph: an R package for the collection of 3D landmarks and curves using a stereo camera set-up. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 6 (3): 351–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12326
Oxnard C. & O’Higgins P. 2009. Biology clearly needs morphometrics. Does morphometrics need biology? Biological Theory 4 (1): 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1162/biot.2009.4.1.84
Pearson A., Groves C. & Cardini A. 2015. The ‘temporal effect’ in hominids: Reinvestigating the nature of support for a chimp-human clade in bone morphology. Journal of Human Evolution 88: 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.06.012
Pérez-Barbería F.J., Gordon I.J. & Pagel M. 2002. The origins of sexual dimorphism in body size in ungulates. Evolution 56 (6): 1276–1285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb01438.x
Perry J.S. 1954. Some observations on growth and tusk weight in male and female African elephants. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 124 (1): 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1954.tb01481.x
Polly P.D., Cardini A., Davis E.B. & Steppan S.J. 2015. Marmot evolution and global change in the past 10 million years. In: Hautier L. & Cox P.G. (eds) Evolution of the Rodents: Advances in Phylogeny, Functional Morphology and Development: 246–276. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
R Core Team 2023. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Ralls K. 1977. Sexual dimorphism in mammals: Avian models and unanswered questions. The American Naturalist 111 (981): 917–938.
Rankin A.M., Schwartz R.S., Floyd C.H. & Galbreath K.E. 2019. Contrasting consequences of historical climate change for marmots at northern and temperate latitudes. Journal of Mammalogy 100 (2): 328–344. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyz025
Renaud S., Chevret P. & Michaux J. 2007. Morphological vs. molecular evolution: ecology and phylogeny both shape the mandible of rodents. Zoologica Scripta 36 (5): 525–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-6409.2007.00297.x
Richtsmeier J.T., Deleon V.B. & Lele S. 2002. The promise of geometric morphometrics. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 119 (S35): 63–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10174
Rohlf F.J. 1970. Adaptive hierarchical clustering schemes. Systematic Zoology 19 (1): 58–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/2412027
Rohlf F.J. 1993. Relative warp analysis and an example of its application to mosquito wings. In: Marcus L.F., Bello E. & Garcia-Valdecasas A. (eds) Contributions to Morphometrics: 131–159. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid 8.
Rohlf F.J. 1998. On applications of geometric morphometrics to studies of ontogeny and phylogeny. Systematic Biology 47 (1): 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/106351598261094
Rohlf F.J. 2015. The tps series of software. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 26 (1): 9–12. https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-26.1-11264
Rohlf F.J. 2021. Why clusters and other patterns can seem to be found in analyses of high-dimensional data. Evolutionary Biology 48 (1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-020-09518-6
Rohlf F.J. & Corti M. 2000. Use of two-block partial least-squares to study covariation in shape. Systematic Biology 49 (4): 740–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/106351500750049806
Rohlf F.J. & Marcus L.F. 1993. A revolution morphometrics. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8 (4): 129–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(93)90024-J
Rohlf F.J. & Slice D. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology 39 (1): 40–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/2992207
Rohlf F.J., Loy A. & Corti M. 1996. Morphometric analysis of Old World Talpidae (Mammalia, Insectivora) using partial-warp scores. Systematic Biology 45 (3): 344–362. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/45.3.344
Rolfe S., Pieper S., Porto A., Diamond K., Winchester J., Shan S., Kirveslahti H., Boyer D., Summers A. & Maga A.M. 2021. SlicerMorph: An open and extensible platform to retrieve, visualize and analyse 3D morphology. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 12 (10): 1816–1825. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13669
Ruckstuhl K.E. & Neuhaus P. 2002. Sexual segregation in ungulates: a comparative test of three hypotheses. Biological Reviews 77 (1): 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793101005814
Salvidio S., Crovetto F. & Adams D.C. 2015. Potential rapid evolution of foot morphology in Italian plethodontid salamanders (Hydromantes strinatii) following the colonization of an artificial cave. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 28 (7): 1403–1409.
Schlager S. 2017. Morpho and Rvcg – Shape Analysis in R. In: Zheng G., Li S. & Szekely G. (eds) Statistical Shape and Deformation Analysis: 217–256. Academic Press.
Schutz H., Polly P.D., Krieger J.D. & Guralnick R.P. 2009. Differential sexual dimorphism: size and shape in the cranium and pelvis of grey foxes (Urocyon). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 96 (2): 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.01132.x
Sheets H.D. & Zelditch M.L. 2013. Studying ontogenetic trajectories using resampling methods and landmark data. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 24 (1): 67–73. https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6332
Slice D.E. 1999. Morpheus et al. Ecology and Evolution. State University of New York, Stony Brook. Available from https://sbmorphometrics.org/morphmet/morpheus_vienna_2006.zip [accessed 23 Apr. 2024].
Smith G.R. 1990. Homology in morphometrics and phylogenetics. In: Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop: 325–338. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor.
Smith O.A.M., Duncan C., Pears N., Profico A. & O’Higgins P. 2021. Growing old: Do women and men age differently? The Anatomical Record 304 (8): 1800–1810. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24584
Sneath P.H.A. & Sokal R.R. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification. Freeman & Co., San Francisco.
Sokal R.R. & Rohlf F.J. 2009. Introduction to Biostatistics Second Edition. Dover Publications Inc., N.Y.
Solow A.R. 1990. A randomization test for misclassification probability in discriminant analysis. Ecology 71 (6): 2379–2382. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938650
Steppan S.J., Akhverdyan M.R., Lyapunova E.A., Fraser D.G., Vorontsov N.N., Hoffmann R.S. & Braun M.J. 1999. Molecular phylogeny of the marmots (Rodentia: Sciuridae): Tests of evolutionary and biogeographic hypotheses. Systematic Biology 48 (4): 715–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/106351599259988
Steppan S.J., Kenagy G.J., Zawadzki C., Robles R., Lyapunova E.A. & Hoffmann R.S. 2011. Molecular data resolve placement of the Olympic marmot and estimate dates of trans-Beringian interchange. Journal of Mammalogy 92 (5): 1028–1037. https://doi.org/10.1644/10-MAMM-A-272.1
Tafani M., Cohas A., Bonenfant C., Gaillard J.-M., Lardy S. & Allainé D. 2013. Sex-specific senescence in body mass of a monogamous and monomorphic mammal: the case of Alpine marmots. Oecologia 172 (2): 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2499-1
Thioulouse J., Renaud S., Dufour A.-B. & Dray S. 2021. Overcoming the spurious groups problem in between-group PCA. Evolutionary Biology 48 (4): 458–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-021-09550-0
Varón-González C., Whelan S. & Klingenberg C.P. 2020. Estimating phylogenies from shape and similar multidimensional data: Why it is not reliable. Systematic Biology 69 (5): 863–883. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syaa003
Velhagen W.A. & Roth V.L. 1997. Scaling of the mandible in squirrels. Journal of Morphology 232 (2): 107–132. https://doi.org/c6p5kd
Verhoeven K.J.F., Simonsen K.L. & McIntyre L.M. 2005. Implementing false discovery rate control: increasing your power. Oikos 108 (3): 643–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13727.x
Viscosi V. & Cardini A. 2011. Leaf morphology, taxonomy and geometric morphometrics: A simplified protocol for beginners. PLoS ONE 6 (10): e25630. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025630
Voje K.L., Hansen T.F., Egset C.K., Bolstad G.H. & Pélabon C. 2014. Allometric constraints and the evolution of allometry. Evolution 68 (3): 866–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12312
Warne R. 2019. A primer on multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for behavioral scientists. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 19 (1): e17. https://doi.org/10.7275/sm63-7h70
Watanabe A. 2018. How many landmarks are enough to characterize shape and size variation? PLoS ONE 13 (6): e0198341. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198341
Waterman J., Wolff J. & Sherman P. 2007. Male mating strategies in rodents. In: Wolff J.O. & Sherman P.W. (eds) Rodent Societies: An Ecological and Evolutionary Perspective: 27–41. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Willig M.R., Owen R.D. & Colbert R.L. 1986. Assessment of morphometric variation in natural populations: The inadequacy of the univariate approach. Systematic Biology 35 (2): 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/35.2.195
Willmore K.E., Zelditch M.L., Young N., Ah-Seng A., Lozanoff S. & Hallgrímsson B. 2006. Canalization and developmental stability in the Brachyrrhine mouse. Journal of Anatomy 208 (3): 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2006.00527.x
Wilson D.E. & Reeder D.M. 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Zachos F.E. 2016. Species Concepts in Biology: Historical Development, Theoretical Foundations and Practical Relevance. Springer International Publishing.
Zelditch M., Swiderski D., Sheets D. & Fink W. 2004. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A primer. Elsevier Academic Press. Waltham, MA.
Zelditch M.L., Swiderski D.L. & Sheets H.D. 2012. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer. Elsevier Academic Press.
Zhang Z.Q. 2013. Animal biodiversity: An outline of higher-level classification and survey of taxonomic richness (Addenda 2013). Zootaxa 3703: 5–11. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3703.1.3
Copyright (c) 2024 Andrea Cardini
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons Copyright Notices
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are NOT ALLOWED TO post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to taxonomic issues.
