Morphometrics and cladistics: Measuring phylogeny in the sea urchin Echinocardium

Evolution

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 348-359

  David, Bruno ^a   Laurin, Bernard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE BOURGOGNE   (France)

Author keywords

Cladistics; Echinocardium; Morphometrics; Ontogeny; Phylogeny; Sea urchins

Indexed keywords

ECHINOCARDIUM SPP.;

EID: 0030064728     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb04498.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Alberch, P., S. J. Gould, G. F. Oster, and D. B. Wake. 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology 5:296-317.
2. Baker, A. N. 1969. Two new heart-urchins, including a new species of Cyclaster, from New Zealand waters (Echinoidea: Spatangoida). Records Dominion Museum 6:265-273.
3. Benson, R. H. 1976. The evolution of the ostracode Costa analysed by "Theta Rho difference." Abhandlungen und Verhandlungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg 18/19 (Supp.): 127-139.
4. _. 1983. Biomechanical stability and sudden change in the evolution of the deep-sea ostracode Poseidonamicus. Paleobiology 9:398-413.
5. Benson, R. H., R. E. Chapman, and A. F. Siegel. 1982. On the measurement of morphology and its change. Paleobiology 8: 328-339.
6. Bookstein, F. L. 1981. Looking at mandibular growth: some new geometrical methods. Pp. 74-79 in D. Carlson, ed. Craniofacial biology. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
7. _. 1984. Tensor biometrics for changes in cranial shape. Annals of Human Biology 11:413-437.
8. _. 1990. Higher-order features of shape change for landmark data. Pp. 237-250 in F. J. Rohlf and F. L. Bookstein, eds. Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. University of Michigan Museums, Ann Arbor.
9. _. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data. Geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, New York.
10. Bookstein, F. L, B. Chernoff, R. L. Elder, J. M. Humphries, G. R. Smith, and R. E. Strauss. 1985. Morphometrics in evolutionary biology. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Special Publication 15, Philadelphia, PA.
11. Chapman, R. E., and M. K. Brett-Surman. 1990. Morphometric observations on hadrosaurid ornithopods. Pp. 163-177 in K. Carpenter, and Currie P. J., eds. Dinosaur Systematics. Approaches and Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
12. Clark, H. L. 1917. Hawaiian and other pacific echini. The Echinoneidae, Nucleolitidae, Urechinidae, Echinocorythidae, Calymnidae, Pourtalesiidae, Palaeostomatidae, Aeropsidae, Palaeopneustidae, Hemiasteridae and Spatangidae. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College 46:85-283.
13. Cooke, C. W. 1959. Cenozoic echinoids of eastern United States. Geological Survey Professional Paper 321:1-106.
14. Cotteau, G. 1885. Echinides nouveaux ou peu connus. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France Sér. 2, 4:53-66.
15. Cotteau, G., A. Péron, and V. Gauthier. 1885. Echinides fossiles de l'Algérie. Description des espèces déjà recueillies dans ce pays et considérations sur leur position stratigraphique. Etage Eocène. Masson, Paris.
16. David, B., and B. Laurin. 1991. L'ontogenèse complexe du spatangue Echinocardium cordatum: Un test des standards des trajectoires hétérochroniques. Géobios 24:569-583.
17. _. 1992. Procrustes: An interactive program for shape analyses using landmarks, version 2.0. Paléontologie analytique, Université de Bourgogne, Dijon, France.
18. David, B., and R. Mooi. 1990. An echinoid that "gives birth": Morphology and systematics of a new antarctic species, Urechinus mortenseni (Echinodermata, Holasteroida). Zoomorphology 110:75-89.
19. Din, W., B. David, B. Laurin, J. Chaline, J. Harada, and F. Catzeflis. 1993. DNA/DNA hybridization study of the Clethrionomyini (Arvicolidae, Rodentia): comparison with morphological data. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Parisk, Série 2, 316:709-716.
20. Dommergues, J. L., and C. Meister. 1989. Trajectoires ontogénétiques et hétérochronies complexes chez des ammonites (Harpoceratinae) du Jurassique inférieur (Domérien), Pp. 157-166 in B. David, J. L. Dommergues, J. Chaline, and B. Laurin, eds. Ontogenèse et Evolution. Mémoire spécial 12. Géobios, Lyon.
21. Eldredge, N. 1979. Cladism and common sense. Pp. 165-198 in J. Cracraft and N. Eldredge, eds. Phylogenetic analysis and paleontology. Columbia University Press, New York.
22. Farris, J. S. 1990. The retention index and homoplasy excess. Systematic Zoology 38:406-407.
23. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791.
24. _. 1990. PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference package), Version 3.3. University of Washington, Seattle.
25. Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and phylogeny. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
26. Gray, J. E. 1851. Descriptions of some new genera and species of Spatangidae in the British Museum. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 2:130-134.
27. Higgins, R. C. 1974. Specific status of Echinocardium cordatum, E. australe, and E. zealandicum (Echinoidea: Spatangoida) around New Zealand, with comments on the relation of morphological variation to environment. Journal of Zoology (London) 173:451-475.
28. Janvier, P. 1984. Cladistics: Theory, purpose, and evolutionary implications. Pp. 39-75 in J. W. Pollard, ed. Evolutionary theory: Paths into the future. Wiley, New York.
29. Kier, P. M. 1972. Upper Miocene Echinoids from the Yorktown formation of Virginia and their environmental significance. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 13. Washington, DC.
30. _. 1974. Evolutionary trends and their functional significance in the Post-Paleozoic Echinoids. Journal of Paleontology 48 (Supp. 3).
31. _. 1983. Upper Cenozoic echinoids from the Lee Creek Mine. Pp. 499-507 in C. E. Ray, ed. Geology and paleontology of the Lee Creek Mine, North Carolina. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 53. Washington, DC.
32. Kotchetoff, B., Y. Kotchetoff, and O. V. Ferreira. 1975. Contribution à la connaissance des gisements fossilifères miocènes au Nord du Cap d'Espichel. Comunicaçoes Sericos geologicos Portugal 59:59-106.
33. Lambert, J., and P. Thiery. 1909-1925. Essai de nomenclature raisonnée des Echinides. Ferrière L., Chaumont, France.
34. Landman, N. H. 1988. Heterochronies in Ammonites. Pp. 159-182 in M. L. McKinney, ed. Heterochrony in Evolution, Plenum Press, New York.
35. Laurin, B., and B. David. 1990a. Analysis of the shape changes among Brachiopods by using landmarks: Application to the Jurassic Septaliphoria lineage, Pp. 81-87 in D. I. MacKinnon, D. E. Lee, and J. D. Campbell, eds. Brachiopods through time. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
36. _. 1990b. Mapping morphological changes in the spatangoid Echinocardium; applications to ontogeny and interspecific comparisons. Pp. 131-136 in C. DeRidder, P. Dubois, M. C. Lahaye, and M. Jangoux, eds. Echinoderm research. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
37. Maddison, W. P., M. J. Donoghue, and D. R. Maddison. 1984. Outgroup analysis and parcimony. Systematic Zoology 33:83-103.
38. McNamara, K. J. 1982. Heterochrony and phylogenetic trends. Paleobiology 8:130-142.
39. Moore, R. C. 1966. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Part U: Echinodermata 3. Geological Society of America and Univiversity of Kansas Press, Lawrence.
40. Mortensen, T. 1951. A monograph of the Echinoidea, Spatangoida 2. Reitzel c.a., Copenhagen, Denmark.
41. Nelson, G., and N. Platnick. 1981. Systematics and biogeography. Cladistics and vicariance. Columbia University Press, New York.
42. Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. Pp. 21-74 in K. A. Joysey, and A. E. Friday, eds. Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction. Academic Press, London.
43. Péquignat, E. 1964. Description d'une espèce nouvelle de grande taille, repérée dans trois localités entre Marseille et Gênes: Echinocardium fenauxi (Péquignat). Bulletin de l'Institut Océanographique de Monaco 62:1-22.
44. Reilly, S. M. 1990. Comparative ontogeny of cranial shape in salamanders using Resistant Fit Theta Rho Analysis. Pp. 311-321 in F. J. Rohlf, and F. L. Bookstein, eds. Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. University of Michigan Museums, Ann Arbor.
45. Rohlf, F. J. 1990. Rotational fit (Procrustes) methods. Pp. 227-236 in F. J. Rohlf and F. L. Bookstein, eds. Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. University of Michigan Museums, Ann Arbor.
46. Rohlf, F. J., and F. L. Bookstein. 1990. Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics worshop. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
47. Siegel, A. F., and R. H. Benson. 1982. A robust comparison of biological shapes. Biometrics 38:341-350.
48. Smith, G. R. 1990. Homology in morphometrics and phylogenetics. Pp. 325-338 in F. J. Rohlf and F. L. Bookstein, eds. Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. University of Michigan Museums, Ann Arbor.
49. Sneath, P. H. A. 1967. Trend-surface analysis of transformation grids. Journal of Zoology (London) 151:65-122.
50. Swofford, D. L. 1993. PAUP (Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony), version 3.1.1. Illinois Natural History Survey, Urbana.
51. Tissot, B. N. 1988. Multivariate analysis. Pp. 35-51 in M. L. McKinney, ed. Heterochrony in evolution, Plenum Press, New York.
52. Zelditch, M. L., F. L. Bookstein, and B. L. Lundrigan. 1992. Ontogeny of integrated skull growth in the cotton rat Sigmodon fulviventer. Evolution 46:1164-1180.