Geometric morphometrics: Ten years of progress following the ‘revolution’

Italian Journal of Zoology

Volumn 71, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 5-16

  Adams, Dean C ^a   Rohlf, F James ^b   Slice, Dennis E ^c,d  

^a Department of Statistics Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence Iowa State University 2438 Osborn Dr Ames   (United States)

^b STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^d WAKE FOREST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Generalized Procrustes analysis; Geometric morphometrics; Shape analysis

Indexed keywords

GEOMETRY; MORPHOMETRY; ZOOLOGY;

PROCRUSTES;

EID: 1242321708     PISSN: 11250003     EISSN: 17485851     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/11250000409356545     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Adams, D. C., 1999. Methods for shape analysis of landmark data from articulated structures. Evol. Ecol. Res., 1:959–970.
2. Adams, D. C., and Rohlf, F. J., 2000. Ecological character displacement in Plethodom biomechanical differences found from a geometric morphometric study. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 97:4106–4111.
3. Adams, D. C., and Rosenberg, M. S., 1998. Partial warps, phylogeny, and ontogeny:a comment on Fink and Zelditch (1995). Syst. Bid., 47:168–173.
4. Blackith, R., and Reyment, R. A., 1971. Multivariate morphometrics, New York:Academic Press.
5. Bookstein, F. L., 1986. Size and shape spaces for landmark data in two dimensions. Stat. Sci., 1:181–222.
6. Bookstein, F. L., 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data:geometry and biology, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
7. Bookstein, F. L., 1996a. Biometrics, biomathematics and the morphometric synthesis. Bull. Math. Biol., 58:313–365.
8. Bookstein, F. L., 1996b. “ Combining the tools of geometric morphometrics ”. In Advances in morphometrics, Edited by:Marcus, L. F., Corti, M., Loy, A., Naylor, G., and Slice, D., 131–151. New York:Plenum Press.
9. Bookstein, F. L., 1996c. “ A standard formula for the uniform shape component in landmark data ”. In Advances in morphometrics, Edited by:Marcus, L. F., Corti, M., Loy, A., Naylor, G., and Slice, D., 153–168. New York:Plenum Press.
10. Bookstein, F. L., 1997. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks:localizing group differences in outline shape. Med. Image Anal., 1:225–243.
11. Bookstein, F. L., 1998. A hundred years of morphometrics. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung., 44:7–59.
12. Bookstein, F. L., 2000. Creases as local features of deformation grids. Med. Image Anal., 4:93–110.
13. Bookstein, F. L., 2002. “ Creases as morphometric characters ”. In Morphology, shape and phylogeny, Syst. Ass. Spec. Vol. Ser. 64 Edited by:MacLeod, N., and Forey, P. L., 139–174. London:Taylor and Francis.
14. Bookstein, F. L., Chernoff, B., Elder, R. L., Humphries, J. M., Jr., Smith, G. R., and Strauss, R. E., 1985. Morphometrics in evolutionary biology, Special publication 15 Philadelphia:Academy of Natural Sciences Press.
15. Bookstein, F. L., Gunz, P., Mitterocker, P., Prossinger, H., Schafer, K., and Seidler, H., 2003. Cranial integration in Homo:singular warps analysis of the midsagittal plane in ontogeny and evolution. J. Human Evol., 44:167–187.
16. Bookstein, F. L., Schäfer, K., Prossinger, H., Seidler, H., Fieder, M., Stringer, C., Weber, G. W., Arsuaga, J.-L., Slice, D. E., Rohlf, F. J., Recheis, W., Mariam, A. J., and Marcus, L. F., 1999. Comparing frontal cranial profiles in archaic and modern Homo by morphometric analysis. Anat. Rec., 257:217–224.
17. Bookstein, F. L., and Smith, B. R., Inverting development:geometric singularity theory in embryology. Proc. S.P.I.E. Mathematical modeling, estimation, and imaging, Edited by:Wilson, D., Tagare, H., Bookstein, F., Préteauz, F., and Dougherty, E., vol. 4121, pp. 139–174.
18. Bumpus, H. C., 1898. The elimination of the unfit as illustrated by the introduced sparrow Passer domesticus. Biol. Lect. Mar. Biol. Lab. Woods Hole, 11:209–226.
19. Caldecutt, W. C., and Adams, D. C., 1998. Morphometrics of trophic osteology in the threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Copeia, 1998:827–838.
20. Dryden, I. L., and Mardia, K. V., 1998. Statistical shape analysis, New York:John Wiley & Sons.
21. Felsenstein, J., 1988. Phylogenies and quantitative characters. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 192:445–471.
22. Felsenstein, J., 2002. “ Quantitative characters, phylogenies, and morphometrics ”. In Morphology, shape and phylogeny, Syst. Ass. Spec. Vol. Ser. 64 Edited by:MacLeod, N., and Forey, P. L., 27–44. London:Taylor and Francis.
23. Fink, W. L., and Zelditch, M. L., 1995. Phylogenetic analysis of ontogenetic shape transformations:a reassessment of the piranha genus Pygocentrus (Teleostei). Syst. Biol., 44:343–360.
24. Fisher, R. A., 1935. The logic of inductive inference. J. R. Stat. Soc., 98:39–82.
25. Gharaibeh, W. S., Rohlf, F. J., Slice, D. E., and DeLisi, L. E., 2000. A geometric morphometric assessment of change in midline brain structural shape following a first episode of schizophrenia. Biol. Psychiatry, 48:398–405.
26. Goodall, C. R., 1991. Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape. J. R. Stat. Soc. B, 53:285–339.
27. Gower, J. C., 1975. Generalized Procrustes analysis. Psychometrika, 40:33–51.
28. Hotelling, H., 1933. Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. J. Educ. Psychol., 24:417–441. 498–520.
29. Jolicoeur, P., 1963. The generalization of the allometry equation. Biometrics, 19:497–499.
30. Jungers, W. L., Falsetti, A. B., and Wall, C. E., 1995. Shape, relative size, and size-adjustments in morphometrics. Yearb. Phys. Anthropol., 38:137–161.
31. Kendall, D. G., 1977. The diffusion of shape. Adv. Appl. Prob., 9:428–430.
32. Kendall, D. G., 1984. Shape-manifolds, Procrustean metrics and complex projective spaces. Bull. London Math. Soc., 16:81–121.
33. Kendall, D. G., 1985. Exact distributions for shapes of random triangles in convex sets. Adv. Appl. Prob., 17:308–329.
34. Kent, J. T., 1994. The complex Bingham distribution and shape analysis. J. R. Stat. Soc. B, 56:285–299.
35. Kent, J. T., and Mardia, K. V., 2001. Shape, Procrustes tangent projections and bilateral symmetry. Biometrika, 88:469–485.
36. Klingenberg, C. P., and Leamy, L. J., 2001. Quantitative genetics of geometric shape in the mouse mandible. Evolution, 55:2342–2352.
37. Klingenberg, C. P., Leamy, L. J., Routman, E. J., and Cheverud, J. M., 2001. Genetic architecture of mandible shape in mice:effects of quantitative trait loci analyzed by geometric morphometrics. Genetics, 157:785–802.
38. Klingenberg, C. P., and Mclntyre, G. S., 1998. Geometric morphometrics of developmental instability:analyzing patterns of fluctuating asymmetry with Procrustes methods. Evolution, 52:1363–1375.
39. Lande, R., 1979. Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain:body size allometry. Evolution, 33:402–416.
40. Lele, S., 1993. Euclidean distance matrix analysis:estimation of mean form and form differences. Math. Geol., 25:573–602.
41. Lele, S., and Cole, T. M., III. 1995. “ Euclidean distance matrix analysis:a statistical review ”. In Current issues in statistical shape analysis, Edited by:Mardia, K. V., and Gill, C. A., vol. 3, 49–53. Leeds:University of Leeds.
42. Lele, S., and Cole, T. M., III. 1996. A new test for shape differences when variance-covariance matrices are unequal. J. Human Evol., 31:193–212.
43. Lele, S., and Richtsmeier, J. T., 1991. Euclidean distance matrix analysis:a coordinate free approach for comparing biological shapes using landmark data. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., 86:415–427.
44. Lele, S., and Richtsmeier, J. T., 2001. An invariant approach to statistical analysis of shapes, New York:Chapman & Hall.
45. Little, R. J. A., and Rubin, D. B., 1987. Statistical analysis with missing data, New York:John Wiley & Sons.
46. MacLeod, N., 2002. “ Phylogenetic signals in morphometric data ”. In Morphology, shape and phylogeny, Syst. Ass. Spec. Vol. Ser. 64 Edited by:MacLeod, N., and Forey, P. L., 100–138. London:Taylor and Francis.
47. Marcus, L. F., Traditional morphometrics. Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop. Edited by:Rohlf, F. J., and Bookstein, F. L., pp. 77–122. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Spec. Publ. No. 2
48. Marcus, L. F., Corti, M., Loy, A., Naylor, G. J. P., and Slice, D. E., 1996. Advances in morphometrics, New York:Plenum Press.
49. Marcus, L. F., Hingst-Zaher, E., and Zaher, H., 2000. Application of landmark morphometrics to skulls representing the orders of living mammals. Hystrix, 11:27–47.
50. Mardia, K. V., Bookstein, F. L., and Moreton, I. J., 2000. Statistical assessment of bilateral symmetry of shapes. Biometrika, 87:285–300.
51. Monteiro, L. R., Diniz-Filho, J. A. R., dos Reis, S. F., and Araújo, E. D., 2002. Geometric estimates of heritability in biological shape. Evolution, 56:563–572.
52. Palmer, A. R., 1996. Waltzing with asymmetry. BioScience, 46:518–532.
53. Palmer, A. R., and Strobeck, C., 1986. Fluctuating asymmetry:measurement, analysis, patterns. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 17:391–421.
54. Pearson, K., 1895. Note on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., 58:240–242.
55. Pearson, K., 1901. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Phil. Mag. Ser. 6, 2:559–572.
56. Rao, C. R., and Suryawanshi, S., 1996. Statistical analysis of shape of objects based on landmark data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 93:12132–12136.
57. Rao, C. R., and Suryawanshi, S., 1998. Statistical analysis of shape through triangulation of landmarks:a study of sexual dimorphism in hominids. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 95:4121–4125.
58. Reyment, R. A., 1991. Multidimensional paleobiology, New York:Pergamon Press.
59. Rohlf, F. J., 1986. Relationships among eigenshape analysis, Fourier analysis, and analysis of coordinates. Math. Geol., 18:845–854.
60. Rohlf, F. J., Fitting curves to outlines. Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop. Edited by:Rohlf, F. J., and Bookstein, F. L., pp. 167–177. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Spec. Publ. No. 2
61. Rohlf, F. J., 1998. On applications of geometric morphometrics to studies of ontogeny and phylogeny. Syst. Biol., 47:147–158.
62. Rohlf, F. J., 1999. Shape statistics:Procrustes superimpositions and tangent spaces. J. Class., 16:197–223.
63. Rohlf, F. J., 2000a. Statistical power comparisons among alternative morphometric methods. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., 111:463–478.
64. Rohlf, F. J., 2000b. On the use of shape spaces to compare morphometric methods. Hystrix, 11:9–25.
65. Rohlf, F. J., 2002. “ Geometric morphometrics and phylogeny ”. In Morphology, shape and phylogeny, Syst. Ass. Spec. Vol. Ser. 64 Edited by:MacLeod, N., and Forey, P. L., 175–193. London:Taylor and Francis.
66. Rohlf, F. J., 2003. Bias and error in estimates of mean shape in morphometrics. J. Human Evol., 44:665–683.
67. Rohlf, F. J., and Bookstein, F. L., 2003. Computing the uniform component of shape variation. Syst. Biol., 52:66–69.
68. Rohlf, F. J., and Marcus, L. F., 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol. Evol., 8:129–132.
69. Rohlf, F. J., and Slice, D. E., 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst. Zool., 39:40–59.
70. Rüber, L., and Adams, D. C., 2001. Evolutionary convergence of body shape and trophic morphology in cichlids from Lake Tanganyika. J. Evol. Biol., 14:325–332.
71. Slice, D. E., 1996. “ Three-dimensional, generalized resistant fitting and the comparison of least-squares and resistant-fit residuals ”. In Advances in morphometrics, Edited by:Marcus, L. F., Corti, M., Loy, A., Naylor, G., and Slice, D., 179–199. New York:Plenum Press.
72. Slice, D. E., 2001. Landmark coordinates aligned by Procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall's shape space. Syst. Biol., 50:141–149.
73. Small, C. G., 1996. The statistical theory of shape, New York:Springer-Verlag.
74. Sundberg, P., 1989. Shape and size-constrained principal component analysis. Syst. Zool., 38:166–168.
75. Swiderski, D. L., Zelditch, M. L., and Fink, W. L., 2002. “ Comparability, morphometrics and phylogenetic systematics ”. In Morphology, shape and phylogeny, Syst. Ass. Spec. Vol. Ser. 64 Edited by:MacLeod, N., and Forey, P. L., 67–99. London:Taylor and Francis.
76. Thompson, D. W., 1917. On growth and form, London:Cambridge University Press.
77. Walker, J. A., 2000. The ability of geometric morphometric methods to estimate a known covariance matrix. Syst. Biol., 49:686–696.
78. Zelditch, M. L., Swiderski, D. L., and Fink, W. L., 2000. “ Discovery of phylogenetic characters in morphometric data ”. In Phylogenetic analysis of morphological data, Edited by:Weins, J. J., 37–83. Washington:Smithsonian Institution Press.