Geometric morphometrics

Annual Review of Anthropology

Volumn 36, Issue , 2007, Pages 261-281

  Slice, Dennis E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Allometry; Asymmetry; HTU; Landmarks; Procrustes analysis; Shape

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; ANTHROPOLOGY; GEOMETRY; MORPHOMETRY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS;

EID: 36048942133     PISSN: 00846570     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120613     Document Type: Review

References (128)

1. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. 2004. Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the "revolution." Ital. J. Zool. 71(1):5-16
2. Albert AM, Le HL, Small CG. 2003. Assessing landmark influence on shape variation. Biometrika 90(3):669-78
3. Auffray J, Debat V, Alibert P. 1999. Shape asymmetry and developmental stability. In On Growth and Form: Spatio-Temporal Pattern Formation In Biology, ed. MAJ Chaplain, GD Singh, JC McLachlan, pp. 309-24. New York: Wiley
4. Bacon AM. 2000. Principal components analysis of distal humeral shape in pliocene to recent African hominids: the contribution of geometric morphometrics. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 111(4):479-87
5. Bastir M, Rosas A. 2005. Hierarchical nature of morphological integration and modularity in the human posterior face. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 128(1):26-34
6. Bastir M, Rosas A. 2006. Correlated variation between the lateral basicranium and the face: a geometric morphometric study in different human groups. Arch. Oral Biol. 51(9):814-24
7. Bastir M, Rosas A, O'Higgins P. 2006. Craniofacial levels and the morphological maturation of the human skull. J. Anat. 209(5):637-54
8. Bastir M, Rosas A, Sheets HD. 2005. The morphological integration of the hominoid skull: a partial least squares and PC analysis with implications for European Middle Pleistocene mandibular variation. See Slice 2005b, pp. 265-84
9. Berge C, Penin X. 2004. Ontogenetic allometry, heterochrony, and interspecific differences in the skull of African apes, using tridimensional Procrustes analysis. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 124(2):124-38
10. Boas F. 1905. The horizontal plane of the skull and the general problem of the comparison of variable forms. Science 21(544):862-63
11. Boas F. 1912. Changes in the bodily form of descendants of immigrants. Am. Anthropol. 14(3):530-62
12. Boas F. 1922. The measurement of differences between variable quantities. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 18(140):425-45
13. Bock MT, Bowman AW. 2006. On the measurement and analysis of asymmetry with applications to facial modelling. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series C - Appl. Stat. 55:77-91
14. Bookstein F. 1986. Size and shape spaces for landmark data in two dimensions. Stat. Sci. 1:181-242
15. Bookstein FL. 1989. Principal warps: thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 11:567-85
16. Bookstein FL. 1991. Morphometric Tools For Landmark Data: Geometry And Biology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. 455 pp.
17. Bookstein FL. 1996. Biometrics, biomathematics and the morphometric synthesis. Bull. Math. Biol. 58(2):313-65
18. Bookstein FL. 1997. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics of group differences in outline shape. Med. Image Anal. 1:225-43
19. Bookstein FL, Chernoff B, Elder RL, Humphries JMJ, Smith GR, Strauss RE. 1985. Morphometrics in Evolutionary Biology, Spec. Publ. 15. Philadelphia: Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 277 pp.
20. Bookstein FL, Gunz P, Mitteroecker P, Prossinger H, Schäfer Y, Seidler H. 2003. Cranial integration in Homo: singular warps analysis of the midsagittal plane in ontogeny and evolution. J. Hum. Evol. 44(2):167-87
21. Bookstein FL, RohlfFJ. 2004. From "mathematical dissection of anatomies" to morphometrics: a twenty-first-century appreciation of Charles Oxnard. In Shaping Primate Evolution, ed. F Anapol, RZ German, NG Jablonski, pp. 378-90. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
22. Bookstein FL, Schäfer Y, Prossinger H, Seidler H, Fieder M, et al. 1999. Comparing frontal cranial profiles in archaic and modern Homo by morphometric analysis. Anat. Rec. (New Anat.) 257(6):217-24
23. Bookstein FL, Slice D, Gunz P, Mitteroecker P. 2004. Anthropology takes control of morphometrics. Coll. Antropol. 28(Suppl. 2):121-32
24. Bookstein FL, Streissguth AP, Sampson PD, Connor PD, Barr HM. 2002. Corpus callosum shape and neuropsychological deficits in adult males with heavy fetal alcohol exposure. NeuroImage 15:233-51
25. Boughner JC, Dean MC. 2004. Does space in the jaw influence the timing of molar crown initiation? A model using baboons (Papio anubis) and great apes (Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus). J. Hum. Evol. 46(3):255-77
26. Bouhallier J, Berge C. 2006. Morphological and functional analysis of the pelvis in catarrhines: consequences for obstetrics. Comptes Rendus Palevol. 5(3-4):551-60
27. Bouhallier J, Berge C, Penin X. 2004. Procustes analysis of the pelvic cavity in australopithecines (al 288, sts 14), humans and chimpanzees: obstetrical consequences. Comptes Rendu. Palevol. 3(4):295-304
28. Bruner E, Manzi G. 2004. Variability in facial size and shape among north and east African human populations. Ital. J. Zool. 71(1):51-56
29. Bruner E, Manzi G, Arsuaga JL. 2003. Encephalization and allometric trajectories in the genus Homo: evidence from the Neandertal and modem lineages. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100(26):15335-40
30. Bruner E, Saracino B, Ricci F, Tafuri M, Passarello P, Manzi G. 2004. Midsagittal cranial shape variation in the genus Homo by geometric morphometrics. Coll. Antropol. 28(1):99-112
31. Bulygina E, Mitteroecker P, Aiello L. 2006. Ontogeny of facial dimorphism and patterns of individual development within one human population. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 131(3):432-43
32. Cobb SN, O'Higgins P. 2004. Hominins do not share a common postnatal facial ontogenetic shape trajectory. J. Exp. Zool. Part B-Mol. Dev. Evol. 302B(3):302-21
33. Cole TM. 1996. Historical note: early anthropological contributions to "geometric morphometrics." Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 101(2):291-96
34. Collard M, O'Higgins PO. 2001. Ontogeny and homoplasy in the papionin monkey face. Evol. Dev. 3(5):322-31
35. Corti M. 1993. Geometric morphometrics: an extension of the revolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8:302-3
36. Couette S, Escarguel G, Montuire S. 2005. Constructing, bootstrapping, and comparing morphometric and phylogenetic trees: a case study of New World monkeys (Platyrrhini, Primates). J. Mammal. 86(4):773-81
37. Dean D, Hans MG, Bookstein FL, Subramanyan K. 2000. Three-dimensional Bolton-Brush growth study landmark data: ontogeny and sexual dimorphism of the Bolton standards cohort. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 37(2):145-56
38. Delson E, Harvati K, Reddy D, Marcus LF, Mowbray K, et al. 2001. The Sambungmacan 3 Homo erectus calvaria: a comparative morphometric and morphological analysis. Anat. Rec. 262(4):380-97
39. Dryden IL, Mardia KV. 1998. Statistical Shape Analysis. New York: Wiley. 376 pp.
40. Fink B, Grammer K, Mitteroecker P, Gunz P, Schäfer K, et al. 2005. Second to fourth digit ratio and face shape. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 272(1576):1995-2001
41. Frost SR, Marcus LF, Bookstein FL, Reddy DP, Delson E. 2003. Cranial allometry, phylogeography, and systematics of large-bodied papionins (Primates: Cercopithecinae) inferred from geometric morphometric analysis of landmark data. Anat. Rec. Part A-Discov. Mol. Cellular Evol. Biol. 275A(2):1048-72
42. Galton F. 1907. Classification of portraits. Nature 761981:617-18
43. Gower JC. 1975. Generalized Procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 40(1):33-51
44. Gower JC, Dijksterhuis GB. 2004. Procrustes Problems. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. 248 pp.
45. Gravlee CC, Bernard HF, Leonard WR. 2003a. Boas's changes in bodily form: the immigrant study, cranial plasticity, and Boas's physical anthropology. Am. Anthropol. 105(2):326-32
46. Gravlee CC, Bernard HR, Leonard WR. 2003b. Heredity, environment, and cranial form: a reanalysis of Boas's immigrant data. Am. Anthropol. 105(1):125-38
47. Gunz P, Mitteroecker P, Bookstein FL. 2005. Semilandmarks in three dimensions. See Slice 2005b, pp. 73-98
48. Guy F, Brunet M, Schmittbuhl M, Viriot L. 2003. New approaches in hominoid taxonomy: morphometrics. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 121(3):198-218
49. Hartman SE. 1989. Stereophotographic analysis of occlusal morphology of extant hominoid molars: phenetics and function. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 80(2):145-66
50. Harvati K 2003. Quantitative analysis of Neanderthal temporal bone morphology using three-dimensional geometric morphometrics. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 120(4):323-38
51. Howells WW. 1973. Cranial variation in man: a study by multivariate analysis of difference amont recent human populations. Peabody Mus. Pap. 67:1-259
52. Howells WW. 1989. Skull shapes and the map: craniometric analysis in the dispersion of modern Homo. Peabody Mus. Pap. 79:1-189
53. Jonke E, Schäfer K, Freudenthaler JW, Prossinger H, Bookstein FL. 2003. A cephalometric comparison of skulls from different time periods: the Bronze Age, the 19th century and the present. Coll. Antropol. 27(2):789-801
54. Kendall DG, Kendall WS. 1980. Alignments in two dimensional random sets of points. Adv. Appl. Prob. 12:380-424
55. Kimmerle EH, Jantz RL. 2005. Secular trends in craniofacial asymmetry studied by geometric morphometry and generalized Procrustes methods.
56. See Slice 2005b, pp. 247-63
57. Kimmerle EH, Ross A, Slice DE. 2007. Sexual dimorphism in America: geometric morphometric analysis of what matters most - size or shape? J. Forensic Sci. In press
58. Klingenberg CP, McIntyre GS. 1998. Geometric morphometrics of developmental instability: analyzing patterns of fluctuating asymmetry with Procrustes methods. Evolution 52(5):1363-75
59. Leigh SR. 2006. Cranial ontogeny of papio baboons (Papio hamadryas). Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 130(1):71-84
60. Lele SR, Richtsmeier JT. 2001. An Invariant Approach To Statistical Analysis Of Shapes. New York: Chapman Hall/CRC. 328 pp.
61. Lockwood CA, Kimbel VM, Lynch JM. 2004. Morphometrics and hominoid phylogeny: support for a chimpanzee-human clade and differentiation among great ape subspecies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101(13):4356-60
62. Lockwood CA, Lynch JM, Kimbel VVH. 2002. Quantifying temporal bone morphology of great apes and humans: an approach using geometric morphometrics. J. Anat. 201(6):447-64
63. Maddison WP. 1991. Squared-change parsimony reconstructions of ancestral states for continuous-valued characters on a phylogenetic tree. Syst. Zool. 40:304-14
64. Manfreda E, Mitteroecker P, Bookstein FL, Schäfer K. 2006. Functional morphology of the first cervical vertebra in humans and nonhuman primates. Anat. Rec. (Part B: New Anat.) 2898:184-94
65. Manly BFJ. 1997. Randomization, Bootstrap And Monte Carlo Methods In Biology. New York: Chapman Hall/CRC. 2nd. ed. 424 pp.
66. Mardia KV, Bookstein FL, Moreton IJ. 2000. Statistical assessment of bilateral symmetry of shapes. Biometrika 87(2):285-300
67. Martinon-Torres M, Bastir M, DeCastro JMB, Gomez A, Sarmiento S, et al. 2006. Hominin lower second premolar morphology: evolutionary inferences through geometric morphometric analysis. J. Hum. Evol. 50(5):523-33
68. McKeown AH, Jantz RL. 2005. Comparison of coordinate and craniometric data for biological distance studies.
69. See Slice 2005b, pp. 215-30
70. McNulty KP. 2004. A geometric morphometiric assessment of hominoid crania: conservative African apes and their liberal implications. Ann. Anat.-Anatomischer Anzeiger 186(5-6):429-33
71. McNulty KP, Frost SR, Strait DS. 2006. Examining affinities of the Taung child by developmental simulation. J. Hum. Evol. 51(3):274-96
72. Mitteroecker P, Gunz P, Bernhard M, Schäfer K, Bookstein FL. 2004b. Comparison of cranial ontogenetic trajectories among great apes and humans. J. Hum. Evol. 46(6):679-97
73. Mitteroecker P, Gunz P, Bookstein FL. 2005. Heterochrony and geometric morphometrics: a comparison of cranial growth in Pan paniscus versus Pan troglodytes. Evol. Dev. 7(3):244-58
74. Mitteroecker P, Gunz P, Weber GW, Bookstein FL. 2004a. Regional dissociated heterochrony in multivariate analysis. Ann. Anat.-Anatomischer Anzeiger 186(5-6):463-70
75. Morant GM. 1939. The use of statistical methods in the investigation of problems of classification in anthropology: Part I. the general nature of the material and form of intraracial distributions of metrical characters. Biomettika 31(1/2):72-98
76. Neves WA, Hubbe M, Okumura MMM, Gonzalez-Jose R, Figuti L, et al. 2005. A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil: implications for the settlement of the New World. J. Hum. Evol.48(4):403-14
77. Niewoehner WA. 2001. Behavioral inferences from the Skhul/Qafzeh early modern human hand remains. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98(6):2979-84
78. Niewoehner WA. 2005. A geometric morphometric analysis of Late Pleistocene human metacarpal I base shape.
79. See Slice 2005b, pp. 285-98
80. Oettle AC, Pretorius E, Steyn M. 2005. Geometric morphometric analysis of mandibular ramus flexure. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 128(3):623-29
81. O'Higgins P. 2000. The study of morphological variation in the hominid fossil record: biology, landmarks and geometry. J. Anat. 197:103-20
82. O'Higgins P, Collard M. 2002. Sexual dimorphism and facial growth in papionin monkeys. J. Zool. 257:255-72
83. O'Higgins P, Jones N. 1998. Facial growth in Cercocebus torquatus: an application of three-dimensional geometric morphometric techniques to the study of morphological variation. J. Anat. 193:251-72
84. Palmer AR, Strobeck C. 1986. Fluctuating asymmetry: measurement, analysis, patterns. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17:391-421
85. Palmer AR, Strobeck C. 2003. Fluctuating asymmetry analyses revisited. In Developmental Instability: Causes And Consequences, ed. M Polak, pp. 279-319. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
86. Penin X, Berge C, Baylac M. 2002. Ontogenetic study of the skull in modern humans and the common chimpanzees: neotenic hypothesis reconsidered with a tridimensional Procrustes analysis. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 118(1):50-62
87. Perez SI, Bernal V, Gonzalez PN. 2006. Differences between sliding semilandmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation. J. Anat. 208(6):769-84
88. Pretorius E, Steyn M, Scholtz Y. 2006. Investigation into the usability of geometric morphometric analysis in assessment of sexual dimorphism. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 129(1):64-70
89. Rao CR, Suryawanshi S. 1996. Statistical analysis of shape of objects based on landmark data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93(22):12132-36
90. Rao CR, Suryawanshi S. 1998. Statistical analysis of shape through triangulation of landmarks: a study of sexual dimorphism in hominids. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95(8):4121-25
91. Rohlf FJ. 1990. Morphometrics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 21:299-316
92. Rohlf FJ. 1999. Shape statistics: Procrustes superimpositions and tangent spaces. J. Classif. 16(2):197-223
93. Rohlf FJ. 2000a. On the use of shape spaces to compare morphometric methods. Hystrix 11(1):8-24
94. Rohlf FJ. 2000b. Statistical power comparisons among alternative morphometric methods. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 111(4):463-78
95. Rohlf FJ. 2001. Comparative methods for the analysis of continuous variables: geometric interpretations. Evolution 55(11):2143-60
96. Rohlf FJ. 2003. Bias and error in estimates of mean shape in geometric morphometrics. J. Hum. Evol. 44(6):665-83
97. Rohlf FJ. 2006. tpsRelw. New York: Dep. Ecol. Evol. Stony Brook Univ.
98. Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL. 2003. Computing the uniform component of shape variation. Syst. Biol. 52(1):66-69
99. Rohlf FJ, Corti M. 2000. Use of two-block partial least-squares to study covariation in shape. Syst. Biol. 49(4):740-53
100. Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8(4):129-32
101. Rohlf FJ, Slice D. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst. Zool. 39(1):40-59
102. Rosas A, Bastir M. 2002. Thin-plate spline analysis of allometry and sexual dimorphism in the human craniofacial complex. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 117(3):236-45
103. Ross AH. 2004. Cranial evidence of precontact multiple population expansions in the Caribbean. Caribbean J. Sci. 40(3):291-98
104. Ross AH, Slice DE, Ubelaker DH, Falsetti AB. 2004. Population affinities of 19th century Cuban crania: implications for identification criteria in South Florida Cuban Am.s. J. Forensic Sci. 49(1):11-16
105. Rozzi FVR, Gonzalez-Jose R, Pucciarelli HM. 2005. Cranial growth in normal and low-protein-fed saimiri. An environmental heterochrony. J. Hum. Evol. 49(4):515-35
106. Schäfer K, Fink B, Mitteroecker P, Neave N, Bookstein FL. 2005. Visualizing facial shape regression upon 2(nd) to 4(th) digit ratio and testosterone. Coll. Antropol. 29(2):415-19
107. Schäfer K, Lauc T, Mitteroecker P, Gunz P, Bookstein FL. 2006. Dental arch asymmetry in an isolated Adriatic community. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 129(1):132-42
108. Schäfer K, Mitteroecker P, Gunz P, Bernhard M, Bookstein FL. 2004. Craniofacial sexual dimorphism patterns and allometry among extant hominids. Ann. Anat.-Anatomischer Anzeiger 186(5-6):471-78
109. Shepstone L, Rogers J, Kirwan J, Silverman B. 1999. The shape of the distal femur: a palaeopathological comparison of eburnated and noneburnated femora. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 58(2):72-78
110. Singleton M. 2002. Patterns of cranial shape variation in the Papionini (Primates: Cercopithecinae). J. Hum. Evol. 42(5):547-78
111. Singleton M. 2005. Functional shape variation in the cercopithecine masticatory complex. See Slice 2005b, pp. 319-48
112. Slice DE. 2001. Landmark coordinates aligned by Procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall's shape space. Syst. Biol. 50(1):141-49
113. Slice DE. 2005a. Modern morphometrics. See Slice 2005b, pp. 1-45
114. Slice DE, ed. 2005b. Modern Morphometrics In Physical Anthropology. New York: Kluwer Acad./Plenum
115. Smith DR, Crespi BJ, Bookstein FL. 1997. Fluctuating asymmetry in the honey bee, Apis mellifera: effects of ploidy and hybridization. J. Evol. Biol. 10(4):551-74
116. Sneath PHA. 1967. Trend surface analysis of transformation grids. J. Zool. London 151:65-122
117. Sparks CS, Jantz RL. 2002. A reassessment of human cranial plasticity: Boas revisited. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99(23):14636-39
118. Steyn M, Pretorius E, Hutten L. 2004. Geometric morphometric analysis of the greater sciatic notch in South Africans. HOMO-J. Comp. Hum. Biol. 54(3):197-206
119. Taylor AB, Slice DE. 2005. A geometric morphometric assessment of the relationship between scapular variation and locomotion in African apes. See Slice 2005b, pp. 299-318
120. Vidarsdóttir US, Cobb S. 2004. Inter- and intraspecific variation in the ontogeny of the hominoid facial skeleton: testing assumptions of ontogenetic variability. Ann. Anat.-Anatomischer Anzeiger 186(5-6):423-28
121. Vidarsdóttir US, O'Higgins P, Stringer C. 2002. A geometric morphometric study of regional differences in the ontogeny of the modern human facial skeleton. J. Anat. 201(3):211-29
122. Weaver TD. 2003. The shape of the Neandertal femur is primarily the consequence of a hyperpolar body form. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100(12):6926-29
123. Wescott DJ, Jantz RL. 2005. Assessing craniofacial secular change in American Blacks and Whites using geometric morphometry. See Slice 2005b, pp. 231-45
124. Wiley D, Amenta N, Alcantara D, Ghosh D, Kil Y, et al. 2005. Evolutionary morphing. Proc. IEEE Vis. 2005. pp. 431-38
125. Willmore KE, Klingenberg CP, Hallgrimsson B. 2005. The relationship between fluctuating asymmetry and environmental variance in rhesus macaque skulls. Evolution 59(4):898-909
126. Young NM. 2006. Function, ontogeny and canalization of shape variance in the primate scapula. J. Anat. 209(5):623-36
127. Zollikofer CPE, Ponce de León MS. 2002. Visualizing patterns of craniofacial shape variation in Homo sapiens. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 269(1493):801-7
128. Zollikofer CPE, Ponce de León MS. 2004. Kinematics of cranial ontogeny: heterotopy, heterochrony, and geometric morphometric analysis of growth models. J. Exp. Zool. Part B - Mol. Dev. Evol. 302B(3):322-40