Testing and quantifying phylogenetic signals and homoplasy in morphometric data

Systematic Biology

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 245-261

  Klingenberg, Christian Peter ^a   Gidaszewski, Nelly A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b MUSÉUM NATIONAL D'HISTOIRE NATURELLE   (France)

Author keywords

Drosophilidae; Geometric morphometrics; Homoplasy; Phylogeny; Procrustes superposition; Shape; Squared change parsimony

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; CLASSIFICATION; DROSOPHILA; FORELIMB; GENETICS; HISTOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; MORPHOMETRICS; PHYLOGENY; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

ANIMALS; BIOMETRY; BODY WEIGHTS AND MEASURES; CLASSIFICATION; DROSOPHILA; PHYLOGENY; WING;

DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; DROSOPHILIDAE; MELANOGASTER SUBGROUP;

EID: 77950800361     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syp106     Document Type: Article

References (127)

1. Ackerly D.D., Donoghue M.J. 1998. Leaf size, sapling allometry, and Corner's rules: phylogeny and correlated evolution in maples (Acer). Am. Nat. 152:767-791.
2. Adams D.C., Rosenberg M.S. 1998. Partial warps, phylogeny, and ontogeny: a comment on Fink and Zelditch (1995). Syst. Biol. 47: 168-173.
3. Archie J.W. 1989. Homoplasy excess ratios: new indices for measuring levels of homoplasy in phylogenetic systematics and a critique of the consistency index. Syst. Zool. 38:253-269.
4. Arhontaki K., Eliopoulos E., Goulielmos G.N., Kastanis P., Tsakas S., Loukas M., Ayala F.J. 2002. Functional constraints of the Cu, Zn superoxide dismutase in species of the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup and phylogenetic analysis. J. Mol. Evol. 55:745-756.
5. Astúa D. 2009. Evolution of scapular size and shape in didelphid marsupials (Didelphimorphia: Didelphidae). Evolution. 63:2438-2456.
6. Blomberg S.P., Garland T. Jr., Ives A.R. 2003. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution. 57:717-745.
7. Bookstein F.L. 1994. Can biometrical shape be a homologous character? In: Hall B.K., editor. Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. San Diego (CA): Academic Press. p. 197-227.
8. Bookstein F.L. 1996. Biometrics, biomathematics and the morphometric synthesis. Bull. Math. Biol. 58:313-365.
9. Bookstein F.L. 2002. Creases as morphometric characters. In: MacLeod N., Forey P.L., editors. Morphology, shape, and phylogeny. London: Taylor & Francis. p. 139-174.
10. Brooks D.R., McLennan D.A. 1991. Phylogeny, ecology, and behavior: a research program in comparative biology. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
11. Cannon C.H., Manos P.S. 2001. Combining and comparing morphometric shape descriptors with a molecular phylogeny: the case of fruit type evolution in Bornean Lithocarpus (Fagaceae). Syst. Biol. 50:860-880.
12. Cardini A. 2003. The geometry of the marmot (Rodentia: Sciuridae) mandible: phylogeny and patterns of morphological evolution. Syst. Biol. 52:186-205.
13. Cardini A., Elton S. 2008. Does the skull carry a phylogenetic signal? Evolution and modularity in the guenons. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 93:813-834.
14. Cardini A., Jansson A.-U., Elton S. 2007. A geometric morphometric approach to the study of ecogeographical and clinal variation in vervet monkeys. J. Biogeogr. 34:1663-1678.
15. Cardini A., O'Higgins P. 2004. Patterns of morphological evolution in Marmota (Rodentia, Sciuridae): geometric morphometrics of the cranium in the context of marmot phylogeny, ecology and conservation. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 82:385-407.
16. Cariou M.-L., Silvain J.-F., Daubin V., Da Lage J.-L., Lachaise D. 2001. Divergence between Drosophila santomea and allopatric or sympatric populations of D. yakuba using paralogous amylase genes and migration scenarios along the Cameroon volcanic line. Mol. Ecol. 10:649-660.
17. Caumul R., Polly P.D. 2005. Phylogenetic and environmental components of morphological variation: skull, mandible, and molar shape in marmots (Marmota, Rodentia). Evolution. 59:2460-2472.
18. Cavalli-Sforza L.L., Edwards A.W.F. 1967. Phylogenetic analysis: models and estimation procedures. Evolution. 21:550-570.
19. Claude J., Pritchard P.C.H., Tong H., Paradis E., Auffray J.-C. 2004. Ecological correlates and evolutionary divergence in the skull of turtles: a geometric morphometric assessment. Syst. Biol. 53:933-948.
20. Cole T.M. III, Lele S.R., Richtsmeier J.T. 2002. A parametric bootstrap approach to the detection of phylogenetic signals in landmark data. In: MacLeod N., Forey P.L., editors. Morphology, shape and phylogeny. London: Taylor & Francis. p. 194-219.
21. Collard M., Wood B. 2000. How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 97:5003-5006.
22. Corti M., Aguilera M., Capanna E. 1998. Phylogeny and size and shape changes in the skull of the South American rodent Proechimys. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 44:139-150.
23. 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. 86:773-781.
24. Courant, F., David B., Laurin B., Chaline J. 1997. Quantification of cranial convergences in arvicolids (Rodentia). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 62:505-517.
25. David B., Laurin B. 1996. Morphometrics and cladistics: measuring phylogeny in the sea urchin Echinocardium. Evolution. 50:348-359.
26. Drosophila 12 Genomes Consortium. 2007. Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny. Nature. 450:203-218.
27. Dryden I.L., Mardia K.V. 1998. Statistical shape analysis. Chichester: Wiley.
28. Farris J.S. 1989. The retention index and the rescaled consistency index. Cladistics. 5:417-419.
29. Felsenstein J. 1973. Maximum-likelihood estimation of evolutionary trees from continuous characters. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 25:471-492.
30. Felsenstein J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125:1-15.
31. Felsenstein J. 1988. Phylogenies and quantitative characters. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19:455-471.
32. Felsenstein J. 2002. Quantitative characters, phylogenies, and morphometrics. In: MacLeod N., Forey P.L., editors. Morphology, shape and phylogeny. London: Taylor & Francis. p. 27-44.
33. Felsenstein J. 2004. Inferring phylogenies. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates.
34. Fink W.L., Zelditch M.L. 1995. Phylogenetic analysis of ontogenetic shape transformations: a reassessment of the piranha genus Pygocentrus (Teleostei). Syst. Biol. 44:343-360.
35. Frédérich B., Pilet A., Parmentier E., Vandewalle P. 2008. Comparative trophic morphology in eight species of damselfishes (Pomacentridae). J. Morphol. 269:175-188.
36. Gidaszewski N.A., Baylac M., Klingenberg C.P. 2009. Evolution of sexual dimorphism of wing shape in the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup. BMC Evol. Biol. 9:110.
37. Gilchrist A.S., Azevedo R.B.R., Partridge L., O'Higgins P. 2000. Adaptation and constraint in the evolution of Drosophila melanogaster wing shape. Evol. Dev. 2:114-124.
38. González-José R., Escapa I., Neves W.A., R. Cúneo, Pucciarelli H.M. 2008. Cladistic analysis of continuous modularized traits provides phylogenetic signals in Homo evolution. Nature. 453:775-778.
39. Good P. 2000. Permutation tests: a practical guide to resampling methods for testing hypotheses. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.
40. Guill J.M., Heins D.C., Hood C.S. 2003. The effect of phylogeny on interspecific body shape variation in darters (Pisces: Percidae). Syst. Biol. 52:488-500.
41. Hansen T.F., Houle D. 2004. Evolvability, stabilizing selection, and the problem of stasis. In: Pigliucci M., Preston K., editors. Phenotypic integration: studying the ecology and evolution of complex phenotypes. New york: Oxford University Press. p. 130-150.
42. Harmon L.J., Kolbe J.J., Cheverud J.M., Losos J.B. 2005. Convergence and the multidimensional niche. Evolution. 59:409-421.
43. Harr B., Schlötterer C. 2004. Patterns of microsatellite variability in the Drosophila melanogaster complex. Genetica. 120:71-77.
44. Harr B., Weiss S., David J.R., Brem G., Schlötterer C. 1998. A microsatellite-based multilocus phylogeny of the Drosophila melanogaster species complex. Curr. Biol. 8:1183-1186.
45. Harvey P.H., Pagel M.D. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46. Houle D., Mezey J.G., Galpern P., Carter A. 2003. Automated measurement of Drosophila wings. BMC Evol. Biol. 3:25.
47. Huey R.B., Bennett A.F. 1987. Phylogenetic studies of coadaptation: preferred temperatures versus optimal performance temperatures of lizards. Evolution. 41:1098-1115.
48. Jolliffe I.T. 2002. Principal component analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.
49. Kastanis P., Eliopoulos E., Goulielmos G.N., Tsakas S., Loukas M. 2003. Macroevolutionary relationships of species of Drosophila melanogaster group based on mtDNA sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 28:518-528.
50. Kitching I.J., Forey P.L., Humphries C.J., Williams D.M. 1998. Cladistics: the theory and practice of parsimony analysis. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. Kliman R.M., Andolfatto P., Coyne J.A., Depaulis F., Kreitman M., Berry A.J., McCarter J., Wakeley J., Hey J. 2000. The population genetics of the origin and divergence of the Drosophila simulans complex species. Genetics. 156:1913-1931.
52. Klingenberg C.P. 2008a. MorphoJ. Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester. Available from: http://www .flywings.org.uk/MorphoJ page.htm.
53. Klingenberg C.P. 2008b. Morphological integration and developmental modularity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39:115-132.
54. Klingenberg C.P. 2008c. Novelty and "homology-free" morphometrics: what's in a name? Evol. Biol. 35:186-190.
55. Klingenberg C.P. 2009. Morphometric integration and modularity in configurations of landmarks: tools for evaluating a-priori hypotheses. Evol. Dev. 11:405-421.
56. Klingenberg C.P., Badyaev A.V., Sowry S.M., Beckwith N.J. 2001. Inferring developmental modularity from morphological integration: analysis of individual variation and asymmetry in bumblebee wings. Am. Nat. 157:11-23.
57. Klingenberg C.P., Ekau W. 1996. A combined morphometric and phylogenetic analysis of an ecomorphological trend: pelagization in Antarctic fishes (Perciformes: Nototheniidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 59:143-177.
58. Klingenberg C.P., Mebus K., Auffray J.-C. 2003. Developmental integration in a complex morphological structure: how distinct are the modules in the mouse mandible? Evol. Dev. 5:522-531.
59. Klingenberg C.P., Monteiro L.R. 2005. Distances and directions in multidimensional shape spaces: implications for morphometric applications. Syst. Biol. 54:678-688.
60. Kluge A.G., Farris J.S. 1969. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of anurans. Syst. Zool. 18:1-32.
61. Lachaise D., Capy P., Cariou M.-L., Joly D., Lemeunier F., David J.R. 2003. Nine relatives from one African ancestor: population biology and evolution of the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup species. In: Singh R.S., Uyenoyama M.K., editors. The evolution of population biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 315-343.
62. Lachaise D., Cariou M.-L., David J.R., Lemeunier F., Tsacas L., Ashburner M. 1988. Historical biogeography of the Drosophila melanogaster species subgroup. Evol. Biol. 22:159-225.
63. Lachaise D., Harry M., Solignac M., Lemeunier F., Bénassi V., Cariou M.-L. 2000. Evolutionary novelties in islands: Drosophila santomea, a new melanogaster sister species. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 267:1487-1495.
64. Laffont R., Renvoisé E., Navarro N., Alibert P., Montuire S. 2009. Morphological modularity and assessment of developmental processes within the vole dental row (Microtus arvalis, Arvicolinae, Rodentia). Evol. Dev. 11:302-311.
65. Langerhans R.B., DeWitt T.J. 2004. Shared and unique features of evolutionary diversification. Am. Nat. 164:335-349.
66. Larson P.M. 2005. Ontogeny, phylogeny, and morphology in anuran larvae: morphometric analysis of cranial development and evolution in Rana tadpoles (Anura: Ranidae). J. Morphol. 264:34-52.
67. Laurin M. 2004. The evolution of body size, Cope's rule and the origin of amniotes. Syst. Biol. 53:594-622.
68. Leinonen T., Cano J.M., Mäkinen H., Merilä J. 2006. Contrasting patterns of body shape and neutral genetic divergence in marine and lake populations of threespine sticklebacks. J. Evol. Biol. 19:1803-1812.
69. Lemeunier F., Ashburner M. 1984. Relationships within the melanogaster species subgroup of the genus Drosophila (Sophophora). IV. The chromosomes of two new species. Chromosoma. 89:343-351.
70. Lewis R.L., Beckenbach A.T., Mooers A.. 2005. The phylogeny of the subgroups within the melanogaster species group: likelihood tests on COI and COII sequences and a Bayesian estimate of phylogeny. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 37:15-24.
71. Li Y.-J., Satta Y., Takahata N. 1999. Paleo-demography of the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup: application of the maximum likelihood method. Genes Genet. Syst. 74:117-127.
72. Linde M., Palmer M., Gómez-Zurita J. 2004. Differential correlates of diet and phylogeny on the shape of the premaxilla and anterior tooth in sparid fishes (Perciformes: Sparidae). J. Evol. Biol. 17:941-952.
73. Llopart A., Elwyn S., Lachaise D., Coyne J.A. 2002. Genetics of a difference in pigmentation between Drosophila yakuba and Drosophila santomea. Evolution. 56:2262-2277.
74. Lockwood C.A., Kimbel W.H., Lynch J.M. 2004. Morphometrics and hominoid phylogeny: support for a chimpanzee-human clade and differentiation among great ape subspecies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 101:4356-4360.
75. Loy A., Corti M., Marcus L.F. 1993. Landmark data: size and shape analysis in systematics. A case study on OldWorld Talpidae (Mammalia, Insectivora). In: Marcus L.F., Bello E., García-Valdecasas A., editors. Contributions to morphometrics. Madrid (Spain): Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales. p. 215-240.
76. Lycett S.J., Collard M. 2005. Do homoiologies impede phylogenetic analyses of the fossil hominids? An assessment based on extant papionin craniodental morphology. J. Hum. Evol. 49:618-642.
77. Lynch M. 1989. Phylogenetic hypotheses under the assumption of neutral quantitative-genetic variation. Evolution. 43:1-17.
78. Macholán M. 2006. A geometric morphometric analysis of the shape of the first upper molar in mice of the genus Mus (Muridae, Rodentia). J. Zool. (Lond.) 270:672-681.
79. MacLeod N. 2002. Phylogenetic signals in morphometric data. In: MacLeod N., Forey P.L., editors. Morphology, shape and phylogeny. London: Taylor & Francis. p. 100-138.
80. Maddison W.P. 1991. Squared-change parsimony reconstructions of ancestral states for continuous-valued characters on a phylogenetic tree. Syst. Zool. 40:304-314.
81. Marcus L.F., Hingst-Zaher E., Zaher H. 2000. Application of landmark morphometrics to skulls representing the orders of living mammals. Hystrix. 11:27-47.
82. Martins E.P., Hansen T.F. 1997. Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. Am. Nat. 149:646-667, erratum 153:448.
83. Matsuo Y. 2000. Molecular evolution if the histone 3 multigene family in the Drosophila melanogaster species subgroup. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 16:339-343.
84. McArdle B.H., Rodrigo A.G. 1994. Estimating the ancestral states of a continuous-valued character using squared-change parsimony: an analytical solution. Syst. Biol. 43:573-578.
85. McDermott S.R., Kliman R.M. 2008. Estimation of isolation times of the island species in the Drosophila simulans complex from multilocus DNA sequence data. PLoS ONE. 3:e2442.
86. McPeek M.A., Shen L., Farid H. 2009. The correlated evolution of three-dimensional reproductive structures between male and female damselflies. Evolution. 63:73-83.
87. McPeek M.A., Shen L., Torrey J.Z., Farid H. 2008. The tempo and mode of three-dimensional morphological evolution in male reproductive structure. Am. Nat. 171:E158-E178.
88. Miller J.S., Venable D.L. 2003. Floral morphometrics and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in Lycium (Solanaceae). Evolution. 57: 74-86.
89. Milne N., O'Higgins P. 2002. Inter-specific variation in Macropus crania: form, function and phylogeny. J. Zool. 256:523-535.
90. Monteiro L.R. 2000. Why morphometrics is special: the problem with using partial warps as characters for phylogenetic inference. Syst. Biol. 49:796-800.
91. Monteiro L.R., dos Reis S.F. 2005. Morphological evolution in the mandible of spiny rats, genus Trinomys (Rodentia: Echimyidae). J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 43:332-338.
92. Moraes E.M., Spressola V.L., Prado P.R.R., Costa L.F., Sene F.M. 2004. Divergence in wing morphology among sibling species of the Drosophila buzzatii cluster. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 42:154-158.
93. Naylor G.J.P. 1996. Can partial warp scores be used as cladistic characters? In: Marcus L.F., Corti M., Loy A., Naylor G.J.P., Slice D.E., editors. Advances in morphometrics. New York: Plenum Press. p. 519-530.
94. Neustupa J., Škaloud P. 2007. Geometric morphometrics and qualitative patterns in the morphological variation of five species of Micrasterias (Zygnemophyceae, Viridiplantae). Preslia. 79: 401-417.
95. Nicola P.A., Monteiro L.R., Pessôa L.M., Von Zuben F.J., Rohlf F.J., Dos Reis S.F. 2003. Congruence of hierarchical, localized variation in cranial shape and molecular phylogenetic structure in spiny rats, genus Trinomys (Rodentia: Echimyidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 80:385-396.
96. Panchetti F., Scalici M., Carpaneto G.M., Gibertini G. 2008. Shape and size variations in the cranium of elephant-shrews: a morphometric contribution to a phylogenetic debate. Zoomorphology 127:69-82.
97. Parsch J. 2003. Selective constraints on intron evolution in Drosophila. Genetics. 165:1843-1851.
98. Polly P.D. 2001. On morphological clocks and paleophylogeography: towards a timescale for Sorex hybrid zones. Genetica. 112-113:339-357.
99. Polly P.D. 2008. Developmental dynamics and G-matrices: can morphometric spaces be used to model phenotypic evolution? Evol. Biol. 35:83-96.
100. Pretorius E., Scholtz C.H. 2001. Geometric morphometrics and the analysis of higher taxa: a case study based on the metendosternite of the Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 74:35-50.
101. Prömel H.J., Steger A. 2002. The Steiner tree problem: a tour through graphs, algorithms, and complexity. Braunschweig (Germany): Vieweg.
102. Rohlf F.J. 1998. On applications of geometric morphometrics to studies of ontogeny and phylogeny. Syst. Biol. 47:147-158.
103. Rohlf F.J. 2001. Comparative methods for the analysis of continuous variables: geometric interpretations. Evolution. 55:2143-2160.
104. Rohlf F.J. 2002. Geometric morphometrics and phylogeny. In: MacLeod N., Forey P.L., editors. Morphology, shape, and phylogeny. London: Taylor & Francis. p. 175-193.
105. Rohlf F.J., Loy A., Corti M. 1996. Morphometric analysis of Old World Talpidae (Mammalia, Insectivora) using partial-warp scores. Syst. Biol. 45:344-362.
106. Russo C.A.M., Takezaki N., Nei M. 1995. Molecular phylogeny and divergence times of drosophilid species. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12: 391-404.
107. Rzhetsky A., Nei M. 1992. A simple method for estimating and testing minimum-evolution trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 9:945-967.
108. Schlick-Steiner B.C., Steiner F.M., Moder K., Seifert B., Sanetra M., Dyreson E., Stauffer C., Christian E. 2006. A multidisciplinary approach reveals cryptic diversity in Western Palearctic Tetramorium ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 40:259-273.
109. Schluter D., Clifford E.A., Nemethy M., McKinnon J.S. 2004. Parallel evolution and inheritance of quantitative traits. Am. Nat. 163: 809-822.
110. Scholtz O.I., MacLeod N., Eggleton P. 2008. Termite soldier defence strategies: a reassessment of Prestwich's classification and an examination of the evolution of defence morphology using extended eigenshape analyses of head morphology. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 153:631-650.
111. Sidlauskas B. 2008. Continuous and arrested morphological diversification in sister clades of characiform fishes: a phylomorphospace approach. Evolution. 62:3135-3156.
112. Smith W.D. 1992. How to find Steiner minimal trees in Euclidean d-space. Algorithmica. 7:137-177.
113. Sneath P.H.A., Sokal R.R. 1973. Numerical taxonomy: the principles and practice of numerical classification. San Francisco (CA): W. H. Freeman.
114. Stayton C.T. 2005. Morphological evolution of the lizard skull: a geometric morphometrics survey. J. Morphol. 263:47-59.
115. Stayton C.T., Ruta M. 2006. Geometric morphometrics of the skull roof of stereospondyls (Amphibia: Temnospondyli). Palaeontology. 49:307-337.
116. Swofford D.L., Olsen G.J.,Waddell P.J., Hillis D.M. 1996. Phylogenetic inference. In: Hillis D.M., Moritz C., Mable B.K., editors. Molecular systematics. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer. p. 407-514.
117. Tamura K., Subramanian S., Kumar S. 2004. Temporal patterns of fruit fly (Drosophila) evolution revealed by mutation clocks. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:36-44.
118. Thompson E.A. 1973. The method of minimum evolution. Ann. Hum. Genet. 36:333-340.
119. Ting C.-T., Tsaur S.-C.,Wu C.-I. 2000. The phylogeny of closely related species as revealed by the genealogy of a speciation gene, Odysseus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 97:5313-5316.
120. Weber K.E. 1990. Selection on wing allometry in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 126:975-989.
121. Weber K.E. 1992. How small are the smallest selectable domains of form? Genetics. 130:345-353.
122. Wroe S., Milne N. 2007. Convergence and remarkably consistent constraint in the evolution of carnivore skull shape. Evolution. 61:1251-1260.
123. Young N.M. 2008. A comparison of the ontogeny of shape variation in the anthropoid scapula: functional and phylogenetic signal. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 136:247-264.
124. Young N.M., Hallgrímsson B. 2005. Serial homology and the evolution of mammalian limb covariation structure. Evolution. 59:2691-2704.
125. Zelditch M.L., FinkW.L., Swiderski D.L. 1995. Morphometrics, homology and phylogenetics: quantified characters as synapomorphies. Syst. Biol. 44:179-189.
126. Zelditch M.L., Swiderski D.L., Fink W.L. 2000. Discovery of phylogenetic characters in morphometric data. In: Wiens J.J., editor. Phylogenetic analysis of morphological data. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press. p. 37-83.
127. Zelditch M.L., Swiderski D.L., Sheets H.D., FinkW.L. 2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. San Diego (CA): Elsevier.