Homology, characters and continuous variables

Morphology, Shape and Phylogeny

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 8-26

  Humphries, Christopher John ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85056404883     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1201/9780203165171     Document Type: Chapter

References (80)

1. Almeida, M. T. and Bisby, F. A. (1984) ‘A simple method for establishing taxonomic characters from measurement data’, Taxon, 33, 405-409.
2. Archie, J. W. (1985) ‘Methods for coding variable morphological features for numerical taxonomic analysis’, Systematic Zoology, 34, 236-345.
3. Baum, B. R. (1988) ‘A simple procedure for establishing discrete characters from measurement data applicable to cladistics’, Taxon, 37, 63-70.
4. Bookstein, F. L. (1990) ‘Analytic methods: introduction and overview’, in Rohlf, F. J. and Bookstein, F. L. (eds) Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Special Publication 2, MI, pp. 61-74.
5. Bookstein, F. L. (1991) Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Bookstein, F. L. (1994) ‘Can biometrical shape be a homologous character?', in Hall, B. K. (ed.) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology, New York: Academic Press, pp. 198-227.
7. Bookstein, F. L. (1996a) ‘Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: localizing group differences in outline shape’, in Amini, A., Bookstein, F. L. and Wilson D. (eds) Proceedings of the Workshop on Mathematical Methods in Biomedical Image Analysis, San Francisco: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 279-289.
8. Bookstein, F. L. (1996b) ‘Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics of group differences in outline shape’, Medical Image Analysis, 1, 1-20.
9. Bookstein, F. L. (1997) ‘Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: localizing group differences in outline shape’, Medical Image Analysis, 1, 225-243.
10. Bookstein, F. L., Strauss, R. E., Humphries, J. M., Chernoff, B., Elder, R. L. and Smith, G. R. (1982) ‘A comment on the uses of Fourier methods in systematics’, Systematic Zoology, 31, 85-92.
11. Bookstein, F., Chernoff, B., Elder, R., Humphries, J., Smith, G. and Strauss, R. (1985) Morphometrics in evolutionary biology, Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.
12. Brady, R. H. (1994) ‘Explanation, description, and the meaning of “transformation” in taxonomic evidence’, in Scotland, R. W., Siebert, D. J. and Williams, D. M. (eds) Models in phylogeny reconstruction, Systematics Association Special Volume No. 52, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 11-29.
13. Brady, R. H. (1985) ‘On the independence of systematics’, Cladistics, 1, 113-126.
14. Brower, A. V. Z. (2000) ‘Homology and the inference of systematic relationships: some historical and philosophical perspectives’, in Scotland, R. and Pennington, R. T. (eds) Homology and systematics: coding characters for phylogenetic analysis, Systematics Association Special Volume No. 58, London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 10-21.
15. Brower, A. V. Z. and Shawaroch, V. (1996) ‘Three steps of homology assessment’, Cladistics, 12, 265-275.
16. Cain, A. J. and Harrison, G. A. (1958) ‘An analysis of the taxonomist’s judgement of affinity’, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 131, 85-98.
17. Chappill, J. A. (1989) ‘Quantitative characters in phylogenetic analysis’, Cladistics, 4, 217-234.
18. Colless, D. H. (1980) ‘Congruence between morphometric and allozyme data for Menidia species: a reappraisal’, Systematic Zoology, 29, 288-299.
19. Colless, D. H. (1985) ‘On “character” and related terms’, Systematic Zoology, 34, 229-233.
20. Cranston, P. S. and Humphries, C. J. (1988) ‘Cladistics and computers: a chironomid conundrum’, Cladistics, 4, 72-92.
21. Darwin, C. (1859) On the origin of species, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggles for life, London: John Murray.
22. de Pinna, M. C. C. (1991) ‘Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm’, Cladistics, 7, 367-394.
23. Ehrlich, R., Pharr, Jr., R. B. and Healy-Williams, N. (1983) ‘Comments on the validity of Fourier descriptors in systematics: a reply to Bookstein et al.', Systematic Zoology, 31, 85-92.
24. Farris, J. S. (1990) ‘Phenetics in camouflage’, Cladistics, 6, 91-100.
25. Farris, J. S., Kluge, A. G. and Eckhardt, M. J. (1970) ‘A numerical approach to phylogenetic systematics’, Systematic Zoology, 19, 172-189.
26. Felsenstein, J. (1988) ‘Phylogenies and quantitative characters’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 19, 445-471.
27. Fink, W. L. and Zelditch, M. L. (1995) ‘Phylogenetic analysis of ontogenetic shape transformations: a reassessment of the piranha genus Pygocentrus (Teleosti)', Systematic Biology, 44, 343-360.
28. Forey, P. L. and Kitching, I. J. (2000) ‘Experiments in coding multistate characters’, in Scotland, R. and Pennington, R. T. (eds) Homology and systematics: coding characters for phylogenetic analysis, Systematics Association Special Volume No. 58, London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 54-80.
29. Fristrup, K. (1992) ‘Character: current uses’, in Keller, E. F. and Lloyd, E. A. (eds) Keywords in evolutionary biology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 45-51.
30. Gift, N. and Stevens, P. F. (1997) ‘Vagaries in the delimitation of character states in quantitative variation - an experimental study’, Systematic Biology, 46, 112-125.
31. Goldman, N. (1988) ‘Methods for discrete coding of morphological characters for numerical analysis’, Cladistics, 4, 59-71.
32. Hawkins, J. A. (2000) ‘A survey of primary homology assessment: different botanists perceive and define characters in different ways’, in Scotland, R. and Pennington, R. T. (eds) Homology and systematics: coding characters for phylogenetic analysis, Systematics Association Special Volume No. 58, London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 22-53.
33. Hawkins, J. A., Hughes, C. E. and Scotland, R. W. (1997) ‘Primary homology assessment, characters and character states’, Cladistics 13, 275-283.
34. Hennig, W. (1966) Phylogenetic systematics, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
35. Huey, R. B. and Bennett, H. F. (1987) ‘Phylogenetic analysis of co-adaptation: preferred temperatures versus optimal performance temperatures of lizards’, Evolution, 41, 1098-1115.
36. Janvier, P. (1984) ‘Cladistics: theory, purpose and evolutionary implications’, in Pollard, J. W. (ed.) Evolutionary theory: paths into the future, Chichester: Wiley, pp. 39-75.
37. Jardine, N. (1969) ‘A logical basis for biological classification’, Systematic Zoology, 18, 37-52.
38. Kluge, A. G. (1988) ‘The characterisation of ontogeny’, in Humphries, C. J. (ed.) Ontogeny and systematics, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 57-81.
39. Lovtrup, S. (1988) ‘Epigenetics’, in Humphries, C. J. (ed.) Ontogeny and systematics, NewYork: Columbia University Press, pp. 189-227.
40. MacLeod, N. (1999) ‘Generalizing and extending the eigenshape method of shape visualization and analysis’, Paleobiology, 25, 107-138.
41. MacLeod, N. (2002) ‘Phylogenetic signals in morphometric data’, in MacLeod, N. and Forey, P. (eds) Morphology, shape, and phylogeny, London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 100-138.
42. MacLeod, N. (in press) ‘Landmarks, localization, and the use of morphometrics in phylogenetic analysis’, in Edgecombe, G., Adrain, J. and Lieberman, B. (eds) Fossils, phylogeny, and form: an analytical approach, New York: Plenum Press.
43. Mayr, E., Linsley, E. G. and Usinger, R. L. (1953) Methods and principles of systematic zoology, New York: McGraw-Hill.
44. Mickevich, M. F. (1982) ‘Transformation series analysis’, Systematic Zoology, 31, 461-478.
45. Mickevich, M. F. and Farris, J. S. (1981) ‘The implications of congruence’, in Menidia, Systematic Zoology, 30, 351-370.
46. Mickevich, M. F. and Johnson, M. S. (1976) ‘Congruence between morphological and allozyme data in evolutionary inference and character evolution’, Systematic Zoology, 25, 260-270.
47. Nelson, G. (1994) ‘Homology and systematics’, in Hall, B. K. (ed.) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 101-149.
48. Nixon, K. C. and Carpenter, J. M. (1993) ‘On outgroups’, Cladistics, 9(4), 413-426.
49. Owen, R. (1843) Lectures on comparative anatomy, London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans.
50. Owen, R. (1849) On the nature of limbs, London: J. van Voorst.
51. Panchen, A. L. (1994) ‘Richard Owen and the concept of homology’, in Hall, B. K. (ed.) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 21-62.
52. Patterson, C. (1982) ‘Morphological characters and homology’, in Joysey, K. A. and Friday, A. E. (eds) Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction, London: Academic Press, pp. 21-74.
53. Patterson, C. (1988) ‘Homology in classical and molecular biology’, Molecular biology and evolution, 5, 603-625.
54. Patterson, C. and Johnson, G. D. (1977) ‘The data, the matrix and the message: comments on Begle’s relationships of the Osmeroid fishes’, Systematic Biology, 46, 458-465.
55. Pimentel, R. A. and Riggins, R. (1987) ‘The nature of cladistic data’, Cladistics, 3, 201-209.
56. Pleijel, F. (1995) ‘On character coding for phylogeny construction’, Cladistics, 11, 309-315.
57. Remane, A. (1952) Die Grundlagen des natürlichen systems, der vergleichenden anatomie und der phylogenetik, Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.
58. Rieppel, O. C. (1988) Fundamentals of comparative biology, Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.
59. Schuh, R. T. (2000) Biological systematics: principles and applications, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
60. Scotland. (2000) ‘Homology, coding and three-taxon statement analysis’, Chapter 8, in Scotland, R. and Pennington, R. T. (eds) Homology and systematics: coding characters for phylogenetic analysis, Systematics Association Special Volume No. 58, London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 145-182.
61. Scotland, R. and Pennington, R. T. (eds) (2000) Homology and systematics: coding characters for phylogenetic analysis, Systematics Association Special Volume No. 58, London: Taylor and Francis.
62. Simon, C. (1983) ‘A new coding procedure for morphometric data with an example from periodical cicada wing veins’, in Felsenstein, J. (ed.) Numerical taxonomy, Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp. 378-382.
63. Smith, A. B. (1994) Systematics and the fossil record: documenting evolutionary patterns, Oxford: Blackwells Scientific Publications.
64. Smith, G. R. (1988) ‘Homology in morphometrics and phylogenetics’, in Rohlf, J. F. and Bookstein, F. L. (eds) Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop, Special Publication No. 2, Ann Arbor: Michigan Museum of Zoology, pp. 325-338.
65. Sneath, P. H. A. and Sokal, R. R. (1973) Numerical taxonomy, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.
66. Stevens, P. F. (2000) ‘On characters and character states: do overlapping and non-overlapping variation, morphology and molecules all yield data of the same value?', in Scotland, R. and Pennington, R. T. (eds) Homology and systematics: coding characters for phylogenetic analysis, Systematics Association Special Volume No. 58, London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 81-105.
67. Stevens, P. F. (1984) ‘Homology and phylogeny: morphology and systematics’, Systematic Botany, 9, 395-405.
68. Stuessy, T. F. (1990) Plant taxonomy: the systematic evaluation of comparative data, New York: Columbia University Press.
69. Swiderski, D. L., Zelditch, M. L. and Fink, W. L. (1998) ‘Why morphometrics isn’t special: coding quantitative data for phylogenetic analysis’, Systematic Biology, 47, 508-519.
70. Swofford, D. L. and Berlocher, S. H. (1987) ‘Inferring evolutionary trees from gene frequency data under the principle of maximum parsimony’, Systematic Zoology, 36, 293-325.
71. Thiele, K. (1993) ‘The holy grail of the perfect character: the cladistic treatment of morphological data’, Cladistics, 9, 275-304.
72. Thiele, K. and Ladiges, P. Y. (1988) ‘A cladistic analysis of Angophora Cav. (Myrtaceae)', Cladistics, 4, 23-42.
73. Thompson, D’Arcy W. (1942) On growth and form, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
74. Thorpe, R. S. (1984) ‘Coding morphometric characters for constructing distance Wagner networks’, Evolution, 38, 244-355.
75. Wiens, J. J. (2000) (ed.) Phylogenetic analysis of morphological data, Washington, DC and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.
76. Wiens, J. J. (2000) ‘Coding morphological variation within species and higher taxa for phylogenetic analysis’, in Wiens, J. J. (ed.) Phylogenetic analysis of morphological data, Washington, DC and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 115-145.
77. Wiley, E. O. (1981) Phylogenetics: the theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics, New York: Wiley.
78. Wilkinson, M. (1995) ‘A comparison of two methods of character construction’, Cladistics, 11, 297-308.
79. Zelditch, M. L., Fink, W. L. and Swiderski, D. L. (1995) ‘Morphometrics, homology and phylogenetics: quantified characters as synapomorphies’, Systematic Biology, 44, 179-189.
80. Zelditch, M. L., Swiderski, D. L. and Fink, W. L. (2000) ‘Discovery of phylogenetic characters in morphometric data’, in Wiens, J. J. (ed.) Phylogenetic analysis of morphological data, Washington, DC and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 37-83.