Literature DB >> 27288476

Lost in the Other Half: Improving Accuracy in Geometric Morphometric Analyses of One Side of Bilaterally Symmetric Structures.

Andrea Cardini1,2.   

Abstract

Systematists and evolutionary biologists have widely adopted Procrustes-based geometric morphometrics for measuring size and shape in biology. Many structures, and in fact most animals, are bilaterally symmetric with an internal plane of symmetry (also called object symmetry). Often, when quantifying asymmetric variation is not an aim, only one or the other side is measured and analyzed. This approach has been used in hundreds of studies. Its implicit assumption is that the information on the other side is redundant and a single side will, therefore, produce results mirroring those one would have obtained from the analysis of the entire structure with all its left and right landmarks. However, the extent to which this assumption is met has, to my knowledge, never been explored. Using two example data sets, I will show that congruence may be high in analyses at a macroevolutionary level but much lower at a microevolutionary one, and inaccuracies might especially affect shape. I will discuss some of the other factors that may influence results and will suggest a simple expedient that can improve both the visualization and accuracy of shape analyses in one-side-only studies.
© The Author(s) 2016. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Society of Systematic Biologists. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Keywords:  Allometry; Procrustes; landmarks; macroevolution; microevolution; mirror reflection; object symmetry; shape visualization

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27288476     DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syw043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Syst Biol        ISSN: 1063-5157            Impact factor:   15.683


  10 in total

1.  Estimating the magnitude of morphoscapes: how to measure the morphological component of biodiversity in relation to habitats using geometric morphometrics.

Authors:  Diego Fontaneto; Martina Panisi; Mauro Mandrioli; Dario Montardi; Maurizio Pavesi; Andrea Cardini
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2017-06-22

2.  Functional assessment of morphological homoplasy in stem-gnathostomes.

Authors:  Humberto G Ferrón; Carlos Martínez-Pérez; Imran A Rahman; Víctor Selles de Lucas; Héctor Botella; Philip C J Donoghue
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Delineating modern variation from extinct morphology in the fossil record using shells of the Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina).

Authors:  Natasha S Vitek
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Machine-learning strategies for testing patterns of morphological variation in small samples: sexual dimorphism in gray wolf (Canis lupus) crania.

Authors:  Norman MacLeod; Liora Kolska Horwitz
Journal:  BMC Biol       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 7.431

5.  Changes in human mandibular shape during the Terminal Pleistocene-Holocene Levant.

Authors:  Ariel Pokhojaev; Hadas Avni; Tatiana Sella-Tunis; Rachel Sarig; Hila May
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-06-19       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny?

Authors:  Akinobu Watanabe; Paul M Gignac; Amy M Balanoff; Todd L Green; Nathan J Kley; Mark A Norell
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 2.610

7.  Skeletal variation in extant species enables systematic identification of New Zealand's large, subfossil diplodactylids.

Authors:  Lachie Scarsbrook; Emma Sherratt; Rodney A Hitchmough; Nicolas J Rawlence
Journal:  BMC Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-04-27

8.  A Practical Guide to Sliding and Surface Semilandmarks in Morphometric Analyses.

Authors:  C Bardua; R N Felice; A Watanabe; A-C Fabre; A Goswami
Journal:  Integr Org Biol       Date:  2019-07-05

9.  Better sturdy or slender? Eurasian otter skull plasticity in response to feeding ecology.

Authors:  Luca Francesco Russo; Carlo Meloro; Mara De Silvestri; Elizabeth A Chadwick; Anna Loy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 3.752

10.  How many landmarks are enough to characterize shape and size variation?

Authors:  Akinobu Watanabe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.