Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T21:38:21.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of Morphological Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2017

Mike Foote
Mike Foote*
Affiliation:
Museum of Paleontology and Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Taxonomic data analysis has benefited greatly from standardization of systematic and stratigraphic practices. In contrast, the unique features of each group of organisms and the specific nature of many workers' questions have helped make analysis of morphological data relatively less standardized and more idiosyncratic. In addition, paleobiological analysis of morphological data at larger (roughly, suprafamilial) scales seems to have lagged behind analysis, of taxonomic data because of the relative difficulty with which morphological data are collected (both from fossils themselves and from published sources). In this review, I will briefly touch upon some of the areas in which morphological analysis has contributed significantly to our understanding of life's history. Space limitations preclude a thorough treatment of all aspects of morphological analysis, and the decision to omit certain topics, such as functional morphology, is not a reflection of the importance of these fields.

Type
Research Article
Information
Short Courses in Paleontology , Volume 4: Analytical Paleobiology , 1991 , pp. 59 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bonner, J.T. 1968. Size change in development and evolution, p. 1–15. In Macurda, D.B. Jr. (ed.), Paleobiological Aspects of Growth and Development: A Symposium. The Paleontological Society Memoir No. 2.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F.L. 1987. Random walk and the existence of evolutionary rates. Paleobiology, 13:446–464.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F.L. 1989. Principal warps: Thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 11:567–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bookstein, F.L. 1990a. Introduction to methods for landmark data, p. 215–225. In Rohlf, F.J. and Bookstein, F.L. (eds.), Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. Special Publication No. 2, The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F.L. 1990b. Introduction and overview, p. 61–74. In Rohlf, F.J. and Bookstein, F.L. (eds.), Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. Special Publication No. 2, The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F.L. 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data. Cambridge University Press, New York (in press).Google Scholar
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 No. 15, The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 277 p.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F.L., and Reyment, R.E. 1989. Microevolution in Miocene Brizalina (Foraminifera) studied by canonical variate analysis and analysis of landmarks. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 51:657–679.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Cherry, L.M., Case, S.M., Kunkel, J.G., Wyles, J.S., and Wilson, A.C. 1982. Body shape metrics and organismal evolution. Evolution, 36:914–933.Google Scholar
Damuth, J., and Macfadden, B.J. 1990. Body Size in Mammalian Paleobiology: Estimation and Biological Implications. Cambridge University Press, New York, 397 p.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, R., Pharr, R.B. Jr., and Healy-Williams, N. 1983. Comments on the validity of Fourier descriptors in systematics: a reply to Bookstein et al. Systematic Zoology, 32:202–206.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, R., and Weinberg, R. 1970. An exact method for characterization of grain shape. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 40:205–212.Google Scholar
Feller, W. 1968. An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, Volume 1, Third Edition, Revised Printing. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 509 p.Google Scholar
Fisher, D.C. 1985. Evolutionary morphology: beyond the analogous, the anecdotal, and the ad hoc. Paleobiology, 11:120–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1989. Perimeter-based Fourier analysis: a new morphometric method applied to the trilobite cranidium. Journal of Paleontology, 63:880–885.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1990. Nearest-neighbor analysis of trilobite morphospace. Systematic Zoology, 39:371–382.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1991a. Morphologic patterns of diversification: examples from trilobites. Palaeontology, 34 (in press).Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1991b. Morphological and taxonomic diversity in a clade's history: the blastoid record and stochastic simulations. Contributions, Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan (in press).Google Scholar
Gale, A.S., and Smith, A.B. 1982. The palaeobiology of the Cretaceous irregular echinoids Infulaster and Hagenowia. Palaeontology, 25:11–42.Google Scholar
Gilinsky, N.L., and Good, I.J. 1989. Analysis of clade shape using queueing theory and the fast Fourier transform. Paleobiology, 15:321–333.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P.D. 1983. Rates of evolution: effects of time and temporal scaling. Science, 222:159–161.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P.D. 1985. Species in the fossil record: concepts, trends, and transitions. Paleobiology, 11:27–41.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P.D. 1987. Evolutionary rates, rate quotients, and rate units. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 19:677.Google Scholar
Good, I.J. 1989. Medialized P-values. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 31:126–127.Google Scholar
Gould, S.J. 1984. Smooth curve of evolutionary rate: a psychological and mathematical artifact. Science, 226:994–995.Google Scholar
Gould, S.J. 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 347 p.Google Scholar
Gould, S.J. 1990. Speciation and sorting as the source of evolutionary trends, or ‘Things are seldom what they seem’, p. 3–27. In McNamara, K. J. (ed.), Evolutionary Trends. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Gower, J.C. 1975. Generalized Procrustes analysis. Psychometrica, 40:33–51.Google Scholar
Haldane, J.B.S. 1949. Suggestions as to the quantitative measurement of rates of evolution. Evolution, 3:51–56.Google Scholar
Haldane, J.B.S. 1985 (reprint). On being the right size, p. 1–8. In Haldane, J. B. S. (Smith, J. Maynard, ed.), On Being the Right Size and Other Essays. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Harland, W.B., Armstrong, R.L., Cox, A.V., Craig, L.E., Smith, A.G., and Smith, D.G. 1990. A Geologic Time Scale 1989. Cambridge University Press, New York, 263 p.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1987. How pervasive is Cope's Rule? A test using Late Cretaceous mollusks. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 19:713–714.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J.A., Estabrook, G., and Macleod, N. 1987. Testing for equality of rates of evolution. Paleobiology, 13:272–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoll, A.H., Niklas, K.J., Gensel, P.G., and Tiffney, B.H. 1984. Character diversification and patterns of evolution in early vascular plants. Paleobiology, 10:34–47.Google Scholar
Kuhl, F.P., and Giardina, C.R. 1982. Elliptic Fourier features of a closed contour. Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 18:236–258.Google Scholar
Lande, R. 1976. Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution. Evolution, 30:314–334.Google Scholar
Lohmann, G.P. 1983. Eigenshape analysis of microfossils: a general morphometric procedure for describing changes in shape. Mathematical Geology, 15:659–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, G.P., and Schweitzer, P.N. 1990. On eigenshape analysis, p. 147–166. In Rohlf, F.J. and Bookstein, F.L. (eds.), Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. Special Publication No. 2, The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. 1990. The rate of morphological evolution in mammals from the standpoint of the neutral expectation. American Naturalist, 136:727–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, L. 1990. Traditional morphometrics, p. 77–122. In Rohlf, F.J. and Bookstein, F.L. (eds.), Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. Special Publication No. 2, The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
McKinney, M.L. 1990. Classifying and analysing evolutionary trends, p. 28–58. In McNamara, K.J. (ed.), Evolutionary Trends. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
McShea, D.W. In Press. Complexity and evolution: what everybody knows. Biology and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Mosimann, J.E. 1970. Size allometry: size and shape variables with characterizations of the lognormal and generlized gamma distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65:930–945.Google Scholar
Olson, E.C., and Miller, R.L. 1958. Morphological Integration. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 317 p.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M. 1966. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: general problems. Journal of Paleontology, 40:1178–1190.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M. 1975. Taxonomic diversity estimation using rarefaction. Paleobiology, 1:333–342.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M. 1976. Species diversity in the Phanerozoic: a tabulation. Paleobiology, 2:279–288.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., and Crick, R.E. 1981. Evolution of single characters in the Jurassic ammonite Kosmoceras. Paleobiology, 7:200–215.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., and Gould, S.J. 1974. Stochastic simulation and evolution of morphology-towards a nomothetic paleontology. Systematic Zoology, 23:305–322.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., and Stanley, S.M. 1978. Principles of Paleontology, Second Edition. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 481 p.Google Scholar
Reyment, R.A., Blackith, R.E., and Campbell, N.A. 1984. Multivariate Morphometrics, Second Edition. Academic Press, London, 233 p.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J. 1986. Relationship among eigenshape analysis, Fourier analysis, and analysis of coordinates. Mathematical Geology, 18:845–854.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J. 1990. Fitting curves to outlines, p. 167–177. In Rohlf, F.J. and Bookstein, F.L. (eds.), Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. Special Publication No. 2, The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J., and Bookstein, F.L. (eds.). 1990. Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. Special Publication No. 2, The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 380 p.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J., and Archie, J. 1984. A comparison of Fourier methods for the description of wing shape in mosquitos (Diptera: Culicidae). Systematic Zoology, 33:302–317.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J., and Slice, D. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology, 39:40–59.Google Scholar
Romer, A.S. 1949. Time series and trends in animal evolution, p. 103–120. In Jepsen, G.L., Mayr, E., and Simpson, G.G. (eds.), Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Runnegar, B. 1987. Rates and modes of evolution in the Mollusca, p. 39–60. In Campbell, K.S.W. and Day, M.F. (eds.), Rates of Evolution. Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Sanders, H.L. 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. American Naturalist, 102:243–282.Google Scholar
Saunders, W.B., and Swan, A.R.H. 1984. Morphology and morphologic diversity in mid-Carboniferous (Namurian) ammonoids in space and time. Paleobiology, 10:195–228.Google Scholar
Simpson, G.G. 1944. Tempo and Mode in Evolution. Columbia University Press, New York, 237 p.Google Scholar
Simpson, G.G. 1949. Rates of evolution in animals, p. 205–228. In Jepsen, G.L., Mayr, E., and Simpson, G. G. (eds.), Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Simpson, G.G. 1951. The species concept. Evolution, 5:285–298.Google Scholar
Simpson, G.G. 1953. The Major Features of Evolution. Columbia University Press, New York, 434 p.Google Scholar
Sneath, P.H.A. 1967. Trend-surface analysis of transformation grids. Journal of Zoology, 151:65–122.Google Scholar
Sneath, P.H.A., and Sokal, R.R. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 573 p.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. 1983a. A phylogenetic analysis of the Caminalcules. I. The data base. Systematic Zoology, 32:159–184.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. 1983b. A phylogenetic analysis of the Caminalcules. II. Estimating the true cladogram. Systematic Zoology, 32:185–201.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. 1983c. A phylogenetic analysis of the Caminalcules. III. Fossils and classification. Systematic Zoology, 32:248–258.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. 1983d. A phylogenetic analysis of the Caminalcules. IV. Congruence and character stability. Systematic Zoology, 32:259–275.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R., and Rohlf, F.J. 1981. Biometry, Second Edition. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 859 p.Google Scholar
Stanley, S.M. 1973. An explanation for Cope's Rule. Evolution, 27:1–26.Google Scholar
Stanley, S.M. 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 332 p.Google Scholar
Stanley, S.M. 1985. Rates of evolution. Paleobiology, 11:13–26.Google Scholar
Stanley, S.M., and Yang, X. 1987. Approximate evolutionary stasis for bivalve morphology over millions of years: a multivariate, multilineage study. Paleobiology, 13:113–139.Google Scholar
Straney, D.O. 1990. Median axis methods in morphometrics, p. 179–200. In Rohlf, F.J. and Bookstein, F.L. (eds.), Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. Special Publication No. 2, The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, R.E., and Bookstein, F.L. 1990a. Resolving factors of landmark deformation: Miocene Globorotalia, DSDP site 593, p. 269–281. In Rohlf, F.J. and Bookstein, F.L. (eds.), Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. Special Publication No. 2, The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, R.E., and Bookstein, F.L. 1990b. The structure of individual variation in Miocene Globorotalia. Evolution, 44:416–434.Google Scholar
Thompson, D'A.W. 1942. On Growth and Form. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1116 p.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1974. Multivariate structural statistics in natural history. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 45:235–247.Google Scholar
Westoll, T.S. 1949. On the evolution of the Dipnoi, p. 121–184. In Jepsen, G. L., Mayr, E., and Simpson, G.G. (eds.), Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Wright, S. 1921. Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20:557–585.Google Scholar
Wright, S. 1968. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations. Volume 1. Genetics and Biometric Foundations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 469 p.Google Scholar
Zahn, C.T., and Roskies, R.Z. 1972. Fourier descriptors for plane closed curves. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-21:269–281.Google Scholar