2D or Not 2D? Testing the Utility of 2D Vs. 3D Landmark Data in Geometric Morphometrics of the Sculpin Subfamily Oligocottinae (Pisces; Cottoidea): 2D VS. 3D GEOMETRIC MORPHOMETRICS OF SCULPINS
- Award ID(s):
- 1745267
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10048761
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- The Anatomical Record
- Volume:
- 301
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 1932-8486
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 806 to 818
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
Diversification of animal vocalizations plays a key role in behavioral evolution and speciation. Vocal organ morphology represents an important source of acoustic variation, yet its small size, complex shape, and absence of homologous landmarks pose major challenges to comparative analyses. Here, we use a geometric morphometric approach based on geometrically homologous landmarks to quantify shape variation of laryngeal cartilages of four rodent genera representing three families. Reconstructed cartilages of the larynx from contrast-enhanced micro-CT images were quantified by variable numbers of three-dimensional landmarks placed on structural margins and major surfaces. Landmark sets were superimposed using generalized Procrustes analysis prior to statistical analysis. Correlations among pairwise Procrustes distances were used to identify the minimum number of landmarks necessary to fully characterize shape variation. We found that the five species occupy distinct positions in morphospace, with variation explained in part by phylogeny, body size, and differences in vocal production mechanisms. Our findings provide a foundation for quantifying the contribution of vocal organ morphology to acoustic diversification.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Geometric morphometrics (GM) is a powerful analytical approach for evaluating phenotypic variation relevant to taxonomy and systematics, and as with any statistical methodology, requires adherence to fundamental assumptions for inferences to be strictly valid. An important consideration for GM is how landmark configurations, which represent sets of anatomical loci for evaluating shape variation through Cartesian coordinates, relate to underlying homology (Zelditch et al. 1995; Polly 2008). Perhaps more so than with traditional morphometrics, anatomical homology is a crucial assumption for GM because of the mathematical and biological interpretations associated with shape change depicted by deformation grids, such as the thin plate spline (Klingenberg 2008; Zelditch et al. 2012). GM approaches are often used to analyze shapes or outlines of structures, which are not necessarily related to common ancestry, and in this respect GM approaches that use linear semi-landmarks and related methods are particularly amenable to evaluating primary homology, or raw similarity between structures (De Pinna 1991; Palci & Lee 2019). This relaxed interpretation of homology that focuses more on recognizable and repeatable landmarks is defensible so long as authors are clear regarding the purpose of the analyses and in defining their landmark configurations (Palci & Lee 2019). Secondary homology, or similarity due to common ancestry, can also be represented with GM methods and is often assumed to be reflected in fixed Type 1 (juxtaposition of tissues) or Type 2 (self-evident geometry) landmarks (Bookstein 1991).more » « less
