Do cladistic and morphometric data capture common patterns of morphological disparity?

Hetherington, Alexander J. and Sherratt, Emma and Ruta, Marcello and Wilkinson, Mark and Deline, Bradley and Donoghue, Philip C. J. (2015) Do cladistic and morphometric data capture common patterns of morphological disparity? Palaeontology, 58 (3). pp. 393-399. ISSN 0031-0239

Full content URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pala.12159

Documents
__ddat01_staffhome_bjones_RDS_Desktop_PALA_proofs1.pdf
© 2015 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
[img]
[Download]
16894 caecilians_morphometrics.pdf
[img]
[Download]
[img]
Preview
PDF
__ddat01_staffhome_bjones_RDS_Desktop_PALA_proofs1.pdf - Whole Document
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

376kB
[img]
Preview
PDF
16894 caecilians_morphometrics.pdf - Whole Document
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

465kB
Item Type:Article
Item Status:Live Archive

Abstract

The distinctly non-random diversity of organismal form manifests itself in discrete clusters of taxa that share a common body plan. As a result, analyses of disparity require a scalable comparative framework. The difficulties of
applying geometric morphometrics to disparity analyses of groups with vastly divergent body plans are overcome partly by the use of cladistic characters. Character-based disparity analyses have become increasingly popular, but it is not clear how they are affected by character coding strategies or revisions of primary homology statements. Indeed, whether cladistic and morphometric data capture similar patterns of morphological variation remains a moot point. To address this issue, we employ both cladistic and geometric morphometric data in an exploratory study of disparity focussing on caecilian amphibians. Our results show no impact on relative intertaxon distances when different coding strategies for cladistic characters were used or when revised concepts of homology were considered. In all instances, we found no statistically significant difference between pairwise Euclidean and Procrustes distances, although the strength of the correlation among distance matrices varied. This suggests that cladistic and geometric morphometric data appear to summarize morphological variation in comparable ways. Our results support the use of cladistic data for characterizing organismal disparity.

Additional Information:Published on behalf of The Palaeontological Association
Keywords:disparity, Evolution, morphospace, constraints, Gymnophiona, JCOpen
Subjects:F Physical Sciences > F641 Palaeontology
Divisions:College of Science > School of Life Sciences
ID Code:16894
Deposited On:06 Mar 2015 12:50

Repository Staff Only: item control page