PractIcal IntroductIon to landMarK-based geoMetrIc MorPhoMetrIcs

—Landmark-based geometric morphometrics is a powerful approach to quantifying biological shape, shape variation, and covariation of shape with other biotic or abiotic variables or factors. The resulting graphical representations of shape differences are visually appealing and intuitive. This paper serves as an introduction to common exploratory and confirmatory techniques in landmark-based geometric morphometrics. The issues most frequently faced by (paleo)biologists conducting studies of comparative morphology are covered. Acquisition of landmark and semilandmark data is discussed. There are several methods for superimposing landmark configurations, differing in how and in the degree to which among-configuration differences in location, scale, and size are removed. Partial Procrustes superimposition is the most widely used superimposition method and forms the basis for many subsequent operations in geometric morphometrics. Shape variation among superimposed configurations can be visualized as a scatter plot of landmark coordinates, as vectors of landmark displacement, as a thin-plate spline deformation grid, or through a principal components analysis of landmark coordinates or warp scores. The amount of difference in shape between two configurations can be quantified as the partial Procrustes distance; and shape variation within a sample can be quantified as the average partial Procrustes distance from the sample mean. Statistical testing of difference in mean shape between samples using warp scores as variables can be achieved through a standard Hotelling’s T2 test, MANOVA, or canonical variates analysis (CVA). A nonparametric equivalent to MANOVA or Goodall’s F-test can be used in analysis of Procrustes coordinates or Procrustes distance, respectively. CVA can also be used to determine the confidence with which a priori specimen classification is supported by shape data, and to assign unclassified specimens to pre-defined groups (assuming that the specimen actually belongs in one of the pre-defined groups). Examples involving Cambrian olenelloid trilobites are used to illustrate how the various techniques work and their practical application to data. Mathematical details of the techniques are provided as supplemental online material. A guide to conducting the analyses in the free Integrated Morphometrics Package software is provided in the appendix.

[1]  M. Kenward,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 2007 .

[2]  P. D. Polly,et al.  Geometric morphometrics: recent applications to the study of evolution and development , 2010 .

[3]  A. W. Kemp,et al.  Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology , 1997 .

[4]  Marti J. Anderson,et al.  A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance in ecology , 2001 .

[5]  C. White Preliminary report upon invertebrate fossils collected by the expeditions of 1871, 1872, and 1873, , 2015 .

[6]  F. Rohlf,et al.  Geometric morphometrics: Ten years of progress following the ‘revolution’ , 2004 .

[7]  M. Webster,et al.  Microstratigraphy, Trilobite Biostratinomy, and Depositional Environment of the "Lower Cambrian" Ruin Wash Lagerstätte, Pioche Formation, Nevada , 2008 .

[8]  F. Rohlf,et al.  Extensions of the Procrustes Method for the Optimal Superimposition of Landmarks , 1990 .

[9]  Fred L. Bookstein,et al.  Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics of group differences in outline shape , 1997, Medical Image Anal..

[10]  Norman MacLeod,et al.  Geometric morphometrics and geological shape-classification systems , 2002 .

[11]  S. Lele,et al.  Some comments on coordinate-free and scale-invariant methods in morphometrics. , 1991, American journal of physical anthropology.

[12]  A. R. Palmer Terminal Early Cambrian extinction of the Olenellina: Documentation from the Pioche Formation, Nevada , 1998, Journal of Paleontology.

[13]  F J Rohlf,et al.  On applications of geometric morphometrics to studies of ontogeny and phylogeny. , 1998, Systematic biology.

[14]  F James Rohlf,et al.  Bias and error in estimates of mean shape in geometric morphometrics. , 2003, Journal of human evolution.

[15]  F L Bookstein,et al.  Biometrics, biomathematics and the morphometric synthesis. , 1996, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[16]  P. O’Higgins The study of morphological variation in the hominid fossil record: biology, landmarks and geometry , 2000, Journal of anatomy.

[17]  H. Sheets,et al.  A combined landmark and outline-based approach to ontogenetic shape change in the Ordovician trilobite Triarthrus becki , 2004 .

[18]  Fred L. Bookstein,et al.  Principal Warps: Thin-Plate Splines and the Decomposition of Deformations , 1989, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[19]  D'arcy W. Thompson,et al.  On Growth and Form , 1917, Nature.

[20]  H. David Sheets,et al.  Geometric morphometrics for biologists : a primer , 2004 .

[21]  H. Sheets,et al.  Morphometric analysis of ontogeny and allometry of the Middle Ordovician trilobite Triarthrus becki , 2002, Paleobiology.

[22]  J. Gower Generalized procrustes analysis , 1975 .

[23]  P. Gunz,et al.  Geometric Morphometrics , 2019, Archaeological Science.

[24]  M. Webster,et al.  Compaction-related deformation in Cambrian olenelloid trilobites and its implications for fossil morphometry , 1999, Journal of Paleontology.

[25]  S. Lele,et al.  The promise of geometric morphometrics. , 2002, American journal of physical anthropology.

[26]  S. Vadlamani On the Diffusion of Shape , 2007 .

[27]  Rikard Berthilsson,et al.  A Statistical Theory of Shape , 1998, SSPR/SPR.

[28]  J T Richtsmeier,et al.  A COORDINATE‐FREE APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS OF GROWTH PATTERNS: MODELS AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS , 1993, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[29]  M. Foote Contributions of individual taxa to overall morphological disparity , 1993, Paleobiology.

[30]  F. Rohlf Shape Statistics: Procrustes Superimpositions and Tangent Spaces , 1999 .

[31]  C. Goodall Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape , 1991 .

[32]  Fred L. Bookstein,et al.  Corpus Callosum Shape and Neuropsychological Deficits in Adult Males with Heavy Fetal Alcohol Exposure , 2002, NeuroImage.

[33]  Fred L. Bookstein,et al.  Standard Formula for the Uniform Shape Component in Landmark Data , 1996 .

[34]  F. A. Seiler,et al.  Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing , 1989 .

[35]  M. Zelditch,et al.  Evolutionary modifications of ontogeny: heterochrony and beyond , 2005, Paleobiology.

[36]  F. Bookstein Size and Shape Spaces for Landmark Data in Two Dimensions , 1986 .

[37]  V. Bernal,et al.  Differences between sliding semi‐landmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation , 2006, Journal of anatomy.

[38]  A. Siegel,et al.  A robust comparison of biological shapes. , 1982, Biometrics.

[39]  K. K. Smith Beyond Heterochrony: The Evolution of Development , 2003, Heredity.

[40]  Sven Kreiborg,et al.  Surface-bounded growth modeling applied to human mandibles , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[41]  S. Lele Euclidean Distance Matrix Analysis (EDMA): Estimation of mean form and mean form difference , 1993 .

[42]  F. James Rohlf On the use of shape spaces to compare morphometric methods , 2000 .

[43]  H David Sheets,et al.  Comparison of geometric morphometric outline methods in the discrimination of age-related differences in feather shape , 2006, Frontiers in Zoology.

[44]  George Henry Dunteman,et al.  Introduction To Multivariate Analysis , 1984 .

[45]  M. Webster ONTOGENY AND EVOLUTION OF THE EARLY CAMBRIAN TRILOBITE GENUS NEPHROLENELLUS (OLENELLOIDEA) , 2007, Journal of Paleontology.

[46]  S. Lele,et al.  Landmark Morphometrics and the Analysis of Variation , 2005 .

[47]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Semilandmarks in Three Dimensions , 2005 .

[48]  F. Rohlf,et al.  A revolution morphometrics. , 1993, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[49]  A. Shaw QUANTITATIVE TRILOBITE STUDIES II. MEASUREMENT OF THE DORSAL SHELL OF NON-AGNOSTIDEAN TRILOBITES , 1957 .

[50]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology , 1999 .

[51]  F. Bookstein A statistical method for biological shape comparisons. , 1984, Journal of theoretical biology.

[52]  F J Rohlf,et al.  Statistical power comparisons among alternative morphometric methods. , 2000, American journal of physical anthropology.

[53]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Eigenshape Analysis of Left Ventricular Outlines from Contrast Ventriculograms , 1996 .

[54]  D. Kendall SHAPE MANIFOLDS, PROCRUSTEAN METRICS, AND COMPLEX PROJECTIVE SPACES , 1984 .

[55]  Thompson,et al.  On Growth and Form. New Edition , 1943 .

[56]  Julien Claude,et al.  Morphometrics with R , 2009 .

[57]  Mark Webster,et al.  INTEGRATION AND REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENTAL SYSTEMS IN TRILOBITES , 2008 .

[58]  S. Lele,et al.  Euclidean distance matrix analysis: a coordinate-free approach for comparing biological shapes using landmark data. , 1991, American journal of physical anthropology.