MULTIVARIATE DISCRIMINATION BY SHAPE IN RELATION TO SIZE

Humphries, J. M., F. L. Bookstein, B. Chernoff, G. R. Smith, R. L. Elder, and S. G. Poss (Museum of Zoology, Centerfor Human Growth and Development, Museum of Paleontology, and Division of Biological Sciences, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109) 1981. Multivariate discrimination by shape in relation to size. Syst. Zool., 30:291-308.-The diverse methods for analyzing size-free shape differences tend to be guided by computational expediency rather than geometric principles. We question the use of ratios and ad hoc combinations of spatially unrelated measures. Neither are linear discriminant functions or series of independent regressions helpful to the visualization of shape differences. A bridge is needed between traditional quantitative methods and the geometrical analysis of shape. In principle any measured transects between landmarks of a form can serve as characters in a morphometric analysis. Systematic studies use a highly non-random sample of these, particularly biased regarding geometrical information. We suggest defining size and shape in terms of factors-estimates of information common to a universe of measured distances. The model presented here calculates a linear combination of variables that quantifies shape differences among populations, independent of size. In analyses in which the first two principal components confound size and shape, size is removed from one axis with shear coefficients derived from regression of general size on principal components centered by group. The general size factor is estimated by the principal axis of the within-group covariance matrix of the log-transformed data. Residuals from the regression of general size on the transformed axes approximate a shape-discriminating factor that is uncorrelated with size within group and displays the interpopulation shape differences borne by the first two principal components. The results bear a direct and interpretable correspondence to biorthogonal analysis of shape difference. [Multivariate analysis; principal components; discriminant functions; morphometrics; size-free shape; allometry; fishes.] Systematists need procedures that allow them to discriminate among groups of organisms that vary in size. The groups included in a study can be chosen a priori (e.g., several species or geographic populations within a species) or a posteriori (as a conclusion resulting from some method of analysis). However the groups are chosen, it has long been considered desirable to discriminate among them on the basis of size-free shape derived from distance measures. The terms shape and size have been used in various and sometimes conflicting ways (Huxley, 1932; Thompson, 1942; Simpson, Roe and Lewontin, 1960; Gould, 1966; Mosimann, 1970; Sprent, 1972; Bookstein, 1978). We construe size and shape not as measured variables, but as general factors, linear combinations most parsimoniously accounting for the associations among the distance measures. Size, in particular, is not a single variable such as biomass or a standard length, but a factor which, when called upon to predict all the distance measures within a population, leaves the smallest mean squared residual. We prefer a factor whose algebraic form acknowledges the allometric relationship (Jolicoeur, 1963). Our shape discriminators need to be independent of size (Flessa and Bray, 1977; Mosimann and James, 1979) in order to partition out the effects of growth (e.g., individuals of differing age and size). In general, shape can be defined as the geometry of the organism after "information about position, scale, and orientation" has been removed (Bookstein, 1978:8). There is then an endless variety of shape information remaining. While the quantification of size as a general factor de-

[1]  J. Humphries,et al.  A Remarkable Species Flock of Pupfishes, Genus Cyprinodon, from Yucatin, Mexico , 1981 .

[2]  W. Atchley,et al.  Ratios and the Statistical Analysis of Biological Data , 1978 .

[3]  R. Corruccini Correlation Properties of Morphometric Ratios , 1977 .

[4]  Peter H. A. Sneath,et al.  Numerical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification , 1973 .

[5]  D'arcy W. Thompson On growth and form i , 1943 .

[6]  S. Gould,et al.  Ontogeny and Phylogeny , 1978 .

[7]  D. F. Morrison,et al.  Multivariate Statistical Methods , 1968 .

[8]  Clyde P. Stroud An Application of Factor Analysis to the Systematics of Kalotermes , 1953 .

[9]  M. Hills On Ratios—A Response to Atchley, Gaskins, and Anderson , 1978 .

[10]  J. Mosimann,et al.  Variation and relative growth in the plastral scutes of the turtle Kinosternon integrum Leconte , 1956 .

[11]  W. W. Moss,et al.  A Multivariate Assessment of Phenetic Relationships Within the Feather Mite Family Eustathiidae (Acari) , 1977 .

[12]  K. Barnes,et al.  GENETICS OF LUPINUS. X. GENETIC VARIABILITY, HETEROZYGOSITY AND OUTCROSSING IN COLONIAL POPULATIONS OF LUPINUS SUCCULENTUS , 1977, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[13]  J. Mosimann Size Allometry: Size and Shape Variables with Characterizations of the Lognormal and Generalized Gamma Distributions , 1970 .

[14]  T. P. Burnaby Growth-Invariant Discriminant Functions and Generalized Distances , 1966 .

[15]  S. Gould ALLOMETRY AND SIZE IN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY , 1966, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[16]  F. Bookstein,et al.  The Measurement of Biological Shape and Shape Change. , 1980 .

[17]  P. Dodson On the Use of Ratios in Growth Studies , 1978 .

[18]  J. Huxley Problems of relative growth , 1932 .

[19]  G. H. Albrecht Some Comments on the Use of Ratios , 1978 .

[20]  J. Cracraft Covariation patterns in the postcranial skeleton of moas (Aves, Dinornithidae): A factor analytic study , 1976, Paleobiology.

[21]  J. Mosimann,et al.  NEW STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ALLOMETRY WITH APPLICATION TO FLORIDA RED‐WINGED BLACKBIRDS , 1979, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[22]  P. Sprent,et al.  The mathematics of size and shape. , 1972, Biometrics.

[23]  W. Atchley Ratios, Regression Intercepts, and the Scaling of Data , 1978 .

[24]  D. L. Jameson,et al.  Canonical Correlation between Variation in Weather and Variation in Size in the Pacific Tree Frog, Hyla regilla, in Southern California , 1970 .

[25]  K. Flessa,et al.  On the measurement of size-independent morphological variability: an example using successive populations of a Devonian spiriferid brachiopod , 1977, Paleobiology.

[26]  Pierre Jolicoeur,et al.  The multivariate generalization of the allometry equation , 1963 .

[27]  W. Atchley,et al.  Statistical Properties of Ratios. I. Empirical Results , 1976 .

[28]  R. Thorpe A comparative study of ordination techniques in numerical taxonomy in relation to racial variation in the ringed snake Natrix natrix (L.) , 1980 .

[29]  T. N. Todd,et al.  Differentiation in Coregonus zenithicus in Lake Superior , 1980 .

[30]  J. Humphries,et al.  A Remarkable Species Flock of Pupfishes, Genus Cyprinodon, from Yucatán, México@@@A Remarkable Species Flock of Pupfishes, Genus Cyprinodon, from Yucatan, Mexico , 1981 .

[31]  By R. S. Thorpe BIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION AND RACIAL AFFINITIES , 1976, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[32]  Gerald R. Smith Analysis of Several Hybrid Cyprinid Fishes from Western North America , 1973 .