The conundrum of morphometrics
2003; Wiley; Volume: 52; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2307/4135538
ISSN1996-8175
Autores Tópico(s)Evolution and Paleontology Studies
ResumoTAXONVolume 52, Issue 4 p. 663-671 New Trends in Plant SystematicsFree Access The conundrum of morphometrics† Richard J. Jensen, Corresponding Author Richard J. Jensen rjensen@saintmarys.edu Department of Biology, Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame, Indiana, 46556 U.S.A.Search for more papers by this author Richard J. Jensen, Corresponding Author Richard J. Jensen rjensen@saintmarys.edu Department of Biology, Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame, Indiana, 46556 U.S.A.Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 November 2003 https://doi.org/10.2307/4135538Citations: 21 ‡"Conundrum: an intricate and difficult problem" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary). AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Literature Cited Adams, D. C., Rohlf, F. J. & Slice, D. E. In press. Geometric morphometries: ten years of progress following the "revolution". Ital. J. Zool. 20. Barnsley, M. 1988. Fractals Everywhere. Academic Press, Boston. Binns, S. E., Baum, B. R. & Arnason, J. T. 2002. A taxonomic revision of Echinacea (Asteraceae: Heliantheae). Syst. Bot. 27: 610– 632. Bookstein, F. L. 1989. "Size and shape": a comment on semantics. Syst. Zool. 38: 173– 180. Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Bookstein, F. L. 1994. Can biometrical shape be a homologous character? Pp. 197– 227 in: B. K. Hall (ed.), Homology: the Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. Academic Press, San Diego. Bookstein, F. L. 2002. Creases as morphometric characters. Pp. 139– 174 in: N. MacLeod & P. L. Forey (eds.), Morphology; Shape and Phylogeny. Taylor & Francis, London. Bookstein, F. L., Chernoff, B., Elder, R., Humphries, J., Smith, G. & Strauss, R. 1985. Morphometries in Evolutionary Biology. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia. Chappill, J. 1989. Quantitative characters in phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics 5: 217– 234. Crowe, T. W. 1994. Morphometrics, phylogenetic models and cladistics: means to an end or much to do about nothing? Cladistics 10: 77– 84. Dickinson, T. A., Parker, W. H. & Strauss, R. E. 1987. Another approach to leaf shape comparisons. Taxon 36: 1– 20. Dilcher, D. L. 2001. Paleobotany: some aspects of non-flowering and flowering plant evolution. Taxon 50: 697– 711. Duncan, T. & Baum, B. R. 1981. Numerical phenetics: its uses in botanical systematics. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 12: 387– 104. Endress, P. K., Baas, P. & Gregory, M. 2000. Systematic plant morphology and anatomy - 50 years of progress. Taxon 49: 401– 434. Flores Olvera, H. 2003. Classification of North American species of Atriplex section Obione (Chenopodiaceae) based on numerical taxonomic analyses. Taxon 52: 247– 260. Gielis, J. 2003. A generic geometric transformation that unifies a wide range of natural and abstract shapes. Amer. J. Bot. 90: 333– 338. Jensen, R. J. 1990. Detecting shape variation in oak leaf morphology: a comparison of rotational-fit methods. Amer. J. Bot. 78: 1279– 1293. Jensen, R. J. 1995. Using leaf shape to identify taxa in a mixed-oak community in Land Between The Lakes, Kentucky. Pp. 177– 188 in: S. W. Hamilton, D. S. White, E. W. Chester & A. F. Scott (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on the Natural History of Lower Tennessee and Cumberland River Valleys. The Center for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee. Jensen, R. J., Ciofani, K. M. & Miramontes, L. C. 2002. Lines, outlines, and landmarks: morphometric analyses of leaves of Acer rubrum, Acer saccharinum (Aceraceae) and their hybrid. Taxon 51: 475– 492. Jensen, R. J., Hokanson, S. C., Isebrands, J. G. & Hancock. J. F. 1993. Morphometric variation in oaks of the Apostle Islands in Wisconsin: evidence of hybridization between Quercus rubra and Q. ellipsoidalis (Fagaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 80: 1358– 1366. Jones, C. S. 1993. Heterochrony and heteroblastic leaf development in two subspecies of Cucurbita argyrosperma (Cucurbitaceae). Amer. J. Bot.80: 778– 795. Kincaid, D. T. & Schneider, R. B. 1983. Quantification of leaf shape with a microcomputer and Fourier transforms. Canad. J. Bot. 61: 2333– 2342. Kores, P. J., Molvray, M. & Darwin, S. P. 1993. Morphometric variation in three species of Cyrtostylis (Orchidaceae). Syst. Bot. 18: 274– 282. Kuhl, F. P. & Giardina, C. R. 1982. Elliptic Fourier features of a closed contour. Comput. Graph. Image Proc. 18: 236– 258. Lele, S. R. & Richtsmeier, J. T. 2001. An Invariant Approach to Statistical Analysis of Shapes. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton. Lestrel, P. E. 1997a. Introduction. Pp. 3– 21 in: P. E. Lestrel (ed.), Fourier Descriptors and their Applications in Biology. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Lestrel, P. E. 1997b. Introduction and overview of Fourier descriptors. Pp. 22– 44 in: P. E. Lestrel (ed.), Fourier Descriptors and their Applications in Biology. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. MacLeod, N. 2002. Phylogenetic signals in morphometric data. Pp. 100– 138 in: N. MacLeod & P. L. Forey (eds.), Morphology, Shape and Phylogeny. Taylor & Francis, London. MacLeod, N. & Forey, P. L. 2002. Introduction: morphology, shape, and phylogenetics. Pp. 1– 7 in: N. MacLeod & P. L. Forey (eds.), Morphology, Shape and Phylogeny. Taylor & Francis, London. Marcus, L. F. & Corti, M. 1996. Overview of the new, or geometric morphometrics. Pp. 1– 13 in: L. F. Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G. J. P. Naylor & D. E. Slice (eds.), Advances in Morphometrics. Plenum Press, New York. McLellan, T. 1993. The roles of heterochrony and heteroblasty in the diversification of leaf shapes in Begonia dregei (Begoniaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 80: 796– 804. McLellan, T. 2000. Geographic variation and plasticity of leaf shape and size in Begonia dregei and B. homonyma (Begoniaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 132: 79– 95. McLellan, T. & Endler, J. A. 1998. The relative success of some methods for measuring and describing the shape of complex objects. Syst. Biol. 47: 264– 281. Mishler, B. D. 2000. Deep phylogenetic relationships among "plants" and their implications for classification. Taxon 49: 661– 683. Olsson, A., Nybom, H. & Prentice, H. C. 2000. Relationships between Nordic dogroses (Rosa L. sect. Caninae, Rosaceae) assessed by RAPDs and elliptic Fourier analysis of leaflet shape. Syst. Bot. 25: 511– 521. Pimentel, R. A. & Riggins, R. 1987. The nature of cladistic data. Cladistics 3: 201– 209. Poe, S. & Wiens, J. J. 2000. Character selection and the methodology of morphological phylogenetics. Pp. 20– 36 in: J. J. Wiens (ed.), Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphometric Data. Smithsonian Instit. Press, Washington, D.C. Prance, G. T. 2000. Plant systematics: a half-century of progress (1950-2000) and future challenges. Introduction. Taxon 49: 399. Reid, G. & Sidwell, K. 2002. Overlapping variables in botanical systematics. Pp. 53– 66 in: N. MacLeod & P. L. Forey (eds.), Morphology, Shape and Phylogeny. Taylor & Francis, London. Richtsmeier, J. T., Deleon, V. B. & Lele, S. 2002. The promise of geometric morphometrics. Yearbook Phys. Anthropol. 45: 63– 91. Rohlf, F. J. 1993. Relative warp analysis and an example of its application to mosquito wings. Pp. 131– 159 in: L. F. Marcus, E. Bello & A. Garcia-Valdecasas (eds.), Contributions to Morphometrics. Monografias del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid. Rohlf, F. J. 1999. On the use of shape spaces to compare mor-phometric methods. Hystrix 11: 1– 17. Rohlf, F. J. 2003. Bias and error in estimates of mean shape in geometric morphometrics. J. Human Evol. 44: 665– 683. Rohlf, F. J. & Marcus, L. F. 1993. A revolution in morphomet-rics. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 8: 129– 132. Scotland, R. W., Olmstead, R. G. & Bennett, J. R. 2003. Phylogeny reconstruction: the role of morphology Syst. Biol. 52: 539– 548. Selvi, F., Alessio, P. & Bigazzi, M. 2002. Systematics of Nonea (Boraginaceae-Boragineae): new insights from phenetic and cladistic analyses. Taxon 51: 719– 730. Slice, D. E. 1993. The fractal analysis of shape. Pp. 161– 190 in: L. F. Marcus, E. Bello & A. Garcia-Valdecasas (eds.), Contributions to Morphometrics. Monografias del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid. Slice, D. E., Bookstein, F. L., Marcus, L. F. & Rohlf, F. J. 1996. A glossary for geometric morphometrics. Pp. 531– 551 in: L. F. Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G. J. P. Naylor & D. E. Slice (eds.), Advances in Morphometrics. Plenum Press, New York. Smith, G. R. 1990. Homology in morphometrics and phylogenet- ics. Pp. 325– 338 in: F. J. Rohlf & F. L. Bookstein (eds.), Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. Univ. Michigan Museum Zoology, Ann Arbor. Sneath, P. H. A. & Sokal, R. R. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification. W. H. Freeman & Company, San Francisco. Sokal, R. R. & Sneath, P. H. A. 1963. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. W. H. Freeman & Company, San Francisco. Somers, K. M. 1989. Allometry, isometry, and shape in principal components analysis. Syst. Zool. 38: 169– 173. Spooner, D. M., Van Den Berg, R. G. & Miller, J. T. 2000. Species and series boundaries of Solanum series Longipedicellata (Solanaceae) and phenetically similar species in ser. Demissa and ser. Tuberosa: implications for a practical taxonomy of section Petota. Amer. J. Bot. 87: 113– 130. Stevens, P. F. 1991. Character states, morphological variation, and phylogenetic analysis: a review. Syst. Bot. 16: 553– 583. Stevens, P. F.. 2000. Botanical systematics 1950-2000: change, progress, or both? Taxon 49: 635– 659. Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant Taxonomy: the Systematic Evaluation of Comparative Data. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. Sundberg, P. 1989. Shape and size-constrained principal components analysis. Syst. Zool. 38: 166– 168. Swiderski, D. L., Zelditch, M. L. & Fink, W. L. 2002. Comparability, morphometrics and phylogenetic systematics. Pp. 67– 99 in: N. MacLeod & P. L. Forey (eds.), Morphology, Shape and Phylogeny. Taylor & Francis, London. Sytsma, K. J. & Pires, J. C. 2001. Plant systematics in the next 50 years - re-mapping the new frontier. Taxon 50: 713– 732. White, R. J., Prentice, H. C. & Verwijst, T. 1988. Automated image acquisition and morphometric description. Canad. J. Bot. 14: 612– 623. Zelditch, M. L., Swiderski, D. L. & Fink, W. L. 2000. Discovery of phylogenetic characters in morphometric data. Pp. 37– 83 in: J. J. Wiens (ed.), Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphometric Data. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Citing Literature Volume52, Issue4November 2003Pages 663-671 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)