Abstract:Morphology‐based taxonomic research frequently applies LMM in skulls to quantify species distinctions but the choice of which measurements to collect generally relies on the expertise of the investigators, a practice that may ignore less obvious discriminatory characters. After a comparison with GMM, we found high measurement redundancy in LMM protocols, possibly resulting in relatively high allometry but low discriminatory performance, as opposed to correct discriminatory performance in GMM even after allometric correction. These findings suggest that taxonomic measurement protocols might benefit from GMM‐based pilot studies, because this offers the option of differentiating allometric and non‐allometric shape differences between species, which can then inform on the development of the easier‐to‐apply LMM protocols. Morphology‐based taxonomic research frequently applies linear morphometrics (LMM) in skulls to quantify species distinctions. The choice of which measurements to collect generally relies on the expertise of the investigators or a set of standard measurements, but this practice may ignore less obvious or common discriminatory characteristics. In addition, taxonomic analyses often ignore the potential for subgroups of an otherwise cohesive population to differ in shape purely due to size differences (or allometry). Geometric morphometrics (GMM) is more complicated as an acquisition technique but can offer a more holistic characterization of shape and provides a rigorous toolkit for accounting for allometry. In this study, we used linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to assess the discriminatory performance of four published LMM protocols and a 3D GMM dataset for three clades of antechinus known to differ subtly in shape. We assessed discrimination of raw data (which are frequently used by taxonomists); data with isometry (i.e., overall size) removed; and data after allometric correction (i.e., with nonuniform effects of size removed). When we visualized the principal component analysis (PCA) plots, we found that group discrimination among raw data was high for LMM. However, LMM datasets may inflate PC variance accounted in the first two PCs, relative to GMM. GMM discriminated groups better after isometry and allometry were removed in both PCA and LDA. Although LMM can be a powerful tool to discriminate taxonomic groups, we show that there is substantial risk that this discrimination comes from variation in size, rather than shape. This suggests that taxonomic measurement protocols might benefit from GMM‐based pilot studies, because this offers the option of differentiating allometric and nonallometric shape differences between species, which can then inform on the development of the easier‐to‐apply LMM protocols.

Machine-learning Strategies for Testing Patterns of Morphological Variation in Small Samples: Sexual Dimorphism in Gray Wolf (canis Lupus) Crania.

Sample Size and Geometric Morphometrics Methodology Impact the Evaluation of Morphological Variation

The Patterns and Reason for Chronographic Variability of Morphological Traits in Some Mammalian Species: Orders Rodentia and Carnivora

Geometric Morphometric Approaches to Acoustic Signal Analysis in Mammalian Biology

A deep learning approach to detect and visualise sexual dimorphism in monomorphic species

Bolstering geometric morphometrics sample sizes with damaged and pathologic specimens: Is near enough good enough?

Cranial variation in species and subspecies of kangaroo rats (Dipodomys, Dipodomyinae, Rodentia) according to geometric morphometrics

The relative performance of geometric morphometrics and linear‐based methods in the taxonomic resolution of a mammalian species complex

Sexual dimorphism in tooth morphometrics: An evaluation of the parameters

Exploratory analysis of new craniometric measures for the investigation of biological sex using open-access statistical and machine-learning tools on a cone-beam computed tomography sample

Morpho-Geometric Description of the Skulls and Mandibles of Brown Bears (Ursus arctos) from the Dancing Bear Belitsa Park

Comparative craniometric analysis between two species of South American canids and domestic dogs

Cranial variability and differentiation among golden jackals (Canis aureus) in Europe, Asia Minor and Africa

Can morphotaxa be assessed with photographs? Estimating the accuracy of two‐dimensional cranial geometric morphometrics for the study of threatened populations of African monkeys

Sexual dimorphism and allometry in human scapular morphology

Enhancing Sex Estimation Accuracy with Cranial Angle Measurements and Machine Learning

Sorting the mob: using geometric morphometrics and machine learning to differentiate kangaroo postcrania for zooarchaeological applications

Morphometric analysis of the supraorbital region for sexual dimorphism: A study on Brazilian adult dry skulls

Geometric morphometric analysis of an ontogenetic cranial series of the Permian dicynodont Diictodon feliceps

Using data‐driven phenotyping to investigate the impact of sex on 3D human facial surface morphology

Automatic Sex Determination of Skulls Based on a Statistical Shape Model.