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.

Geometric morphometric analysis of snout shape in extant ruminants (Ungulata, Artiodactyla)

Snout Shape in Extant Ruminants

Comparative Ecomorphology of Ornithopod and Ruminant Snouts – a Geometric Morphometric Approach

Geometric morphometrics of mandibles for dietary differentiation of Bovidae (Mammalia: Artiodactyla)

Morphology is not Destiny: Discrepancy between Form, Function and Dietary Adaptation in Bovid Cheek Teeth

Myology of the masticatory apparatus of herbivorous mammals and a novel classification for a better understanding of herbivore diversity

Mandibular shape and diet in extant primates: a 3D geometric morphometric analysis

Variation in dental morphology and dietary breadth in primates and their kin

Form and function in the platyrrhine skull: a three-dimensional analysis of dental and TMJ morphology

Mandible shape variation and feeding biomechanics in minks

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

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

Geometric morphometric evaluation of mandibles of four sheep breeds: Bardoka, İvesi, Polish Mountain sheep and Turcana

A unified approach for morphometrics and functional data analysis with machine learning for craniodental shape quantification in shrew species

Longer mandible or nose? Co-evolution of feeding organs in early elephantiforms

Comparative morphology of the rhinarium and upper lip in sigmodontine rodents: Refined nomenclature, intertribal variation in a phylogenetic framework, and functional inferences

A 3D geometric morphometric analysis of the bovid distal humerus, with special reference to Rusingoryx atopocranion (Pleistocene, Eastern Africa)

Evolutionary ecomorphology for the twenty-first century: examples from mammalian carnivores

Functionally mediated cranial allometry evidenced in a genus of rock-wallabies

Studying the Shape Variations of the Back, the Neck, and the Mandibular Angle of Horses Depending on Specific Feeding Postures Using Geometric Morphometrics

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

­Geometric morphometric analysis of snout shape in extant ruminants (Ungulata, Artiodactyla)