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.

Reliable Phylogenetic Regressions for Multivariate Comparative Data: Illustration with the MANOVA and Application to the Effect of Diet on Mandible Morphology in Phyllostomid Bats

Phylogenetic ANOVA: Group‐clade aggregation, biological challenges, and a refined permutation procedure

A practical, step-by-step, guide to taxonomic comparisons using Procrustes geometric morphometrics and user-friendly software (part A): introduction and preliminary analyses

Multi-Response Phylogenetic Mixed Models: Concepts and Application

Morphometric analysis of shape differences in Windover and Point Hope archaic human mandibles

Automatic generation of evolutionary hypotheses using mixed Gaussian phylogenetic models

Multivariate Mixed Models in Ecology and Evolutionary biology: Inferences and implementation in R

Analysis of Multivariate Data and Repeated Measures Designs with the R Package MANOVA.RM

On the Mkv Model with Among-Character Rate Variation

Extending phylogenetic regression models for comparing within‐species patterns across the tree of life

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

Evaluation of the Models Handling Heterotachy in Phylogenetic Inference

Evaluating the Performance of Probabilistic Algorithms for Phylogenetic Analysis of Big Morphological Datasets: A Simulation Study

Fast fitting of phylogenetic mixed effects models

Efficient Bayesian Inference of General Gaussian Models on Large Phylogenetic Trees

Do morphometric data improve phylogenetic reconstruction? A systematic review and assessment

Morphological disparity in theropod jaws: comparing discrete characters and geometric morphometrics

Assessing the application of landmark-free morphometrics to macroevolutionary analyses

Novel Bayesian Procrustes Variance-based Inferences in Geometric Morphometrics & Novel R package: BPviGM1

Morphological Datasets Fit a Common Mechanism Much More Poorly than DNA Sequences and Call Into Question the Mkv Model.

Accuracy of phylogenetic reconstructions from continuous characters analyzed under parsimony and its parametric correlates