Abstract:Few have sought to compare the performance of alternative types of morphological data for biological species identification. This investigation contrasts results of form characterization via form factors, superposed landmark coordinates, landmark-registered semilandmark outlines, 3D semilandmark networks, and raw digital images for a test set of seven Recent planktonic foraminifer species. While all data types performed better than the qualitative assessment of morphological variation by human taxonomists, landmark-registered semilandmark outlines and raw digital images delivered the best performance in the context of approaches that could reasonably serve as the basis for fully automated species identification systems. Index Terms — automated identification, landmark coordinates, Foraminifers, taxonomy. —————————— u —————————— The automated identification of biological objects (individuals) and/or groups (e.g., species, guilds, characters) has been a dream of systematists’ for centuries. The goal of some of the first multivariate biometric methods was to address the perennial problem of group identification and inter-group characterization [1], [2]. Despite much preliminary work in the 1950s and 60s, progress in designing and implementing practical systems for fully automated specimen identification has proven frustratingly slow. However, as recently as 2004 Dan Janzen updated the dream for a new audience [3]. “The spaceship lands. He steps out. He points it around. It says ‘friendly–unfriendly-edible–poisonous–safe–dangerous–living– inanimate’. On the next sweep it says ‘Quercus oleoides–Homo sapiens–Spondias mombin–Solanum nigrum–Crotalus durissus– Morpho peleides– serpentine’. This has been in my head since reading science fiction in ninth grade half a century ago.” (p. 731) ———————————————— The author is with the Palaeontology Department, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, N.MacLeod@nhm.ac.uk. Nimis P. L., Vignes Lebbe R. (eds.) Tools for Identifying Biodiversity: Progress and Problems – pp. 225-229. ISBN 978-88-8303-295-0. EUT, 2010.

Geometric Morphometric Analysis of Ocular Patterns as a Species Identifier in the South African Endemic Trapdoor Spider Genus Stasimopus Simon, 1892 (Araneae, Mygalomorphae, Stasimopidae)

An integrative taxonomy of the genus Stasimopus Simon 1892 (Araneae: Mygalomorphae) of the Karoo with the description of nine new species and a Stasimopus maraisi Hewitt 1914 male

Use of Wing Morphometrics to Identify Populations of the Old World Screwworm Fly, Chrysomya Bezziana (diptera: Calliphoridae): A Preliminary Study of the Utility of Museum Specimens

Comparative Population Genomic Diversity and Differentiation in Trapdoor Spiders and Relatives (Araneae, Mygalomorphae)

The issue of continuous characters in the copulatory bulb of Neodiplothele spiders: a morpho-geometric approach

Head geometric morphometrics as a reliable method to discriminate sexes and species of Megalopta, a nocturnal bee genus (Hymenoptera, Apoidea)

Geometric morphometrics analysis of forensically important Sarcophaga species

Can Geometric Morphometry of Pupal Gill Filaments Be Used as a Tool for Identification of the Simulium ornatum Species-Group (Simuliidae: Diptera)?

Detecting Taxonomic Signal in an Under-Utilised Character System: Geometric Morphometrics of the Forcipular Coxae of Scutigeromorpha (Chilopoda).

Shape variation in Sericoidini (Coleoptera: Melolonthidae: Melolonthinae) with emphasis on Blepharotoma Blanchard, 1850 using geometric morphometrics

Geometric approaches to the taxonomic analysis of centipede gonopods (Chilopoda: Scutigeromorpha)

A biosemiotic interpretation of certain genital morphological structures in the spiders Dysdera erythrina and Dysdera crocata (Araneae: Dysderidae)

Microgeographic population structuring in a genus of California trapdoor spiders and discovery of an enigmatic new species (Euctenizidae: Promyrmekiaphila korematsui sp. nov.)

Alternative 2D and 3D Form Characterization Approaches to the Automated Identification of Biological Species

Geometric morphometrics of microscopic animals as exemplified by model nematodes

Geometric morphometric analysis of spore shapes improves identification of fungi

Spotting mistakes: Reappraisal of Spotted Drum Stellifer punctatissimus (Meek & Hildebrand, 1925) (Teleostei: Sciaenidae) reveals species misidentification trends and suggests latitudinal sexual dimorphism

Morphological Species Delimitation in The Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys): Can Machine Learning Methods Aid in Cryptic Species Identification?

Using geometric wing morphometrics to distinguish Aedes japonicus japonicus and Aedes koreicus

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

Comparative exploration of the morphological plasticity of Trichodina centrostrigeata (Peritrichia: Mobilida), ectoparasite from the gills of two tilapia species (Oreochromis niloticus and O. mossambicus) in a global context