The skull of Hydrodynastes gigas (Duméril, Bibron &amp; Duméril, 1854) (Serpentes: Dipsadidae) as a model of snake ontogenetic allometry inferred by geometric morphometrics

Murta-Fonseca, Roberta Azeredo; Fernandes, Daniel S.

doi:10.1007/s00435-015-0297-0

Cited by 24 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The origin of the size variation depends on the context of the study, and according to this context, different levels of variation can be defined (Cock 1966 ; Gould 1966 ; Cheverud 1982 ; Klingenberg and Zimmermann 1992a ; Klingenberg 2014 ). Many studies have analyzed the changes associated with the dramatic size increases over individual growth, or ontogenetic allometry (Huxley 1924 , 1932 ; Loy et al 1996 ; Bulygina et al 2006 ; Rodríguez-Mendoza et al 2011 ; Mitteroecker et al 2013 ; Murta-Fonseca and Fernandes 2016 ). Others have focused on the consequences of size variation within a single ontogenetic stage, or static allometry, most often based on samples of adults from a population (Rosas and Bastir 2002 ; Drake and Klingenberg 2008 ; Weisensee and Jantz 2011 ; Freidline et al 2015 ).…”

Section: Allometry Size and Shape In Different Morphometric Framewomentioning

confidence: 99%

Size, shape, and form: concepts of allometry in geometric morphometrics

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Allometry refers to the size-related changes of morphological traits and remains an essential concept for the study of evolution and development. This review is the first systematic comparison of allometric methods in the context of geometric morphometrics that considers the structure of morphological spaces and their implications for characterizing allometry and performing size correction. The distinction of two main schools of thought is useful for understanding the differences and relationships between alternative methods for studying allometry. The Gould–Mosimann school defines allometry as the covariation of shape with size. This concept of allometry is implemented in geometric morphometrics through the multivariate regression of shape variables on a measure of size. In the Huxley–Jolicoeur school, allometry is the covariation among morphological features that all contain size information. In this framework, allometric trajectories are characterized by the first principal component, which is a line of best fit to the data points. In geometric morphometrics, this concept is implemented in analyses using either Procrustes form space or conformation space (the latter also known as size-and-shape space). Whereas these spaces differ substantially in their global structure, there are also close connections in their localized geometry. For the model of small isotropic variation of landmark positions, they are equivalent up to scaling. The methods differ in their emphasis and thus provide investigators with flexible tools to address specific questions concerning evolution and development, but all frameworks are logically compatible with each other and therefore unlikely to yield contradictory results.

show abstract

Section: Allometry Size and Shape In Different Morphometric Framewomentioning

confidence: 99%

Size, shape, and form: concepts of allometry in geometric morphometrics

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The relationship between centroid size and age in ontogenetic allometry through multivariate regression analysis has been found reliable to explain biological shape changes across different ages including humans (Bulygina et al 2006;Rodríguez-Mendoza et al 2011;Mitteroecker et al 2013;Murta-Fonseca and Fernandes 2016). Based on the results, the centroid size of C. megacephala cephalopharyngeal skeleton was positively correlated with developmental time, indicating the shape transformation occurred along larval progression from the first to the third instar.…”

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 94%

Chrysomya megacephala (Fabricius, 1794) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) development by landmark-based geometric morphometrics of cephalopharyngeal skeleton: a preliminary assessment for forensic entomology application

Sim

Zuha

2019

Egypt J Forensic Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Considering the practicality of geometric morphometrics which could discriminate insect species, this application was extended to the analysis of blow fly larval growth based on cephalopharyngeal skeleton. In forensic entomology, cephalopharyngeal skeleton plays a crucial role in species identification but the morphometric information of this part is scarce. In this study, Chrysomya megacephala (Fabricius, 1794) was reared in two study replicates in natural conditions and samplings were conducted at fixed daily intervals. Cephalopharyngeal skeletons were removed from larvae and mounted on glass slides. Images were obtained from the specimens; digitized and geometric morphometric analysis on C. megacephala cephalopharyngeal skeletons was performed with MorphoJ software based on the ordination of five landmarks. The assessments of this analysis were based on centroid size measurements, visualization on the landmarks displacements, classification of the relative landmarks by using canonical variate analysis, and ontogenetic allometry determination. Findings: Centroid size was strongly correlated with developmental time (p < 0.05) and significantly different between daily intervals (p < 0.05). Ontogenetic allometric effect based on multivariate regression on Procrustes coordinates and centroid size was significant (p < 0.0001), indicating that shape was influenced by growth (60.3%). Disposition occurred on all landmarks during development and was further discriminated based on age groups. Conclusions: Other than discriminating between species, geometric morphometrics was found to be practical to visualize larval growth based on cephalopharyngeal skeletons which can be useful in forensic entomology.

show abstract

“…Therefore, to standardize the acquisition of images and to avoid the wide-angle distortions problem, skulls must be positioned in the centre of the field of view in both techniques (Zelditch, Swiderski & Sheets, 2004). Taking the above precautions into account, both techniques represent efficient methods to access information on skull morphology of vertebrates and are largely used in the literature (Cardini & Elton, 2007;Cardini et al, 2015;Hamdan & Fernandes, 2015;Murta-Fonseca, Franco & Fernandes, 2015;Murta-Fonseca & Fernandes, 2016;Souto et al, 2017).…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Geometric morphometrics (GM) considers geometric space as well as the use of multivariate statistical methods to analyse shapes of target structures or entire organisms (Bookstein, 1996;Adams, Rohlf & Slice, 2013). Increasingly, GM has been used as a main tool in several biological studies focusing on the interpretation of selective pressures and/or evolutionary processes (Fabre et al, 2016;Klaczko, Sherratt & Setz, 2016;Foth, Rabi & Joyce, 2017;Santos et al, 2017;Da Silva et al, 2018;Silva et al, 2018), species delimitation (Mutanen & Pretorius, 2007;Mangiacotti et al, 2014;Ruane, 2015;Andjelkovic, Tomovic & Ivanovic, 2016), ontogeny (Klingenberg, 1998;Berge & Penin, 2004;Murta-Fonseca & Fernandes, 2016;Palci, Lee & Hutchinson, 2016;Gray et al, 2019) and asymmetry (Klingenberg & McIntyre, 1998;Klingenberg, Barluenga & Meyer, 2002;Klingenberg et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Martinez et al (2012) analysed the effect of formalin fixation and ethanol preservation in the shape of two fish species, showing that fixation could lead to biased results or wrong conclusions. Several morphological studies use preserved animals from biological collections, which were submitted to different methods of fixation, preservation and preparation (in the case of some structures) (Pinto et al, 2015;Murta-Fonseca & Fernandes, 2016;Passos, Martins & Pinto-Coelho, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Snakes as a model for measuring skull preparation errors in geometric morphometrics

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers often use skulls prepared by different techniques in geometric morphometrics (GM). The main goal of this paper was to compare and measure errors in GM analyses using snake skulls prepared with two of these techniques (microCT Scan and chemical maceration). We evaluate if analyses employing skulls with both types of preparation may generate biased results or if this parameter is negligible. Thirty‐four heads of Liophis miliaris merremi were first scanned and subsequently prepared following the techniques of chemical maceration. We used 37 and 18 landmarks for dorsal and ventral views of skulls respectively. To evaluate shape differences between the same skull assessed by microCT Scan and chemical maceration, we performed discriminant analyses, Hotelling's T2 and cross‐validation tests. Discriminant analyses showed significant differences between preparation techniques for both views. However, all the differences between dried and microCT scanned skulls were smaller than those between individuals of the same taxon, which means that such differences are within the range of intraspecific variation. The results support the use of specimens prepared according to both techniques in studies of GM.

show abstract

The skull of Hydrodynastes gigas (Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854) (Serpentes: Dipsadidae) as a model of snake ontogenetic allometry inferred by geometric morphometrics

Cited by 24 publications

References 32 publications

Size, shape, and form: concepts of allometry in geometric morphometrics

Size, shape, and form: concepts of allometry in geometric morphometrics

Chrysomya megacephala (Fabricius, 1794) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) development by landmark-based geometric morphometrics of cephalopharyngeal skeleton: a preliminary assessment for forensic entomology application

Snakes as a model for measuring skull preparation errors in geometric morphometrics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About