Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-fmk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T07:31:00.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A modified Procrustes analysis for bilaterally symmetrical outlines, with an application to microevolution in Baculites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2013

Fred L. Bookstein  and
Peter D. Ward
Fred L. Bookstein
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, U.S.A., and Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, A-1091 Vienna, Austria. E-mail: flb@stat.washington.edu. Corresponding author
Peter D. Ward
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, U.S.A. E-mail: argo@u.washington.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In quantitative paleobiology, one common format for image-derived information is the closed two-dimensional outline curve. Before the end of the last century a great variety of morphometric tools were on offer to deal with this data type, including diverse analyses of distance from a central point, “eigenshape analysis” of a carefully normalized tangent angle function, and Procrustes analysis of configurations of sliding semilandmarks. For the special case of outline forms that are nominally bilaterally symmetric, this paper offers a hybrid approach that fuses the Procrustes toolkit with a variant of a much older method, analysis of radial distance according to angles out of a center. The synthesis represents each outline as a regularly resampled data set of radially aligned shape coordinates analogous to bilateral Procrustes shape coordinates. When the center is iteratively located in one particular way, this representation has the same Procrustes distance statistics as a conventional radial representation, while the formalism of shape coordinates permits symmetrization, localizability, and thin-plate spline visualizations. We explain the method and sketch some of its advantages and limitations in the course of an example involving 99 Baculites inornatus outlines spanning 90 m of deposits from a high-precision measured section in the Campanian-age Rosario Formation cropping out at Punta San Jose, Baja California. This sequence shows substantial changes of pole curvature over time, changes that may involve a punctuation event regarding hydrostatics, hydrodynamics, or defense against predators. A concluding comment deals with implications of the developments here for Baculites microevolution and for morphometrics.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , Spring 2013 , pp. 214 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, D. R. 2008. Model-based inference in the life sciences: a primer on evidence. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, D. E. 2002. A geometric method for determining shape of bird eggs. Auk 199:1179–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benazzi, S., Coquerelle, M., Fiorenza, L., Bookstein, F. L., Katina, S., and Kullmer, O. 2011. Comparison of dental measurement systems for taxonomic assignment of first molars. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 144:342–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blum, H. 1973. Biological shape and visual science, Part I. Journal of Theoretical Biology 38:205–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, F. 1905. The horizontal plane of the skull and the general problem of the comparison of variable forms. Science 21:862–863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bookstein, F. L. 1981. Comment on “Issues related to the prediction of craniofacial growth.” American Journal of Orthodontics 79:442–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1997. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics of group difference in outline shape. Medical Image Analysis 1:225–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bookstein, F. L. 2009. Was there information in my data? Really? (Review of Anderson 2008.) Biological Theory 4:302–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 2011. “Biology and mathematical imagination.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvwF3fYv7Ys. Rohlf Medal lecture, Stony Brook University, 24 October 2011.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 2013. Random walk as a null model for high-dimensional morphometrics of fossil series: geometrical considerations. Paleobiology 39:52–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bookstein, F. L., Chernoff, B., Elder, R., Humphries, J., Smith, G., and Strauss, R. 1982. A comment on the uses of Fourier analysis in systematics. Systematic Zoology 31:85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bookstein, F. L., Schäfer, K., Prossinger, H., Seidler, H., Fieder, M., Stringer, C., Weber, G., Arsuaga, J., Slice, D., Rohlf, F. J., Recheis, W., Mariam, A., and Marcus, L. 1999. Comparing frontal cranial profiles in archaic and modern Homo by morphometric analysis. Anatomical Record Part B: The New Anatomist 257:217–224.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, M. W. 1981. Quantitative shape analysis: a review. Mathematical Geology 13:303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobban, W. A. 1958. Two new species of Baculites from the Western Interior region. Journal of Paleontology 32:660–665.Google Scholar
Cobban, W. A., Walaszczyk, I., Obradovich, J. D., and McKinney, K. C. 2006. A USGS Zonal table for the Upper Cretaceous middle Cenomanian-Maastrichtian of the Western Interior of the United States based on ammonites, inoceramids, and radiometric ages. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report-2004-1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, J. S., and Gale, A. S. 2005. A plastic boomerang: speciation and intraspecific evolution in the Cretaceous bivalve Actinoceramus. Paleobiology 31:559–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, T. L., Helmuth, B. S., Saunders, W. B., and Ward, P. D. 1997. Septal complexity in ammonoid cephalopods increased mechanical risk and limited depth. Paleobiology 23:470–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryden, I. V., and Mardia, K. V. 1998. Statistical shape analysis. Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
Elsasser, W. M. 1975. The chief abstractions of biology. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Ferson, S., Rohlf, F. J., and Koehn, R. K. 1985. Measuring shape variation of two-dimensional outlines. Systematic Zoology 34:59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filmer, P. E., and Kirschvink, J. L. 1989. A paleomagnetic constraint on the Late Cretaceous paleoposition of northwestern Baja California, Mexico. Journal of Geophysical Research B94:7332–7342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Full, W. E., and Ehrlich, R. 1982. Some approaches for location of centroids of quartz grain outlines to increase homology between Fourier amplitude spectra. Mathematical Geology 14:43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J., and Eldredge, N. 1977. Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 3:115–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines, A. J., and Crampton, J. S. 2000. Improvements to the method of Fourier shape analysis as applied in biometric studies. Palaeontology 43:765–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannisdal, B. 2007. Inferring phenotypic evolution in the fossil record by Bayesian inversion. Paleobiology 33:98–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, D. 1990. Sutural patterns and shell stresses in Baculites with implications for other cephalopod shell morphologies. Paleobiology 16:336–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenderink, J. 1990. Solid shape. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kruta, I., Landman, N., Rouget, I., Cecca, F., and Tafforeau, P. 2011. The role of ammonites in the mesozoic marine food web revealed by jaw preservation. Science 331:70–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lohmann, G. P. 1983. Eigenshape analysis of microfossils: a general morphometric procedure for describing changes in shape. Mathematical Geology 15:659–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, N. 1999. Generalizing and extending the eigenshape method of shape space visualization and analysis. Paleobiology 25:107–138.Google Scholar
Manship, L. L. 2004. Pattern matching: classification of ammonitic sutures using GIS. Palaeontologia Electronica 7:6A, http://palaeo-electronica.org/paleo/2004_2/suture/issue2_04.htm.Google Scholar
Mardia, K.V., Bookstein, F. L., and Moreton, I. J. 2000. Statistical assessment of bilateral symmetry of shapes. Biometrika 87:285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mardia, K. V., Kirkbride, J., and Bookstein, F. L. 2004. Statistics of shape, direction, and cylindrical variables. Journal of Applied Statistics 31:465–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. 1928. Lehrbuch der Anthropologie, Vol. 2. Craniologie und Osteologie. Gustav Fischer, Jena.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, T. 1959. Upper Cretaceous ammonites of California, Part I. Memoirs of the Faculty of Science, Kyushu University, series D (Geology), 8:91–171, plates 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitteroecker, P. M., and Gunz, P. 2009. Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evolutionary Biology 36:235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mónus, F., and Barta, Z. 2005. Repeatability analysis of egg shape in a wild tree sparrow (Passer montanus) population: a sensitive method for egg shape description. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 51:151–162.Google Scholar
Petersen, M. R. 1992. Intraspecific variation in egg shape among individual Emperor Geese. Journal of Field Ornithology 63:344–354.Google Scholar
Preston, F. W. 1953. The shapes of birds' eggs. Auk 70:160–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, F. W. 1968. The shapes of birds' eggs: mathematical aspects. Auk 85:454–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1966. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: general problems. Journal of Paleontology 40:1178–1190.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J. 1986. Relationships among eigenshape analysis, Fourier analysis, and analysis of coordinates. Mathematical Geology 18:845–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlf, F. J., and Bookstein, F. L., eds. 1990. Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Special Publication 2.Google Scholar
Schaefer, K., Lauc, T., Mitteroecker, P., Gunz, P., and Bookstein, F. L. 2006. Dental arch asymmetry in an isolated Adriatic community. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 129:132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, G. H. 1980. The value of outline processing in the biometry and systematics of fossils. Palaeontology 23:757–768.Google Scholar
Stoermer, E. F., and Ladewski, T. B. 1982. Quantitative analysis of shape variation in type and modern populations of Gomphoneis herculeana. Beiheft zur Nova Hedwigia 73:347–386.Google Scholar
Todd, P. H., and Smart, I. H. M. 1984. The shapes of birds' eggs. Journal of Theoretical Biology 106:239–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, P. 1976. Upper Cretaceous Ammonites (Santonian-Campanian) from Orcas Island, Washington. Journal of Paleontology 50:454–462.Google Scholar
Ward, P. 1978. Baculitids from the Nanaimo Group, Vancouver Island and Washington State. Journal of Paleontology 52:1143–1154.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D., Mitchell, R. N., and Haggart, J. 2008. Co-occurring Campanian/Maastrichtian index fossils in the Western Interior and North Pacific biotic provinces require fundamental changes in zonal biostratigraphy for both provinces. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 40:237.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D., Haggart, J. W., Mitchell, R., Kirschvink, J., and Tobin, T. 2012. Integration of macrofossil biostratigraphy and magnetostratigraphy for the Pacific coast Upper Cretaceous (Santonian–Maastrichtian) and implications for correlation with the Western Interior and Tethys. Geological Society of America Bulletin 124:957–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, G. W., and Bookstein, F. L. 2011. Virtual anthropology: a guide to a new interdisciplinary field. Springer, Vienna.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1971. Form, structure, and function of shell and siphuncle in coiled Mesozoic ammonoids. Life Science Contributions of the Royal Ontario Museum 78:1–39.Google Scholar