Phillips MJ, Celik MA, Beck RM. The evolutionary relationships of Diprotodontia and improving the accuracy of phylogenetic inference from morphological data. Alcheringa. 2023;16:1–13.
Webster M, Sheets HD. A practical introduction to landmark-based geometric morphometrics. Paleontol Soc Pap. 2010;16:163–88.
Rohlf FJ. Geometric morphometrics and phylogeny. Syst AssocSpec. 2002;64:175–93.
Bookstein FL. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics of group differences in outline shape. Med Image Anal. 1997;1:225–43.
Bookstein FL. Morphometric tools for landmark data. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
Zelditch M, Swiderski D, Sheets HD. Introduction. In: Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, editors. Geometric morphometrics for biologists. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2012. p. 1–20.
Cardini A, Marco VA. Procrustes shape cannot be analyzed, interpreted or visualized one landmark at a time. Evol Biol. 2022;49:239–54.
Álvarez-Carretero S, Goswami A, Yang Z, Dos Reis M. Bayesian Estimation of Species Divergence Times Using Correlated Quantitative Characters. Syst Biol. 2019;68:967–86.
Parins-Fukuchi C. Use of Continuous Traits Can Improve Morphological Phylogenetics. Syst Biol. 2018;67:328–39.
Collyer ML, Adams DC. Phylogenetically aligned component analysis. Methods Ecol Evol. 2021;12:359–72.
Takács P, Vitál Z, Ferincz Á, Staszny Á. Repeatability, reproducibility, separative power and subjectivity of different fish morphometric analysis methods. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0157890.
Devine J, Aponte JD, Katz DC, Liu W, Vercio LDL, Forkert ND, et al. A Registration and Deep Learning Approach to Automated Landmark Detection for Geometric Morphometrics. Evol Biol. 2020;47:246–59.
Ridel AF, Demeter F, Galland M, L’abbé EN, Vandermeulen D, Oettlé AC. Automatic landmarking as a convenient prerequisite for geometric morphometrics. Validation on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)- based shape analysis of the nasal complex. Forensic Sci Int. 2020;306:110095.
Boyer DM, Puente J, Gladman JT, Glynn C, Mukherjee S, Yapuncich GS, et al. A New Fully Automated Approach for Aligning and Comparing Shapes. Anat Rec. 2015;298:249–76.
Pomidor BJ, Makedonska J, Slice DE. A landmark-free method for three-dimensional shape analysis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0150368.
Koehl P, Hass J. Landmark-free geometric methods in biological shape analysis. J R Soc Interface. 2015;12:20150795.
White JD, Ortega-Castrillón A, Matthews H, Zaidi AA, Ekrami O, Snyders J, et al. MeshMonk: Open-source large-scale intensive 3D phenotyping. Sci Rep. 2019;9:6085.
Gao T, Yapuncich GS, Daubechies I, Mukherjee S, Boyer DM. Development and Assessment of Fully Automated and Globally Transitive Geometric Morphometric Methods, With Application to a Biological Comparative Dataset With High Interspecific Variation. Anat Rec. 2018;301:636–58.
Porto A, Rolfe S, Maga AM. ALPACA: A fast and accurate computer vision approach for automated landmarking of three-dimensional biological structures. Methods Ecol Evol. 2021;12:2129–44.
Rolfe SM, Maga AM. DeCA: a dense correspondence analysis toolkit for shape analysis. In: Wachinger, C, Paniagua, B, Elhabian, S, Li, J, Egger, J, editors. Shape in Medical Imaging. ShapeMI 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 14350. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46914-5_21.
Zhang C, Porto A, Rolfe S, Kocatulum A, Maga AM. Automated landmarking via multiple templates. PLoS ONE. 2022;17:e0278035.
Celik MA. Tracing the evolution of Australasian mammals: Integrating morphological, palaeontological and molecular data: PhD Thesis, Queensland University of Technology; 2020. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/135716/.
Ascarrunz E, Claude J, Joyce WG. Estimating the phylogeny of geoemydid turtles (Cryptodira) from landmark data: an assessment of different methods. PeerJ. 2019;7:e7476.
Catalano SA, Torres A. Phylogenetic inference based on landmark data in 41 empirical data sets. Zool Scr. 2017;46:1–11.
Goloboff PA, Mattoni CI, Quinteros AS. Continuous characters analyzed as such. Cladistics. 2006;22:589–601.
Catalano SA, Goloboff PA. Simultaneously Mapping and Superimposing Landmark Configurations with Parsimony as Optimality Criterion. Syst Biol. 2012;61:392–400.
Catalano SA, Goloboff PA, Giannini NP. Phylogenetic morphometrics (I): the use of landmark data in a phylogenetic framework. Cladistics. 2010;26:539–49.
Goloboff PA, Catalano SA. Phylogenetic morphometrics (II): algorithms for landmark optimization. Cladistics. 2011;27:42–51.
Goloboff PA, Farris JS, Nixon KC. TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics. 2008;24:774–86.
Felsenstein J. PHYLIP Phylogeny inference package. Department of Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle; 1993.
Zhang R, Drummond AJ, Mendes FK. Fast Bayesian inference of phylogenies from multiple continuous characters. Syst Biol. 2023;73:102–24.
Varon-Gonzalez C, Whelan S, Klingenberg CP. Estimating Phylogenies from Shape and Similar Multidimensional Data: Why It Is Not Reliable. Syst Biol. 2020;69:863–83.
Adams DC, Cardini A, Monteiro LR, O’Higgins P, Rohlf FJ. Morphometrics and phylogenetics: Principal components of shape from cranial modules are neither appropriate nor effective cladistic characters. J Hum Evol. 2011;60:240–3.
Monteiro LR. Why morphometrics is special: the problem with using partial warps as characters for phylogenetic inference. Syst Biol. 2000;49:796–800.
Cardini A, Elton S. Does the skull carry a phylogenetic signal? Evolution and modularity in the guenons. Biol J Linn Soc. 2008;93:813–34.
Parins-Fukuchi C. Bayesian placement of fossils on phylogenies using quantitative morphometric data. Evolution. 2018;72:1801–14.
Smith UE, Hendricks JR. Geometric Morphometric Character Suites as Phylogenetic Data: Extracting Phylogenetic Signal from Gastropod Shells. Syst Biol. 2013;62:366–85.
Hetherington AJ, Sherratt E, Ruta M, Wilkinson M, Deline B, Donoghue PC. Do cladistic and morphometric data capture common patterns of morphological disparity? Palaeontology. 2015;58:393–9.
Caumul R, Polly PD. Phylogenetic and environmental components of morphological variation: Skull, mandible, and molar shape in marmots (Marmota, Rodentia). Evolution. 2005;59:2460–72.
Viacava P, Blomberg SP, Sansalone G, Phillips MJ, Guillerme T, Cameron SF, et al. Skull shape of a widely distributed, endangered marsupial reveals little evidence of local adaptation between fragmented populations. Ecol Evol. 2020;10:9707–20.
Travouillon KJ, Gurovich Y, Beck RMD, Muirhead J. An exceptionally well-preserved short-snouted bandicoot (Marsupialia; Peramelemorphia) from Riversleigh’s Oligo-Miocene deposits, northwestern Queensland. Australia J Vertebr Paleontol. 2010;30:1528–46.
Travouillon K. Notes on a new method to identify Golden Bandicoot and Northern Brown Bandicoot in the Kimberley region. Rec W Aust Mus. 2022;57:37.
Viacava P, Baker AM, Blomberg SP, Phillips MJ, Weisbecker V. Using 3D geometric morphometrics to aid taxonomic and ecological understanding of a recent speciation event within a small Australian marsupial (Antechinus: Dasyuridae). Zool J Linn Soc. 2022;196:963–78.
* Weisbecker V, Beck RMD, Guillerme T, Harrington AR, Lange-Hodgson L, Lee MSY, et al. Multiple modes of inference reveal less phylogenetic signal in marsupial basicranial shape compared with the rest of the cranium. Philos Trans R Soc Biol Sci. 2023;378:20220085.
* Perrard A, Lopez-Osorio F, Carpenter JM. Phylogeny, landmark analysis and the use of wing venation to study the evolution of social wasps (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Vespinae). Cladistics. 2016;32:406–25.
* Solis-Zurita C, De Luna E, Gonzalez D. Phylogenetic relationships in the Sceloporus variabilis (Squamata: Phrynosomatidae) complex based on three molecular markers, continuous characters and geometric morphometric data. Zool Scr. 2019;48:419–39.
* Gold MEL, Brochu CA, Norell MA. An Expanded Combined Evidence Approach to the Gavialis Problem Using Geometric Morphometric Data from Crocodylian Braincases and Eustachian Systems. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:1932–6203.
Cavalli-Sforza L, Edwards A. Phylogenetic analysis; models and estimation procedures. Am J Hum Genet. 1967;19:233–57.
Thompson E. The method of minimum evolution. Ann Hum Genet. 1973;36:333–40.
Klingenberg CP, Gidaszewski NA. Testing and quantifying phylogenetic signals and homoplasy in morphometric data. Syst Biol. 2010;59:245–61.
Gonzalez-Jose R, Escapa I, Neves WA, Cuneo R, Pucciarelli HM. Cladistic analysis of continuous modularized traits provides phylogenetic signals in Homo evolution. Nature. 2008;453:775–U4.
Goloboff PA. Refining phylogenetic analyses: phylogenetic analysis of morphological data: volume 2. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2022.
Saitou N, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol. 1987;4:406–25.
Couette S, Escarguel G, Montuire S. Constructing, bootstrapping, and comparing morphometric and phylogenetic trees: a case study of New World monkeys (Platyrrhini, Primates). J Mammal. 2005;86:773–81.
Lockwood CA, Kimbel WH, Lynch JM. Morphometrics and hominoid phylogeny: Support for a chimpanzee–human clade and differentiation among great ape subspecies. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2004;101:4356–60.
Scalici M, Panchetti F. Morphological cranial diversity contributes to phylogeny in soft-furred sengis (Afrotheria, Macroscelidea). Zoology. 2011;114:85–94.
Watanabe A, Slice DE. The utility of cranial ontogeny for phylogenetic inference: a case study in crocodylians using geometric morphometrics. J Evol Biol. 2014;27:1078–92.
Sneath PH, Sokal RR. Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: W. H Freeman; 1973.
* Celik M, Cascini M, Haouchar D, Van der Burg C, Dodt W, Evans AR, et al. A molecular and morphometric assessment of the systematics of the Macropus complex clarifies the tempo and mode of kangaroo evolution. Zool J Linn Soc. 2019;186:793–812.
Frédérich B, Pilet A, Parmentier E, Vandewalle P. Comparative trophic morphology in eight species of damselfishes (Pomacentridae). J Morphol. 2008;269:175–88.
Rzhetsky A, Nei M. A simple method for estimating and testing minimum-evolution trees. Mol Biol Evol. 1992;9:945–67.
Waddell PJ. Extended distance-based phylogenetic analyses applied to 3D Homo fossil skull evolution. arXiv preprint. 2014. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1501.00019.
Waddell PJ. Expanded distance-based phylogenetic analyses of fossil Homo skull shape evolution. arXiv preprint. 2015. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1512.09115.
Revell LJ, Mahler DL, Reynolds RG, Slater GJ. Placing cryptic, recently extinct, or hypothesized taxa into an ultrametric phylogeny using continuous character data: A case study with the lizard Anolis roosevelti. Evolution. 2015;69:1027–35.
Felsenstein J. Maximum-likelihood estimation of evolutionary trees from continuous characters. Am J Hum Genet. 1973;25:471.
O’Dea RE, Lagisz M, Jennions MD, Koricheva J, Noble DWA, Parker TH, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension. Biol Rev. 2021;96:1695–722.
Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. A field comes of age: geometric morphometrics in the 21st century. Hystrix. 2013;24:7–14.
Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the “revolution.” Ital J Zool. 2004;71:5–16.
The EndNote Team. EndNote. Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA. https://endnote.com/. 2013.
* Gomez RO, Lois-Milevicich J. Phylogenetic signal in the skull of cowbirds (Icteridae) assessed by multivariate and cladistic approaches. Zool Anz. 2020;286:52–7.
* Cichocka JM, Bielecki A. Phylogenetic utility of the geometric model of the body form in leeches (Clitellata: Hirudinida). Biologia. 2015;70:1078–92.
* Vargas S, Breedy O, Guzman HM. The phylogeny of Pacifigorgia (Coelenterata, Octocorallia, Gorgoniidae): a case study of the use of continuous characters in the systematics of the Octocorallia. Zoosystema. 2010;32:5–18.
* de Bivort BL, Giribet G. A systematic revision of the South African Pettalidae (Arachnida : Opiliones : Cyphophthalmi) based on a combined analysis of discrete and continuous morphological characters with the description of seven new species. Invertebr Syst. 2010;24:371–406.
* Hendrixson BE, Bond JE. Evaluating the efficacy of continuous quantitative characters for reconstructing the phylogeny of a morphologically homogeneous spider taxon (Araneae, Mygalomorphae, Antrodiaetidae, Antrodiaetus). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2009;53:300–13.
* Hardy CR, Moline P, Linder HP. A phylogeny for the African Restionaceae and new perspectives on morphology’s role in generating complete species phylogenies for large clades. Int J Plant Sci. 2008;169:377–90.
* Edgar SM, Theriot EC. Phylogeny of Aulacoseira (Bacillariophyta) based on molecules and morphology. J Phycol. 2004;40:772–88.
Travouillon KJ, Butler K, Archer M, Hand SJ. Two new species of the genus Gumardee (Marsupialia, Macropodiformes) reveal the repeated evolution of bilophodonty in kangaroos. Alcheringa. 2022;46:105–28.
Wiens JJ. Character analysis in morphological phylogenetics: Problems and solutions. Syst Biol. 2001;50:689–99.
Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics. 2004;20:289–90.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (Version 4.2.2). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2023. https://www.R-project.org/.
Smith MR. Information theoretic generalized Robinson-Foulds metrics for comparing phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics. 2020;36:5007–13.
Smith MR & actions-user. TreeDist: distances between phylogenetic trees. R package. ms609/TreeDist: v2.7.0. Zenodo. 2023. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10043369.
Motani R, Schmitz L. Phylogenetic versus functional signals in the evolution of form–function relationships in terrestrial vision. Evolution. 2011;65:2245–57.
Pratt RC, Gibb GC, Morgan-Richards M, Phillips MJ, Hendy MD, Penny D. Toward Resolving Deep Neoaves Phylogeny: Data, Signal Enhancement, and Priors. Mol Biol Evol. 2009;26:313–26.
Díaz-Cruz JA, Alvarado-Ortega J, Ramírez-Sánchez MM, Bernard EL, Allington-Jones L, Graham M. Phylogenetic morphometrics, geometric morphometrics and the Mexican fossils to understand evolutionary trends of enchodontid fishes. J S Am Earth Sci. 2021;111:103492.
Rohlf FJ, Chang W, Sokal R, Kim J. Accuracy of estimated phylogenies: effects of tree topology and evolutionary model. Evolution. 1990;44:1671–84.
Fiala KL, Sokal RR. Factors determining the accuracy of cladogram estimation: evaluation using computer simulation. Evolution. 1985;39:609–22.
Longhorn SJ, Pohl HW, Vogler AP. Ribosomal protein genes of holometabolan insects reject the Halteria, instead revealing a close affinity of Strepsiptera with Coleoptera. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2010;55:846–59.
Tong KJ, Duchêne DA, Duchêne S, Geoghegan JL, Ho SYW. A comparison of methods for estimating substitution rates from ancient DNA sequence data. BMC Evol Biol. 2018;18:70.
Xiang C-Y, Gao F, Jakovlić I, Lei H-P, Hu Y, Zhang H, et al. Using PhyloSuite for molecular phylogeny and tree-based analyses. Meta. 2023;2:e87.
White WT, Hills SF, Gaddam R, Holland BR, Penny D. Treeness triangles: Visualizing the loss of phylogenetic signal. Mol Biol Evol. 2007;24:2029–39.
Add Comment