Geometric morphometrics and phylogeny

174 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

TNT version 1.5, including a full implementation of phylogenetic morphometrics (2016, methodology): “Although there had been attempts to use data from geometric morphometrics in a phylogenetic context (Rohlf, 2002; Lockwood et al., 2004; Gonz (cid:1) alez-Jos (cid:1) e et al., 2008; Klingenberg and Gidaszewski, 2010), the method of Catalano et al. (2010) is the only one that establishes a clear,…”
Geometric morphometrics: Ten years of progress following the ‘revolution’ (2004, methodology): “Rohlf (1999, 2000b) found that the methods based on interlandmark distances and angles gave distinct patterns of covariation within and between samples that depended on their mean shapes.”
Phylogenetic Principal Components Analysis and Geometric Morphometrics (2013, methodology): “…that simply project phylogenetic trees into morphospace and which are referred to by some as ”phylogenetic principal components analysis” (e.g., Rohlf 2002; Polly 2008; Klingenberg and Gidaszewski 2010). pPCA can ostensibly be used to study shape variation that arises from underlying…”
A field comes of age: geometric morphometrics in the 21 st century (2013, background): “For instance, one can visualize predicted patterns of shape evolution by estimating ancestral shapes and projecting both the hypothesized ancestors and the phylogeny into tangent space (e.g., Rohlf 2002; Klingenberg and Gidaszewski 2010).”