Combining geometric morphometrics with pattern recognition for the investigation of species complexes

By M. Baylac, C. Villemant, G. Simbolotti. 2003

184 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Geometry and Topology, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Paleontology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bb4fac0c50cf688b9f208f147e9369d35b405ce0

How researchers see this paper

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

In Geometry and Topology

1. R. Strauss
2. E. Pretorius
3. M. Mutanen
4. M. Kenis
5. G. Simbolotti
6. C. Villemant
7. C. Manzano
8. I. Miguel

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. R. Strauss
2. E. Pretorius
3. M. Mutanen
4. M. Kenis
5. G. Simbolotti
6. C. Villemant
7. K. Angielczyk
8. S. Pierce

In Paleontology

1. R. Strauss
2. E. Pretorius
3. M. Mutanen
4. M. Kenis
5. G. Simbolotti
6. C. Villemant
7. K. Angielczyk
8. S. Pierce

Citations in the corpus

• Discriminating Groups of Organisms (2010, methodology): “And finally, neural networks have been used successfully in both linear and nonlinear discrimination and classification problems (Baylac et al. 2003; Dobigny et al. 2002; Higgins and Strauss 2004; Kiang 2003; Raudys 2001; Ripley 1994).”
• Morphospace occupation in thalattosuchian crocodylomorphs: skull shape variation, species delineation and temporal patterns (2009, background): “Furthermore, this situation parallels the growing recognition by neontologists that sophisticated quantitative techniques are often required to delineate morphologically cryptic species initially identified by genetic data (e.g. Dobigny et al. 2002; Baylac et al. 2003).”
• Both geometric morphometric and microsatellite data consistently support the differentiation of the Apis mellifera M evolutionary branch (2011, methodology): “…using geometric morphometrics of Hymenoptera forewings (Smith et al., 1997; Klingenberg et al., 2001; Pretorius, 2005; Francoy et al., 2006, 2008; Baylac et al., 2003) have shown its great interest when investigating asymmetry, population differentiation, hybridization, and species complexes.”
• Discrimination of Eubazus (Hymenoptera, Braconidae) sibling species using geometric morphometrics analysis of wing venation (2007, methodology): “…residuals corresponding to the x,y coordinates of the 17 landmarks) and the relatively small number of specimens (18–168 according to the sex and species), we first reduced the dimensionality of the data in order to stabilize the statistical analyses (Baylac et al., 2003; Baylac & Friess, 2005).”
• Subjective visual evaluation vs. traditional and geometric morphometrics in species delimitation: a comparison of moth genitalia (2007, methodology): “Although taxonomic revisions based on DNA sequences are increasingly being published, DNA markers are not always applicable (Baylac et al., 2003) or effective in distinguishing biological species (Nice & Shapiro, 1999; Kaila & Ståhls, 2006).”
• Geometric morphometrics as a tool for understanding Dactylorhiza (Orchidaceae) diversity in European Russia (2005, unknown): “Multivariate methods can also be applied to the results of TPS (Rohlf, Loy & Corti, 1996; Baylac, Villemant & Simbolotti, 2003 ).”