Correspondence between Interlandmark Distances and Caliper Measurements

  • Santiago Reig
Chapter
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 284)

Abstract

Differences between distances measured with calipers and corresponding distances calculated from two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) coordinates were studied in a sample of 39 skulls of Mustela erminea and M frenata. The caliper data set consisted of 12 length and width measurements. Coordinate data were obtained with a Polhemus 3D system and included 12 landmarks on the dorsal side of the skull and 10 on the ventral side. Distances between pairs of coordinate points were always shorter than corresponding distances taken with calipers; differences between data sets were highly significant in most cases. As expected, distances calculated from 3D landmarks were always closer to caliper values than were distances obtained from 2D points. Average root mean square error obtained from a regression of coordinate-based distances on caliper measurements was 0.422 mm (3.2% incongruence) for the whole set of 12 variables. The coefficient of variation was much larger for interlandmark distances than it was for corresponding caliper data. When differences between species were tested, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) F values were larger for caliper than coordinate-based distances. Mahalanobis D 2 distances between the two species were smaller for coordinate data sets, and the coefficients of the canonical variate separating skulls of the two species were also different in caliper compared with 2D and 3D data sets. Analysis of displacement along the x-, y- and z- coordinates of each landmark confirm the existence of variation overlooked by caliper measurements. Thus, although traditional measurements can be used to describe differences between these two closely related species, the caliper traits provide a deficient, sometimes misleading, description of the variability. Finally, differences between coordinate and caliper data sets, and the precision of caliper measurement estimation from coordinates, varies from one character to another. This compromises the utility of simple models that are designed to exchange results from one data set to another.

Keywords

Root Mean Square Canonical Variate Coordinate Data Caliper Measurement Interorbital Width 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: Geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Bookstein, F. L., B. Chemoff, J. M. Humphries Jr., G. R. Smith, and R. E. Strauss. 1985. Morphometrics in evolutionary biology: The geometry of size and shape change, with examples from fishes. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Special Publication 15.Google Scholar
  3. Bookstein, F. L., B. Grayson, C. B. Cutting, H. C. Kim, and J. G. McCarthy. 1991. Landmarks in three dimensions: Reconstruction from cephalograms versus direct observation. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 100: 133–140.Google Scholar
  4. Burda, H., E. Nevo, and V. Bruns. 1990. Adaptive differentiation of ear structures in subterranean Mole-rats of the Spalax ehrenbergi superspecies in Israel. Zool. Jb. Syst. 117: 369–382.Google Scholar
  5. Corner, B. D., S. Lele, and J. T. Richtsmeier. 1992. Measuring precision of three-dimensional landmark data. Quantitative Anthropology 3: 347–359.Google Scholar
  6. Dixon, W. J. (ed.). 1992. BMDP Statistical software. University of California Press: Berkeley, California. Dos Reis, S. F. 1990. Mammalian cranial morphometrics: A comparative study of traditional and truss networks. Zoologisches Anzeiger 224: 225–235.Google Scholar
  7. Hall, E. R. 1951. American weasels. University of Kansas Publication 4.Google Scholar
  8. Hildebolt, C.F., and M. W. Vannier. 1988. Three-dimensional measurement accuracy of skull surface landmarks. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 76: 497–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. King, C. M. 1991. A review of age determination methods for the stoat Mustela erminea. Mammal Reviews 21: 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Marcus, L. F. and S. Reig. 1991: Data capturing software for digital calipers. Abstracts. Seventy-first Annual Meeting of the American Society of Mammalogists: Manhattan, Kansas.Google Scholar
  11. Pocock, R. I. 1921. The auditory bulla and other cranial characters in the Mustelidae. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1921: 473–486.Google Scholar
  12. Richtsmeier, J. T., J. M. Cheverud, and S. Lele. 1992. Advances in anthropological morphometrics. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rohlf, F. J., and L. F. Marcus. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rohlf, F. J., and D. Slice. 1990. Methods for comparison of sets of landmarks. Systematic Zoology 39: 40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. SAS. 1989. SAS user’s guide statistics, version 6. 03. SAS Institute: Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  16. Slice, D. E. 1993. GRF-ND: Generalized rotational fitting of N-dimensional data. Department of Ecology and Evolution. State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York 11794.Google Scholar
  17. Strauss, R. E., and F. L. Bookstein. 1982. The truss: Body form reconstruction in morphometrics. Systematic Zoology 31: 113–135.Google Scholar
  18. Voss, R. S., L. F. Marcus, and P. Escalante. 1990. Morphological evolution in muroid rodents I. Conservative patterns of craniometric covariance and their ontogenetic basis in the Neotropical genus Zygodontomys. Evolution 44:1568–1587.Google Scholar
  19. Yezerinac S. M., S. C. Lougheed, and P. Handford. 1992. Measurement error and morphometric studies: Statistical power and observer experience. Systematic Biology 41: 471–482.Google Scholar
  20. Zelditch, M. L., R. W. Debry, and D. Straney. 1989. Triangulation-measurement schemes in the multivariate analysis of size and shape. Journal of Mammalogy 70: 571–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Santiago Reig
    • 1
  1. 1.Museo Nacional de Ciencias NaturalesCSICMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations