Disparities in the analysis of morphological disparity

Analyses of morphological disparity have been used to characterize and investigate the evolution of variation in the anatomy, function and ecology of organisms since the 1980s. While a diversity of methods have been employed, it is unclear whether they provide equivalent insights. Here, we review th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBiology letters (2005) Vol. 16; no. 7; p. 20200199
Main Authors Guillerme, Thomas, Cooper, Natalie, Brusatte, Stephen L, Davis, Katie E, Jackson, Andrew L, Gerber, Sylvain, Goswami, Anjali, Healy, Kevin, Hopkins, Melanie J, Jones, Marc E H, Lloyd, Graeme T, O'Reilly, Joseph E, Pate, Abi, Puttick, Mark N, Rayfield, Emily J, Saupe, Erin E, Sherratt, Emma, Slater, Graham J, Weisbecker, Vera, Thomas, Gavin H, Donoghue, Philip C J
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Royal Society, The 01.07.2020
The Royal Society
Subjects
Biodiversity
Biological Evolution
Ecology
Life Sciences
Review
ecology
morphology
disparity
variance/variation
multidimensionality
palaeobiology
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Analyses of morphological disparity have been used to characterize and investigate the evolution of variation in the anatomy, function and ecology of organisms since the 1980s. While a diversity of methods have been employed, it is unclear whether they provide equivalent insights. Here, we review the most commonly used approaches for characterizing and analysing morphological disparity, all of which have associated limitations that, if ignored, can lead to misinterpretation. We propose best practice guidelines for disparity analyses, while noting that there can be no 'one-size-fits-all' approach. The available tools should always be used in the context of a specific biological question that will determine data and method selection at every stage of the analysis.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Review-1
These authors contributed equally to the study.
ISSN:1744-9561
1744-957X
DOI:10.1098/rsbl.2020.0199