Disparities in the analysis of morphological disparity

Thomas Guillerme; Natalie Cooper; Stephen L Brusatte; Katie E Davis; Andrew L Jackson; Sylvain Gerber; Anjali Goswami; Kevin Healy; Melanie J Hopkins; Marc E H Jones; Graeme T Lloyd; Joseph E O'Reilly; Abi Pate; Mark N Puttick; Emily J Rayfield; Erin E Saupe; Emma Sherratt; Graham J Slater; Vera Weisbecker; Gavin H Thomas; Philip C J Donoghue

doi:10.1098/rsbl.2020.0199

Disparities in the analysis of morphological disparity

Thomas Guillerme, Natalie Cooper, Stephen L Brusatte, Katie E Davis, Andrew L Jackson, Sylvain Gerber, Anjali Goswami, Kevin Healy, Melanie J Hopkins, Marc E H Jones, Graeme T Lloyd, Joseph E O'Reilly, Abi Pate, Mark N Puttick, Emily J Rayfield, Erin E Saupe, Emma Sherratt, Graham J Slater, Vera Weisbecker, Gavin H ThomasPhilip C J Donoghue

Biology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Article number	20200199
Number of pages	8
Journal	Biology letters
Volume	16
Issue number	7
Early online date	1 Jul 2020
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2020.0199
Publication status	Published - 29 Jul 2020

Keywords

Biological Evolution
Ecology

Access to Document

10.1098/rsbl.2020.0199Licence: CC BY

Disparities in the analysis of morphological disparityFinal published version, 633 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

Guillerme, T., Cooper, N., Brusatte, S. L., Davis, K. E., Jackson, A. L., Gerber, S., Goswami, A., Healy, K., Hopkins, M. J., Jones, M. E. H., Lloyd, G. T., O'Reilly, J. E., Pate, A., Puttick, M. N., Rayfield, E. J., Saupe, E. E., Sherratt, E., Slater, G. J., Weisbecker, V., ... Donoghue, P. C. J. (2020). Disparities in the analysis of morphological disparity. Biology letters, 16(7), Article 20200199. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2020.0199

@article{2f8279b4b95c4cd1a45cf052198799d7,

title = "Disparities in the analysis of morphological disparity",

abstract = "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.",

keywords = "Biological Evolution, Ecology",

author = "Thomas Guillerme and Natalie Cooper and Brusatte, {Stephen L} and Davis, {Katie E} and Jackson, {Andrew L} and Sylvain Gerber and Anjali Goswami and Kevin Healy and Hopkins, {Melanie J} and Jones, {Marc E H} and Lloyd, {Graeme T} and O'Reilly, {Joseph E} and Abi Pate and Puttick, {Mark N} and Rayfield, {Emily J} and Saupe, {Erin E} and Emma Sherratt and Slater, {Graham J} and Vera Weisbecker and Thomas, {Gavin H} and Donoghue, {Philip C J}",

year = "2020",

month = jul,

day = "29",

doi = "10.1098/rsbl.2020.0199",

language = "English",

volume = "16",

journal = "Biology letters",

issn = "1744-9561",

publisher = "The Royal Society",

number = "7",

}

Guillerme, T, Cooper, N, Brusatte, SL, Davis, KE, Jackson, AL, Gerber, S, Goswami, A, Healy, K, Hopkins, MJ, Jones, MEH, Lloyd, GT, O'Reilly, JE, Pate, A, Puttick, MN, Rayfield, EJ, Saupe, EE, Sherratt, E, Slater, GJ, Weisbecker, V, Thomas, GH & Donoghue, PCJ 2020, 'Disparities in the analysis of morphological disparity', Biology letters, vol. 16, no. 7, 20200199. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2020.0199

TY - JOUR

T1 - Disparities in the analysis of morphological disparity

AU - Guillerme, Thomas

AU - Cooper, Natalie

AU - Brusatte, Stephen L

AU - Davis, Katie E

AU - Jackson, Andrew L

AU - Gerber, Sylvain

AU - Goswami, Anjali

AU - Healy, Kevin

AU - Hopkins, Melanie J

AU - Jones, Marc E H

AU - Lloyd, Graeme T

AU - O'Reilly, Joseph E

AU - Pate, Abi

AU - Puttick, Mark N

AU - Rayfield, Emily J

AU - Saupe, Erin E

AU - Sherratt, Emma

AU - Slater, Graham J

AU - Weisbecker, Vera

AU - Thomas, Gavin H

AU - Donoghue, Philip C J

PY - 2020/7/29

Y1 - 2020/7/29

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Biological Evolution

KW - Ecology

U2 - 10.1098/rsbl.2020.0199

DO - 10.1098/rsbl.2020.0199

M3 - Review article

C2 - 32603646

SN - 1744-9561

VL - 16

JO - Biology letters

JF - Biology letters

IS - 7

M1 - 20200199

ER -