Limits...
Morphological diversity in tenrecs (Afrosoricida, Tenrecidae): comparing tenrec skull diversity to their closest relatives.

Finlay S, Cooper N - PeerJ (2015)

Bottom Line: However, this assumption has not been tested quantitatively.Furthermore, similarities among the species-rich Microgale tenrec genus appear to mask higher morphological diversity in the rest of the family.These results reveal new insights into the morphological diversity of tenrecs and highlight the importance of using quantitative methods to test qualitative assumptions about patterns of morphological diversity.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin , Dublin , Ireland.

ABSTRACT
It is important to quantify patterns of morphological diversity to enhance our understanding of variation in ecological and evolutionary traits. Here, we present a quantitative analysis of morphological diversity in a family of small mammals, the tenrecs (Afrosoricida, Tenrecidae). Tenrecs are often cited as an example of an exceptionally morphologically diverse group. However, this assumption has not been tested quantitatively. We use geometric morphometric analyses of skull shape to test whether tenrecs are more morphologically diverse than their closest relatives, the golden moles (Afrosoricida, Chrysochloridae). Tenrecs occupy a wider range of ecological niches than golden moles so we predict that they will be more morphologically diverse. Contrary to our expectations, we find that tenrec skulls are only more morphologically diverse than golden moles when measured in lateral view. Furthermore, similarities among the species-rich Microgale tenrec genus appear to mask higher morphological diversity in the rest of the family. These results reveal new insights into the morphological diversity of tenrecs and highlight the importance of using quantitative methods to test qualitative assumptions about patterns of morphological diversity.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Calculating diversity as mean Euclidean distance to Family centroid.Estimating morphological diversity as the mean Euclidean distance between each species and the family centroid. Every species had scores on the principal components (PC) axes that accounted for 95% of the variation in the principal components analysis. The number of axes (PCn) varied for each analysis but they were the same within a single analysis. PC scores were used to calculate the Euclidean distance from each species to the family centroid (average PC scores for the entire family). Morphological diversity of the family is the average value of these Euclidean distances.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4419542&req=5

fig-3: Calculating diversity as mean Euclidean distance to Family centroid.Estimating morphological diversity as the mean Euclidean distance between each species and the family centroid. Every species had scores on the principal components (PC) axes that accounted for 95% of the variation in the principal components analysis. The number of axes (PCn) varied for each analysis but they were the same within a single analysis. PC scores were used to calculate the Euclidean distance from each species to the family centroid (average PC scores for the entire family). Morphological diversity of the family is the average value of these Euclidean distances.

Mentions: We define morphological diversity as the mean Euclidean distance (sum of squared differences) between each species and its family centroid (Fig. 3). This is summarised in the equation below where n is the number of species in the family, i is the number of PC axes and c is the average PC score for each axis (the centroid). (1)\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{upgreek}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}}{}\begin{eqnarray*} \mathrm{Diversity}=\frac{\sqrt{\Sigma (\mathrm{PC}{n}_{i}-\mathrm{PC}{c}_{i})^{2}}}{n}. \end{eqnarray*}\end{document}Diversity=ΣPCni−PCci2n.


Morphological diversity in tenrecs (Afrosoricida, Tenrecidae): comparing tenrec skull diversity to their closest relatives.

Finlay S, Cooper N - PeerJ (2015)

Calculating diversity as mean Euclidean distance to Family centroid.Estimating morphological diversity as the mean Euclidean distance between each species and the family centroid. Every species had scores on the principal components (PC) axes that accounted for 95% of the variation in the principal components analysis. The number of axes (PCn) varied for each analysis but they were the same within a single analysis. PC scores were used to calculate the Euclidean distance from each species to the family centroid (average PC scores for the entire family). Morphological diversity of the family is the average value of these Euclidean distances.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4419542&req=5

fig-3: Calculating diversity as mean Euclidean distance to Family centroid.Estimating morphological diversity as the mean Euclidean distance between each species and the family centroid. Every species had scores on the principal components (PC) axes that accounted for 95% of the variation in the principal components analysis. The number of axes (PCn) varied for each analysis but they were the same within a single analysis. PC scores were used to calculate the Euclidean distance from each species to the family centroid (average PC scores for the entire family). Morphological diversity of the family is the average value of these Euclidean distances.
Mentions: We define morphological diversity as the mean Euclidean distance (sum of squared differences) between each species and its family centroid (Fig. 3). This is summarised in the equation below where n is the number of species in the family, i is the number of PC axes and c is the average PC score for each axis (the centroid). (1)\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{upgreek}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}}{}\begin{eqnarray*} \mathrm{Diversity}=\frac{\sqrt{\Sigma (\mathrm{PC}{n}_{i}-\mathrm{PC}{c}_{i})^{2}}}{n}. \end{eqnarray*}\end{document}Diversity=ΣPCni−PCci2n.

Bottom Line: However, this assumption has not been tested quantitatively.Furthermore, similarities among the species-rich Microgale tenrec genus appear to mask higher morphological diversity in the rest of the family.These results reveal new insights into the morphological diversity of tenrecs and highlight the importance of using quantitative methods to test qualitative assumptions about patterns of morphological diversity.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin , Dublin , Ireland.

ABSTRACT
It is important to quantify patterns of morphological diversity to enhance our understanding of variation in ecological and evolutionary traits. Here, we present a quantitative analysis of morphological diversity in a family of small mammals, the tenrecs (Afrosoricida, Tenrecidae). Tenrecs are often cited as an example of an exceptionally morphologically diverse group. However, this assumption has not been tested quantitatively. We use geometric morphometric analyses of skull shape to test whether tenrecs are more morphologically diverse than their closest relatives, the golden moles (Afrosoricida, Chrysochloridae). Tenrecs occupy a wider range of ecological niches than golden moles so we predict that they will be more morphologically diverse. Contrary to our expectations, we find that tenrec skulls are only more morphologically diverse than golden moles when measured in lateral view. Furthermore, similarities among the species-rich Microgale tenrec genus appear to mask higher morphological diversity in the rest of the family. These results reveal new insights into the morphological diversity of tenrecs and highlight the importance of using quantitative methods to test qualitative assumptions about patterns of morphological diversity.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus