Disparities in the analysis of morphological disparity: 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

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

62 Citations (SciVal)
53 Downloads (Pure)

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 languageEnglish
Article number20200199
Pages (from-to)1-8
Number of pages8
JournalBiology Letters
Volume16
Issue number7
Early online date1 Jul 2020
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 29 Jul 2020

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Author(s).

Keywords

  • disparity
  • ecology
  • morphology
  • multidimensionality
  • palaeobiology
  • variance/variation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

Cite this