Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-17T08:37:15.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigation of simulated tectonic deformation in fossils using geometric morphometrics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Kenneth D. Angielczyk  and
H. David Sheets
Kenneth D. Angielczyk
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, United Kingdom
H. David Sheets
Affiliation:
Physics Department, Canisius College, 2001 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14208. E-mail: sheets@canisius.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tectonic deformation is an important part of the taphonomic histories of many fossils. Although the effects of deformation, and methods to remove those effects, have been a subject of inquiry for over a century, systematic testing under known parameters has never been used to determine how the effects of deformation and the performance of retrodeformation techniques might vary. Comparative studies of morphology depend on the accurate estimation of variance-covariance structure, so an understanding of the effects of retrodeformation on covariance structure is important in assessing the utility of these methods. Here we address these issues by using geometric morphometric simulations. Nondeformed data sets were generated from specimens of the extant turtle Emys marmorata, which were known by definition to be nondeformed, and which possess a known ontogenetic signal. Deformation was simulated by applying a combination of uniform shear and uniform compression/dilation to the data. Data were retrodeformed by reflection and averaging of bilaterally symmetric landmarks, use of a principal components analysis to identify a deformation component of shape variation, and removal of the affine component of shape variation among specimens. Deformation increased the amount of variance in the data, as well as altering the variance structure. However, low to moderate levels of deformation did not prevent the confident recovery of the known ontogenetic signal in some cases. The tested retrodeformation techniques did not work well. They either removed too little or too much variance from the data, and provided little improvement in variance structure. Retrodeformation often did not improve our ability to extract the ontogenetic signal from the data, and in some cases introduced an arti-factual relationship between size and shape. All of the scrutinized methods showed some properties, such as reducing variance or producing visually appealing images of specimens, that could make them appear to be working in cases where the correct biological signal is not known. This emphasizes the need for simulation testing in the development and evaluation of retrodeformation techniques.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , Winter 2007 , pp. 125 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Angielczyk, K. D., and Parham, J. F. 2005. Geometric morphometric analysis of plastron shape in the western pond turtle (Emys marmorata): implications for conservation and paleontology. Integrative and Comparative Biology 45:957.Google Scholar
Appleby, R. M., and Jones, G. L. 1976. The analogue video reshaper—a new tool for palaeontologists. Palaeontology 19:565–586.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1989. Principal warps: thin-plate splines and the decompositions of deformations. IEEE Transactions on Image Analysis and Machine Intelligence 2:567–585.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1996. Biometrics, biomathematics, and the morphometric synthesis. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 58:313–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bookstein, F. L. 1998. A hundred years of morphometrics. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 44:7–59.Google Scholar
Cheverud, J. M., Wagner, G. P., and Dow, M. M. 1989. Methods for the comparative analysis of variation patterns. Systematic Zoology 38:201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R. A. 1970. Tectonic distortion of a syntype of Isograptus forcipiformis latus Ruedemann. Journal of Paleontology 44:980–983.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. A. 1990. Interpretation of tectonically deformed fossils. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 33:321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corti, M., Aguilera, M., Capanna, E. 2001. Size and shape changes in the skull accompanying speciation of South American spiny rats (Rodentia: Proechimys spp.). Journal of Zoology 253:537–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B., and Tibshirani, R. J. 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, Fla. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, C. R., and Parham, J. F. 2002. Molecular phylogenetics of emydine turtles: taxonomic revision and the evolution of shell kinesis. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 22:388–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foote, M. 1993. Contributions of individual taxa to overall morphological disparity. Paleobiology 19:403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Owens, R. M. 1992. The trilobite Angelina unstretched. Geology Today 8:219–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gharaibeh, W. 2005. Correcting for the effect of orientation in geometric morphometric studies of side-view images of human heads. Pp. 117–143 in Slice, D. E., ed. Modern morphometries in physical anthropology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, A. 1885. On slaty cleavage and allied rock-structures, with special reference to the mechanical theories of their origin. Report of the 55th meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 813–852.Google Scholar
Haughton, S. 1856. On slaty cleavage and the distortion of fossils. Philosophical Magazine 4:409–421.Google Scholar
Hills, E. S., and Thomas, D. E. 1944. Deformation of graptolites and sandstones in slates from Victoria, Australia. Geological Magazine 81:216–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, N. C. 1999. Statistical and imaging methods applied to deformed fossils. Pp. 127–155 in Harper, D. A. T., ed. Numerical palaeobiology. Wiley, Chichester, U.K. Google Scholar
Hughes, N. C., and Jell, P. A. 1992. A statistical/computer-graphic technique for assessing variation in tectonically deformed fossils and its application to Cambrian trilobites from Kashmir. Lethaia 25:317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, N. C., and Rushton, A. W. A. 1990. Computer-aided restoration of a Late Cambrian ceratopygid trilobite from Wales, and its phylogenetic implications. Palaeontology 33:429–445.Google Scholar
Jefferies, R. P. S., Lewis, M., and Donovan, S. K. 1987. Protocystites menevensis—a stem group chordate (Cornuta) from the Middle Cambrian of Wales. Palaeontology 30:429–484.Google Scholar
Klingenberg, C. P., Barluenga, M., and Meyer, A. 2002. Shape analysis of symmetric structures: quantifying variation among individuals and asymmetry. Evolution 56:1909–1920.Google ScholarPubMed
Lake, P. 1943. Restoration of the original form of distorted specimens. Geological Magazine 80:139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, N. 2002. Morphometrics. Pp. 768–771 in Pagel, M., ed. Encyclopedia of evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Miller, G., and Angielczyk, K. D. 2005. Geometric morphometric analysis of shell kinesis in emydine turtles. Integrative and Comparative Biology 45:1046.Google Scholar
Motani, R. 1997. New technique for retrodeforming tectonically deformed fossils, with an example for ichthyosaurian specimens. Lethaia 30:221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navarro, N., Zatarain, X., and Montuire, S. 2004. Effects of morphometric descriptor changes on statistical classifications and morphospaces. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 83:243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponce de León, M. S., and Zollikofer, C. P. E. 1999. New evidence from Le Moustier 1: computer-assisted reconstruction and morphometry of the skull. Anatomical Record 254:474–489.3.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purnell, M. A., and Donoghue, P. C. J. 1999. Flattened fossils, physical modeling and the restoration of collapsed skeletons. Pp. 91–100 in Savazzi, E., ed. Functional morphology of the invertebrate skeleton. Wiley, Chichester, U.K. Google Scholar
Rohlf, F. J. 1998. On applications of geometric morphometrics to studies of ontogeny and phylogeny. Systematic Biology 47:147–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rohlf, F. J., and Marcus, F. L. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushton, A. W. A. and Smith, M. 1993. Retrodeformation of fossils—a simple technique. Palaeontology 36:927–930.Google Scholar
Savazzi, E. 1999. Computational modelling of flattening, shear, distortion and disarticulation. Pp. 101–104 in Savazzi, E., ed. Functional morphology of the invertebrate skeleton. Wiley, Chichester, U.K. Google Scholar
Sdzuy, K. 1966. An improved method of analyzing distortion in fossils. Palaeontology 9:125–134.Google Scholar
Sheets, H. D., and Zelditch, M. L. 2000. Studies of shapes with bilateral symmetry. American Zoologist 40:1209.Google Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A., and Sokal, R. R. 1973. Numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Srivastava, D. C., and Shah, J. 2006. Digital method for strain estimation and retrodeformation of bilaterally symmetric fossils. Geology 34:593–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, M. S., and Stevens, J. B. 1996. Merycoidodontinae and Miniochoerinae. Pp. 498–573 in Prothero, D. R. and Emry, R. J., eds. The terrestrial Eocene-Oligocene transition in North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veltkamp, C. S., and Donovan, S. K. 1984. A scanning electron microscope technique for restoring deformed fossils. Lethaia 17:191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, J. A. 2000. Ability of geometric morphometric methods to estimate a known covariance matrix. Systematic Biology 49:686–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, M., and Hughes, N. C. 1999. Compaction-related deformation in Cambrian olenelloid trilobites and its implications for fossil morphometry. Journal of Paleontology 73:355–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, M., Sheets, H. D., and Hughes, N. C. 2001. Allometric patterning in trilobite ontogeny: testing for heterochrony in Nephrolenellus. Pp. 105–144 in Zelditch, M. L., ed. Beyond heterochrony: the evolution of development. Wiley-Liss, New York.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. W. 1962. A graphical method for analysing fossil distortion caused by tectonic deformation. Geological Magazine 99:348–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, T. 2003. Early hominids—diversity or distortion? Science 299:1994–1997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zelditch, M. L., Lundrigan, B. L., Sheets, H. D., and Garland, T. 2003. Do precocial mammals develop at a faster rate? A comparison of rates of development in Sigmodon fulviventer and Mus musculus domesticus . Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16:708–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelditch, M. L., Swiderski, D. L., Sheets, H. D., and Fink, W. L. 2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Elsevier, Amsterdam Google Scholar
Zollikofer, C. P. E., Ponce de León, M. S., Martion, R. D., and Stucki, P. 1995. Neanderthal computer skulls. Nature 375:283–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zollikofer, C. P. E., Ponce de León, M. S., and Martin, R. D. 1998. Computer-assisted paleoanthropology. Evolutionary Anthropology 6:41–54.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollikofer, C. P. E., Ponce de León, M. S., Lieberman, D. S., Guy, F., Pilbeam, D., Likius, A., Mackaye, H. T., Vignaud, P., and Brunet, M. 2005. Virtual cranial reconstruction of Sahelanthropus tchadensis . Nature 434:755–759.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Angielczyk and Sheets supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Angielczyk and Sheets supplementary material(File)
File 261.6 KB