Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T05:10:35.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Theoretical Morphology: The Concept and its Applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2017

George R. McGhee Jr.*
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, Wright Geological Laboratory, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903

Extract

Two quite different conceptual areas are understood today under the umbrella term of theoretical morphology: (1) the mathematical simulation of form, and (2) the analysis of the possible spectra of form via hypothetical morphospace construction. The second concept follows from the first, but has quite different goals.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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

Ackerly, S.C. 1989. Kinematics of accretionary shell growth, with examples from brachiopods and molluscs. Paleobiology, 15:147164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, U. 1977. Cephalopoden-Septen Teil 2: Regelmechanismem im Gehaeuse- und Septenbau der Ammoniten. Neues Jahrbuch fuer Geologie und Palaeontologie, Abhandlungen, 155:162215.Google Scholar
Bayer, U. 1978. Morphogenetic programs, instabilities, and evolution – a theoretical study. Neues Jahrbuch fuer Geologie und Palaeontologie, Abhandlungen, 156:226261.Google Scholar
Bayer, U. 1985. Pattern Recognition Problems in Geology and Paleontology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 229 p.Google Scholar
Bayer, U., and McGhee, G.R. 1984. Iterative evolution of Middle Jurassic ammonite faunas. Lethaia, 17:116.Google Scholar
Berger, W.H. 1969. Planktonic foraminifera: basic morphology and ecologic implications. Journal of Paleontology, 43:13691383.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, J. 1980. Hydromechanical design of fossil cephalopods. Systematics Association Special Volume, 18:289336.Google Scholar
Checa, A. 1991. Sectorial expansion and shell morphogenesis in molluscs. Lethaia, 24:97114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheetham, A.H., and Hayek, L.C. 1983. Geometric consequences of branching growth in adeoniform Bryozoa. Paleobiology, 9:240260.Google Scholar
De Renzi, M. 1988. Shell coiling in some larger foraminifera: general comments and problems. Paleobiology, 14:387400.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. 1970. Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. Columbia University Press, New York, 505 p.Google Scholar
Fortey, R.A. 1983. Geometrical constraints in the construction of graptolite stipes. Paleobiology, 9:116125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S.J., and Katz, M. 1975. Distribution of ideal geometry in the growth of receptaculitids: a natural experiment in theoretical morphology. Paleobiology, 1:120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayami, I., and Okamoto, T. 1986. Geometric regularity of some oblique sculptures in pectinid and other bivalves: recognition by computer simulations. Paleobiology, 12:433449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kershaw, S., and Riding, R. 1978. Parameterization of stromatoporoid shape. Lethaia, 11:233242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, A.J., and Riggs, A.C. 1975. Morphometry of the Conus shell. Systematic Zoology, 24:346359.Google Scholar
McCartney, K., and Loper, D.E. 1989. Optimized skeletal morphologies of silicoflagellate genera Dictyocha and Distephanus. Paleobiology, 15:283298.Google Scholar
McGhee, G.R. 1978. Analysis of the shell torsion phenomenon in the Bivalvia. Lethaia, 11:315329.Google Scholar
McGhee, G.R. 1979. The geometry of biconvex brachiopod evolution. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 11:475.Google Scholar
McGhee, G.R. 1980a. Shell form in the biconvex articulate Brachiopoda: a geometric analysis. Paleobiology, 6:5776.Google Scholar
McGhee, G.R. 1980b. Geometry of non-biconvex shell form in the Strophomenida and Orthida (Brachiopoda). Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 12:479.Google Scholar
McGhee, G.R. 1980c. Shell geometry and stability strategies in the biconvex Brachiopoda. Neues Jahrbuch fuer Geologie und Palaeontologie, Monatsheft 1980 (3):155184.Google Scholar
McKinney, F.K. 1981. Planar branch systems in colonial suspension feeders. Paleobiology, 7:344354.Google Scholar
McKinney, F.K., and Raup, D.M. 1982. A turn in the right direction: simulation of erect spiral growth in the bryozoans Archimedes and Bugula. Paleobiology, 8:101112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moseley, H. 1838. On the geometrical forms of turbinated and discoid shells. Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions for 1838:351370.Google Scholar
Naumann, C.F. 1845. Ueber die wahre Spirale der Ammoniten. Annalen der Physik, 64:538543.Google Scholar
Niklas, K.J. and Kerchner, V. 1984. Mechanical and photosynthetic constraints on the evolution of plant shape. Paleobiology, 10:79101.Google Scholar
Okamoto, T. 1988a. Analysis of heteromorph ammonoids by differential geometry. Palaeontology, 31:3552.Google Scholar
Okamoto, T. 1988b. Developmental regulation and morphological saltation in the heteromorph ammonite Nipponites. Paleobiology, 14:272286.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M. 1961. The geometry of coiling in gastropods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A), 47:602609.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M. 1962. Computer as aid in describing form in gastropod shells. Science, 138:150152.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M. 1966. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: general problems. Journal of Paleontology, 40:11781190.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M. 1967. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: coiling in ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology, 41:4365.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M. 1968. Theoretical morphology of echinoid growth. Journal of Paleontology, 42:5063.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M. 1969. Modeling and simulation of morphology by computer. Proceedings of the North American Paleontological Convention, Part B:7183.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., and Michelson, A. 1965. Theoretical morphology of the coiled shell. Science, 147:12941295.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., and Seilacher, A. 1969. Computer simulation of fossil foraging behavior. Science, 166:994995.Google Scholar
Rex, M.A. and Boss, K.J. 1976. Open coiling in recent gastropods. Malacologia, 15:289297.Google Scholar
Rogers, M.J. 1982. A description of the generating curve of bivalves with straight hinges. Palaeontology, 25:109117.Google Scholar
Savazzi, E. 1985. SHELLGEN: a BASIC program for the modeling of molluscan shell ontogeny and morphogenesis. Computers and Geosciences, 11:521530.Google Scholar
Savazzi, E. 1987. Geometric and functional constraints on bivalve shell morphology. Lethaia, 20:293306.Google Scholar
Savazzi, E. 1990. Biological aspects of theoretical shell morphology. Lethaia, 23:195212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W.B. and Shapiro, E.A. 1986. Calculation and simulation of ammonoid hydrostatics. Paleobiology, 12:6479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W.B., and Swan, A.R.H. 1984. Morphology and morphologic diversity of mid-Carboniferous (Namurian) ammonoids in time and space. Paleobiology, 10:195228.Google Scholar
Stasek, C.R. 1963. Geometrical form and gnomonic growth in the bivalved Mollusca. Journal of Morphology, 112:215231.Google Scholar
Starcher, R.W. 1987. A constructional morphologic analysis of the fenestrate colony meshwork. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, 255 p.Google Scholar
Stevens, P.S. 1974. Patterns in Nature. Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 240 p.Google Scholar
Swan, A.R.H. and Saunders, W.B. 1987. Function and shape in late Paleozoic (mid-Carboniferous) ammonoids. Paleobiology, 13:297311.Google Scholar
Thompson, D'A.W. 1942. On Growth and Form. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, London, 1116 p.Google Scholar
Ward, P. 1980. Comparative shell shape distributions in Jurassic-Cretaceous ammonites and Jurassic-Tertiary nautilids. Paleobiology, 6:3243.Google Scholar
Waters, J.A. 1977. Quantification of shape by use of Fourier analysis: the Mississippian blastoid genus Pentremites. Paleobiology, 3:288299.Google Scholar