Morphological criteria for recognising homology in isolated skeletal elements: comparison of traditional and morphometric approaches in conodonts

52 6 November 1243 1256 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2009.00915.x

JONES, D., PURNELL, M. A., BITTER, P. H. 2009. Morphological criteria for recognising homology in isolated skeletal elements: comparison of traditional and morphometric approaches in conodonts. Palaeontology, 52, 6, 1243–1256.

David Jones, Mark A. Purnell and Peter H. Von Bitter Accurate hypotheses of primary homology are fundamental to many aspects of the systematics and palaeobiology of fossils. They are particularly critical for conodonts: virtually all areas of conodont research are underpinned by homology, yet the majority of conodont taxa are found only as disarticulated skeletal elements, and hypotheses of element homology are inferred from morphological comparisons with complete skeletons. This can cause problems in taxa where more than one location within the conodont skeleton is occupied by elements with similar morphology. In such cases, morphological comparisons can yield equivocal or erroneous hypotheses of homology of isolated elements. The Eramosa Lagerstätte of Ontario (Silurian, Wenlock) preserves both isolated skeletal elements and articulated conodont skeletons. The latter provide a topological context within which to test hypotheses of element homology and allow blind testing of qualitative discrimination of elements. When applied to P1 and P2 elements of Wurmiella excavata, this revealed inaccuracy and inconsistency in distinguishing these P element types. Standardised morphometric protocols were used to further test the efficacy of those characters used in traditional qualitative identification of P element homology, revealing that, individually, none of these characters provides an effective discriminator between P element types. Principal components and discriminant function analyses of ten ‘traditional’ morphological variables combined can distinguish P1 from P2 elements with a similar success rate to expert identification. Eigenshape and elliptic Fourier analyses of element outlines proved less effective at capturing shape differences that allowed for discrimination between P1 and P2 elements. Analysis of both traditional and outline data demonstrates that in some individuals P1 and P2 elements are morphologically distinct from one another, while in others they are almost indistinguishable. These results demonstrate that although qualitative assessments of homology can be prone to error, especially when undertaken by inexperienced researchers, the morphometric and analytical protocols used here provide effective additional tool for discriminating morphologically similar but non-homologous elements. These methods thus hold promise of broad application to other conodont taxa where identification of element homology in collections of isolated specimens is problematic.
  • ATCHLEY, W. R., GASKINS, C. T. and ANDERSON, D. 1976. Statistical properties of ratios. I. Empirical results. Systematic Zoology, 25, 137–148.
  • BARNES, C. R., KENNEDY, D. J., MCCRACKEN, A. D., NOWLAND, G. S. and TARRANT, G. A. 1979. Structure and evolution of Ordovician conodont apparatuses. Lethaia, 12, 125–151.
  • BRANSON, E. B. and MEHL, M. G. 1933. Conodonts from the Bainbridge (Silurian) of Missouri. University of Missouri Studies, 8, 39–53.
  • CRAMPTON, J. S. 1995. Elliptic Fourier shape-analysis of fossil bivalves – some practical considerations. Lethaia, 28, 179–186.
  • CRAMPTON, J. S. and HAINES, A. J. 1996. Users’ manual for programs HANGLE, HMATCH, and HCURVE for the Fourier shape analysis of two-dimensional outlines. Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences science report, 96/37, 28.
  • CRONIER, C., RENAUD, S., FEIST, R. and AUFFRAY, J. C. 1998. Ontogeny of Trimerocephalus lelievrei (Trilobita, Phacopida), a representative of the Late Devonian phacopine paedomorphocline: a morphometric approach. Paleobiology, 24, 359–370.
  • DONOGHUE, P. C. J., PURNELL, M. A., ALDRIDGE, R. J. and ZHANG, S. 2008. The interrelationships of complex conodonts (Vertebrata). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, 6, 119–153.
  • FERSON, S., ROHLF, F. J. and KOEHN, R. K. 1985. Measuring shape variation of two-dimensional outlines. Systematic Zoology, 34, 59–68.
  • GIARDINA, C. R. and KUHL, F. P. 1977. Accuracy of curve approximation by harmonically related vectors with elliptical loci. Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 6, 277–285.
  • GIRARD, C., RENAUD, S. and SÉRAYET, A. 2004. Morphological variation of Palmatolepis Devonian conodont: species versus genera. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 3, 1–8.
  • HAINES, A. J. and CRAMPTON, J. S. 2000. Improvements to the method of Fourier shape analysis as applied in morphometric studies. Palaeontology, 43, 765–783.
  • HAMMER, Ø., HARPER, D. A. T. and RYAN, P. D. 2001. PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4, Article 4.
  • HAWKINS, J. A., HUGHES, C. E. and SCOTLAND, R. W. 1997. Primary homology assessment, characters and character states. Cladistics, 13, 275–283.
  • JEPPSSON, L. 1969. Notes on some Upper Silurian multielement conodonts. Geologiska Föreningens I Stockholm Förhandlingar, 91, 12–24.
  • JEPPSSON, L. 1974. Aspects of Late Silurian conodonts. Fossils and Strata, 6, 1–54.
  • JEPPSSON, L., ANEHUS, R. and FREDHOLM, D. 1999. The optimal acetate buffered acetic acid technique for extracting phosphatic fossils. Journal of Paleontology, 73, 964–972.
  • JONES, D. O. and PURNELL, M. A. 2007. A new semi-automatic morphometric protocol for conodonts and a preliminary taxonomic application. 239–259. In MacLEOD, N. (ed.). Automated object identification in systematics: theory, approaches, and applications. CRC Press (for Systematics Association), London, 339 pp.
  • KUHL, F. P. and GIARDINA, C. R. 1982. Elliptic Fourier features of a closed contour. Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 18, 236–258.
  • LOHMANN, G. P. 1983. Eigenshape analysis of micro-fossils – a general morphometric procedure for describing changes in shape. Journal of the International Association for Mathematical Geology, 15, 659–672.
  • LOHMANN, G. P. and SCHWEITZER, P. N. 1990. On eigenshape analysis. 145–166. In ROHLF, F. J. and BOOKSTEIN, F. L. (ed.). Michigan morphometric workshop. The Univeristy of Michigan Museum of Geology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 396 pp.
  • MacLEOD, N. 1999. Generalizing and extending the eigenshape method of shape visualization and analysis. Paleobiology, 25, 107–138.
  • MacLEOD, N. and ROSE, K. D. 1993. Inferring locomotor behaviour in Paleogene mammals via eigenshape analysis. American Journal of Science, 293-A, 300–355.
  • MARCUS, L. F. 1990. Traditional morphometrics. 77–122. In ROHLF, F. J. and BOOKSTEIN, F. L. (ed.). Michigan Morphometric Workshop. The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, MI, 396 pp.
  • MERRILL, G. K. and MERRILL, S. M. 1974. Pennsylvanian nonplatform conodonts, IIa: The dimorphic apparatus of Idioprioniodus. Geologica et Palaeontologica, 8, 119–130.
  • PURNELL, M. A. 1993. The Kladognathus apparatus (Conodonta, Carboniferous) – Homologies with Ozarkodinids, and the Prioniodinid Bauplan. Journal of Paleontology, 67, 875–882.
  • PURNELL, M. A. and DONOGHUE, P. C. J. 1998. Skeletal architecture, homologies and taphonomy of ozarkodinid conodonts. Palaeontology, 41, 57–102.
  • PURNELL, M. A. and DONOGHUE, P. C. J. 2005. Between death and data: Biases in interpretation of the fossil record of conodonts. 7–25. In Purnell, M. A. and Donoghue, P. C. J. (eds). Special Papers in Palaeontology Series, Conodont biology and phylogeny: interpreting the fossil record. Palaeontological Association, London, 218 pp.
  • PURNELL, M. A., DONOGHUE, P. C. J. and ALDRIDGE, R. J. 2000. Orientation and anatomical notation in conodonts. Journal of Paleontology, 74, 113–122.
  • ROHLF, F. J. 1986. Relationships among eigenshape analysis, Fourier analysis, and analysis of coordinates. Mathematical Geology, 18, 845–854.
  • ROHLF, F. J. 2003. tpsDIG. Version 1.37.
  • Von BITTER, P. H. and PURNELL, M. A. 2005. An experimental investigation of post-depositional taphonomic bias in conodonts. 39–56. In PURNELL, M. A. and DONOGHUE, P. C. J. (eds). Special Papers in Palaeontology, Conodont Biology and Phylogeny: interpreting the fossil record. Palaeontological Association, London, 218 pp.
  • Von BITTER, P. H., PURNELL, M. A., TETRAULT, D. K. and STOTT, C. A. 2007. Eramosa Lagersttte – exceptionally preserved soft-bodied biotas with shallow-marine shelly and bioturbating organisms (Silurian, Ontario, Canada). Geology, 35, 879–882.
  • WALLISER, O. H. 1964. Conodonten des Silurs. Abhandlungen der Hessischen Landesamtes Bodenforschung, 41, 1–106.
Wiley Online Library