Data from: Bat species comparisons based on external morphology: a test of traditional versus geometric morphometric approaches
Schmieder, Daniela A., Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, University of Bern
Benítez, Hugo A., University of Manchester, University of Tarapacá
Borissov, Ivailo M., Max Planck Institute for Ornithology
Fruciano, Carmelo, University of Konstanz, University of Catania
Published May 05, 2016 on Dryad.
Cite this dataset
Schmieder, Daniela A.; Benítez, Hugo A.; Borissov, Ivailo M.; Fruciano, Carmelo (2016). Data from: Bat species comparisons based on external morphology: a test of traditional versus geometric morphometric approaches [Dataset]. Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.705q4
External morphology is commonly used to identify bats as well as to investigate flight and foraging behavior, typically relying on simple length and area measures or ratios. However, geometric morphometrics is increasingly used in the biological sciences to analyse variation in shape and discriminate among species and populations. Here we compare the ability of traditional versus geometric morphometric methods in discriminating between closely related bat species – in this case European horseshoe bats (Rhinolophidae, Chiroptera) – based on morphology of the wing, body and tail. In addition to comparing morphometric methods, we used geometric morphometrics to detect interspecies differences as shape changes. Geometric morphometrics yielded improved species discrimination relative to traditional methods. The predicted shape for the variation along the between group principal components revealed that the largest differences between species lay in the extent to which the wing reaches in the direction of the head. This strong trend in interspecific shape variation is associated with size, which we interpret as an evolutionary allometry pattern.
dataset_geometric morphometric_raw coordinates
Dataset containing geometric morphometric raw coordinates and centroid size.
Dataset including all traditional morphometric measures and ratios used for methods 1-3. The four residuals were used for method 3. The length measures were obtained from two wing pictures of the same individual and therefore the averaged measures are shown in the dataset. Similarly for calculating the ratios averaged length and area measures (not included in the dataset) were taken from two wing pictures per individual. Because the measurement error was low we only took measurements from one wing picture for individuals from 2014.