Acta Zoologica 44. (1998)
1998 / 1-2. szám - KLINGENBERG, C. P. - BOOKSTEIN, F. L.: Introduction to the Symposium: putting the morphometric synthesis to work
Acta Zoologien Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 44 (1-2), pp. 1-6, 1998 INTRODUCTION TO THE SYMPOSIUM: PUTTING THE MORPHOMETRIC SYNTHESIS TO WORK Klingenberg, C. P.1 and F. L. Bookstein2 1 Department of Zoology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708 -0325, U.S.A. Institute of Gerontology, University of Michigan, Attn Arbor, Michigan 48109-2007, U.S.A. The discipline of morphometries looks back on a history of about a century. Especially in the last two decades, it has undergone tremendous change described by some authors as a revolution (ROHLF & MARCUS 1993). In this short time, numerous methodological approaches have been developed by researchers in various fields, especially evolutionary biology, physical anthropology, paleontology, and systematics. Some of these methods have been consolidated into the morphometric synthesis, of which BOOKSTEIN (1998) gives a detailed account. This consolidation, mainly in the past few years, has been every bit as remarkable as the momentous change preceding it. Now that the synthesis is established, the emphasis can shift to the application of morphometries in various biological disciplines. This is the principal focus of the symposium proceedings in this issue of Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. The essay by BOOKSTEIN (1998) compares the various methodological approaches in morphometries. While the paper compares the different approaches in an historical perspective, it is much more than just recounting the sequence of how the invention of new methods rendered older ones obsolete. A surprising result of the morphometric synthesis is that some (but not all) methods that we perceived as competitors a short time ago are now complementary parts within the larger framework of the synthesis. Therefore, this re-evaluation from a “post-synthesis” viewpoint serves two purposes: to readers unfamiliar with morphometric methodology, it offers an introduction to the development of ideas in the field, whereas even seasoned morphometricians should find new insights on how familiar techniques relate to each other. As morphometricians shift their attention from methodology to application, careful attention to acquisition of data becomes ever more important. The papers by REIG (1998) and by ARNQVIST and MÀRTENSSON (1998) discuss the problem of measurement error. REIG (1998) investigates the importance of measurement error relative to differences within and between populations and species. His paper also illustrates a way to deal with specimens missing one or more landmarks (for an alternative approach, see YAROCH 1996). The paper by ARNQVIST and MÂRTENSSON (1998) reviews various sources of random and systematic error in morphometric measurements, and uses a simple data set to demonstrate Ada tool- hung. 44, 199S Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest