Geometric Morphometrics in Evo-Devo: A Modern Framework for Quantifying Morphological Evolution

Abstract

This article synthesizes the foundational principles, cutting-edge methodologies, and critical validations of geometric morphometrics (GM) as an indispensable tool in evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo). Aimed at researchers and scientists, it explores how the quantitative analysis of biological shape bridges the gap between developmental mechanisms and evolutionary patterns across phylogenetic scales. The content covers core GM workflows from landmark data acquisition to Procrustes-based analysis, highlights applications in model systems from sticklebacks to centipedes, and addresses key challenges like measurement error and the rise of automated, landmark-free techniques. By providing a troubleshooting guide and a comparative evaluation of methods, this resource empowers researchers to design robust, reproducible morphometric studies that illuminate the genetic and developmental underpinnings of phenotypic diversity, with significant implications for biomedical research and beyond.

The Shape of Evolution: Core Principles and the Evo-Devo Nexus

Geometric morphometrics (GM) represents a revolutionary approach in the quantitative analysis of biological form, fundamentally shifting from traditional linear measurements to the statistical analysis of landmark-based geometric configurations. This paradigm enables researchers to capture and analyze the complete geometry of biological structures, preserving the spatial relationships throughout the analysis. Within evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), GM provides a powerful toolkit for investigating how developmental processes generate phenotypic variation and how this variation evolves under selective pressures. The field has experienced exponential growth, with publications surging from approximately 50 in 1998 to around 76,000 as of 2024, reflecting its transformative impact on biological research [1] [2]. This article establishes the conceptual framework of GM, details practical protocols for its application, and demonstrates its critical importance for addressing core questions in evo-devo research.

Conceptual Framework: The Geometric Morphometric Synthesis

From Traditional to Geometric Morphometrics

Traditional morphometrics relies on linear measurements (lengths, widths, ratios), which suffer from several critical limitations: high measurement autocorrelation, inability to capture complex geometry, and loss of spatial information regarding the relative positions of measured points [1]. These approaches reduce complex shapes to a series of disconnected measurements, making it difficult to identify the actual biological sources of shape variation.

In contrast, geometric morphometrics uses Cartesian coordinates of anatomically homologous points (landmarks) as primary data. This fundamental shift allows researchers to:

• Preserve geometric relationships throughout statistical analysis
• Visualize shape changes directly as biological deformations
• Distinguish shape from size variations mathematically
• Analyze complex morphologies inaccessible to traditional methods

The conceptual foundation of GM rests on what has been termed the "morphometric synthesis" – combining Procrustes shape coordinates with thin-plate spline (TPS) visualizations for multivariate statistical comparison [3] [2]. This synthesis enables researchers to not only quantify shape differences statistically but also to visualize these differences as actual morphological transformations.

Landmarks: The Foundation of Geometric Morphometrics

Landmarks are discrete, homologous points that can be precisely located across all specimens in a study. They are systematically classified into three primary types:

Table 1: Landmark Types in Geometric Morphometrics

Type	Definition	Examples	Applications
Type I (Anatomical)	Points of clear biological significance at tissue junctions	Foramina, suture intersections, tooth cusps [3]	High reliability studies; skeletal morphology
Type II (Mathematical)	Points defined by local geometry (maxima/minima of curvature)	Tips of structures, deepest points of notches [3]	Capturing shape information between anatomical landmarks
Type III (Constructed)	Points defined by relative position to other landmarks	Midpoints between landmarks, extremal points [3]	Outlining complex shapes; semi-landmark analysis

For structures lacking sufficient fixed landmarks, semi-landmarks are used to capture the geometry of curves and surfaces by placing points at defined intervals between traditional landmarks [1] [4]. These have been particularly valuable in studying structures like tooth rows, cranial profiles, and leaf outlines where homologous points are limited.

Core Analytical Workflow

The standard GM analytical pipeline involves sequential steps that transform raw coordinate data into biologically interpretable shape variables.

Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA)

GPA superimposes landmark configurations by optimizing three nuisance parameters:

• Translation: Removing position differences by centering configurations
• Scaling: Removing size differences by scaling to unit centroid size
• Rotation: Aligning configurations to minimize landmark distances

This process yields Procrustes shape coordinates – the foundation for all subsequent statistical analyses [1] [3]. The residual variation after GPA represents pure shape difference independent of position, orientation, and scale.

Statistical Analysis of Shape Data

Procrustes coordinates can be analyzed using standard multivariate techniques:

• Principal Component Analysis (PCA): Identifies major axes of shape variation
• Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA): Tests group differentiation
• Canonical Variate Analysis (CVA): Maximizes between-group variation
• Regression Analysis: Models shape against continuous variables

Visualization Methods

A particular strength of GM is its powerful visualization capabilities:

• Thin-plate spline (TPS) deformation grids: Show shape changes as smooth deformations
• Wireframe graphs: Connect landmarks to visualize structural transformations
• Principal component warps: Visualize shape changes along statistical axes

Application Notes for Evo-Devo Research

Modularity and Integration

A central application of GM in evo-devo concerns morphological integration and modularity – patterns of covariation among traits that reflect underlying developmental processes. Modules are semi-autonomous units with strong internal integration but weaker external integration [5]. The RV coefficient provides a scalar measure of integration between subsets of landmarks, allowing researchers to test hypotheses about modular organization by comparing alternative partitions of landmark configurations [5].

For example, studies of mouse mandibles have consistently supported a two-module organization (alveolar region and ascending ramus) reflecting developmental origins, while Drosophila wings appear more integrated as a single developmental unit [5]. These patterns provide crucial insights into how developmental processes structure phenotypic variation.

Allometric Analysis

GM enables sophisticated analysis of allometry – how shape changes with size. By regressing shape coordinates against centroid size (a geometric size measure), researchers can quantify allometric trajectories and compare them across taxa or populations. This approach has revealed how heterochronic changes in development produce evolutionary diversification [6].

Fluctuating Asymmetry

GM provides sensitive tools for measuring developmental stability through the analysis of fluctuating asymmetry – small, random deviations from perfect bilateral symmetry. Procrustes ANOVA partitions shape variation into components of directional asymmetry, fluctuating asymmetry, and measurement error, offering insights into developmental precision under genetic or environmental stress [5].

Experimental Protocols

Standard GM Protocol for Evo-Devo Studies

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Geometric Morphometrics

Tool Category	Specific Software	Function in Analysis
Data Digitization	tpsDig2 [3] [4]	Landmark and semi-landmark digitization on specimen images
Data Management	tpsUtil [3]	Compiles and manages landmark files; creates TPS files
Shape Analysis	MorphoJ [3]	Performs Procrustes superimposition, PCA, DFA, and modularity tests
Outline Analysis	Momocs R package [3]	Specialized analysis of outline data using Fourier and EFA methods
Comprehensive Analysis	R (geomorph, shapes packages) [3] [7]	Programmable environment for specialized and custom GM analyses

Workflow Description:

• Image Acquisition: Capture high-resolution 2D or 3D images of specimens using standardized orientation and scale. Ensure consistent lighting and background.
• Landmarking: Digitize Type I, II, and III landmarks using tpsDig2. For curves, place semi-landmarks between fixed landmarks.
• Data Compilation: Use tpsUtil to assemble all landmark files into a single TPS file for analysis.
• Procrustes Fitting: Import data into MorphoJ and perform Generalized Procrustes Analysis to obtain shape coordinates.
• Statistical Analysis: Conduct PCA to identify major shape axes, followed by group comparison tests (DFA/CVA) or regression against continuous variables.
• Visualization: Generate deformation grids and wireframes to interpret statistical results biologically.
• Modularity Tests: Use the RV coefficient to test hypotheses about morphological integration [5].

GM Analytical Workflow

Advanced Protocol: Functional Data Geometric Morphometrics

Recent methodological innovations include Functional Data Geometric Morphometrics (FDGM), which converts discrete landmark data into continuous curves using basis function expansions. This approach enhances sensitivity to subtle shape variations particularly relevant for evo-devo studies [7].

Workflow:

• Perform standard GPA as in basic protocol
• Convert Procrustes coordinates to continuous functions using interpolation
• Apply curve registration to align geometric features across specimens
• Conduct functional PCA to identify major modes of shape variation
• Use machine learning classifiers (e.g., SVM, random forest) for taxonomic discrimination
• Compare classification performance with traditional GM

This approach has demonstrated superior performance in classifying cryptic species with minimal morphological differentiation, achieving higher discrimination accuracy than traditional GM in studies of shrew craniodental morphology [7].

Applications in Evolutionary Developmental Biology

Case Study: Bat Cranial Evolution

The Koyabu Lab's integrative research program exemplifies GM applications in evo-devo. Their investigation of mammalian cranial evolution combines paleontology, comparative anatomy, embryology, and molecular developmental biology through GM approaches [8]. By analyzing prenatal ossification patterns and cranial shape in bats, they have identified heterochronic shifts and modular organization underlying phenotypic diversity [6]. Their recruitment of postdoctoral researchers specializing in evolutionary morphology, geometric morphometrics, and evolutionary genomics highlights the multidisciplinary nature of modern GM research [8].

Case Study: Morphological Modularity in Mouse Mandibles

Seminal work on mouse mandibles has demonstrated how GM can identify developmental modules. Using the RV coefficient to test alternative modular hypotheses, researchers found strongest support for a two-module organization (alveolar region and ascending ramus) corresponding to developmental origins [5]. This modular structure channels phenotypic variation along particular axes, influencing evolutionary potential.

Table 3: Quantitative Comparison of Morphometric Approaches

Characteristic	Traditional Morphometrics	Geometric Morphometrics
Data Type	Linear distances, ratios, angles	Landmark coordinates (2D or 3D)
Shape Capture	Partial; misses complex geometry	Complete geometric information
Spatial Information	Lost after measurement	Preserved throughout analysis
Statistical Power	Limited by variable autocorrelation	High; uses multivariate space efficiently
Visualization	Limited to charts and graphs	Direct biological visualization (deformation grids)
Taxonomic Discrimination	72% accuracy in shark teeth [4]	89% accuracy in shark teeth [4]
Evo-Devo Applications	Limited to allometry and size analysis	Modularity, integration, allometry, development trajectories

Emerging Frontiers

Current GM research is expanding into several innovative areas:

• 3D GM using micro-CT and synchrotron imaging for internal structures
• 4D GM analyzing shape change through time (development or evolution)
• Geometric morphometrics of transcriptomes integrating shape with gene expression data [8]
• Machine learning integration for pattern recognition in complex shape data [7]

These developments position GM as an increasingly powerful framework for connecting genotype to phenotype – the central goal of evo-devo research.

Geometric morphometrics has fundamentally transformed how biologists quantify and analyze biological form. By preserving complete geometric information throughout statistical analysis and enabling intuitive visualization of results, GM provides an essential toolkit for evolutionary developmental biology. The protocols and applications detailed here demonstrate how GM moves beyond simple description to address core mechanistic questions about development, evolution, and their interaction. As methodological innovations continue to enhance its capabilities, GM remains positioned as a cornerstone technique for interdisciplinary research aimed at understanding the origin and evolution of biological form.

Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo) addresses one of biology's most fundamental questions: how the interplay between developmental processes and evolutionary mechanisms generates life's diversity. The field's central goal is to bridge the historical narrative of "what happened" in evolution with the mechanistic understanding of "how it happened" by uncovering the developmental genetic circuitry that shapes phenotypic variation [9]. This integrative perspective reveals that evolution is not merely a process of selecting genetic variants but involves deep modifications in the developmental programs that construct organismal form.

Evo-Devo provides a "phenotype-first" approach, seeking to determine the developmental mechanisms that underlie phenotypic variation [9]. This represents a significant shift from traditional evolutionary biology, which often focused primarily on genetic frequencies without fully addressing how phenotypic variation originates. The field has expanded through integration with ecology (Eco-Evo-Devo), recognizing that environmental conditions simultaneously determine both phenotypic development and the nature of selective environments [9]. This integrated framework allows researchers to study how developmental processes evolve and contribute to evolutionary diversity through comparative analyses across species.

Theoretical Foundation: From Genes to Phenotypes

Core Principles of Evolutionary Developmental Biology

Evo-Devo operates on several foundational principles that distinguish it from conventional evolutionary biology. First, it recognizes that developmental processes are not just endpoints but active generators of phenotypic variation upon which selection acts [9]. Second, it emphasizes that small changes in gene regulation during development can produce profound effects on an organism's form and function [10]. Third, it acknowledges that complex traits often evolve through the modification of existing genetic networks rather than through the emergence of entirely new genes [11].

The concept of developmental constraints plays a crucial role in Evo-Devo, explaining why certain phenotypic variations occur repeatedly while others rarely appear in evolutionary history. These constraints determine the "accessible" phenotypic space and can channel evolutionary trajectories along specific paths. As demonstrated in hominin brain evolution, developmental constraints can divert selection in unexpected directions, leading to the evolution of exceptionally adaptive traits not through direct selection for those traits but through their correlation with other selected characteristics [12].

Gene Regulatory Networks and Evolutionary Innovation

At the molecular level, Evo-Devo investigates how gene regulatory networks (GRNs)—the systems that coordinate the activity of thousands of genes—control developmental processes and evolve to produce novel traits [10]. These networks consist of interacting genes, proteins, and regulatory elements that determine when and where genes are expressed during development. Subtle changes in the regulatory regions controlling these networks can shift developmental timing and patterning, leading to new traits or species-specific morphologies [10].

Research on zebrafish has revealed that GRNs are central not only to development but also to regeneration, with overlapping networks guiding both developmental neurogenesis and injury-induced regeneration in the zebrafish retina [10]. This finding illustrates how Evo-Devo can uncover conserved regulatory mechanisms that may inform regenerative medicine in humans, demonstrating the field's practical applications beyond fundamental evolutionary questions.

Table 1: Key Concepts in Evolutionary Developmental Biology

Concept	Definition	Research Implication
Developmental Constraints	Limitations on phenotypic variability imposed by developmental systems	Channels evolutionary trajectories along predictable paths
Gene Regulatory Networks (GRNs)	Interacting genes, proteins, and regulatory elements that control development	Provides mechanistic understanding of how form changes during evolution
Phenotypic Plasticity	Ability of a genotype to produce different phenotypes in different environments	Source of developmental variation that can be canalized evolutionarily
Genetic Correlation	Covariation between traits due to shared developmental genetic mechanisms	Creates evolutionary trade-offs and coordinated trait evolution
Modularity	Organization of developmental systems into semi-independent units	Enables evolutionary change in one trait without disrupting others

Geometric Morphometrics: Quantifying Form and Its Transformation

Foundations of Morphometric Analysis in Evo-Devo

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has emerged as a powerful methodology within Evo-Devo for quantifying and analyzing shape variation, providing the crucial link between developmental processes and evolutionary patterns. GM is based on the principle that an organism's shape can be described by the coordinates of a set of anatomical landmarks—discrete, biologically meaningful points that correspond across specimens [7]. Through Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA), raw landmark coordinates are superimposed using least-squares estimates and rotation parameters to remove non-shape variation related to position, orientation, and scale [7] [13].

This quantitative approach enables researchers to visualize and statistically analyze shape changes across evolutionary lineages, developmental stages, or environmental conditions. GM has proven particularly valuable for identifying subtle morphological differences that may reflect underlying changes in developmental programming, such as studying cranial morphology in relation to evolutionary relationships or ecological adaptations [7] [13]. The method's power lies in its ability to capture complex shape geometry in a form amenable to statistical analysis while preserving the spatial relationships among anatomical structures.

Advanced Methodologies: From Landmark-Based to Landmark-Free Approaches

While traditional GM relies on manually placed landmarks, emerging automated approaches address several limitations, including the time-consuming nature of landmarking, operator bias, and difficulties in comparing morphologically disparate taxa with few homologous landmarks [13]. Landmark-free methods like Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA) use diffeomorphic transformations to compare shapes without relying solely on homologous landmarks [13].

DAA begins with atlas generation by selecting an initial template mesh, which undergoes geodesic registration to represent the dataset. Control points are generated based on a kernel width parameter, with smaller values yielding finer-scale deformations. For each control point, momentum vectors ("momenta") are calculated for each specimen, representing the optimal deformation trajectory for aligning the atlas with each specimen [13]. These momenta provide the basis for comparing shape variation through techniques like kernel principal component analysis (kPCA) [13].

Table 2: Comparison of Morphometric Methods in Evo-Devo Research

Method	Key Features	Advantages	Limitations
Traditional Landmark GM	Manual placement of homologous landmarks; Procrustes superimposition	Biologically meaningful comparisons; Well-established statistical framework	Time-consuming; Limited by number of homologous points; Operator bias
Functional Data GM (FDGM)	Represents landmarks as continuous curves using basis functions	Captures shape between landmarks; More refined shape representation	Complex implementation; Emerging methodology
Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA)	Landmark-free; Uses diffeomorphic transformations and control points	Automated; Applicable to disparate taxa; High efficiency for large datasets	Sample-dependent results; Challenges with mixed modalities

Experimental Protocols and Applications

Protocol: Geometric Morphometrics Analysis of Craniodental Evolution

This protocol outlines the steps for analyzing craniodental evolution in shrews using geometric morphometrics, based on the methodology described by [7].

Materials and Equipment:

• High-resolution imaging system (micro-CT scanner or digital camera)
• 89 specimen skulls from three shrew species (Crocidura malayana, C. monticola, Suncus murinus)
• TpsDig2 software for landmark digitization
• R statistical environment with geomorph, Morpho, and shapes packages

Procedure:

• Specimen Preparation and Imaging
  • Clean and prepare skull specimens to ensure consistent orientation
  • For each specimen, capture standardized images of three craniodental views: dorsal, jaw, and lateral
  • Ensure consistent scale and resolution across all images

• Landmark Digitization

  • Define a set of 2D anatomical landmarks for each view that capture key morphological features
  • Digitize landmark coordinates using TpsDig2 software
  • For the dorsal view, include landmarks at the anterior tip of premaxilla, posterior points of skull, and lateral-most points of zygomatic arches

• Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA)

  • Import landmark data into R statistical environment
  • Perform GPA to superimpose landmark configurations using translation, rotation, and scaling
  • Extract Procrustes coordinates representing shape variables

• Statistical Analysis

  • Perform Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on Procrustes coordinates to visualize major shape variation
  • Conduct Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) to assess classification accuracy of species
  • Implement Procrustes ANOVA to test for significant shape differences among species

• Functional Data Geometric Morphometrics (FDGM) Extension

  • Convert landmark data into continuous curves using basis functions
  • Apply functional PCA to analyze shape variation
  • Compare results with traditional GM approach

Expected Outcomes: This protocol enables quantitative comparison of craniodental morphology across shrew species, with the dorsal view expected to provide the best discrimination among species [7]. The analysis should reveal shape variations corresponding to ecological adaptations and phylogenetic relationships.

Protocol: Zebrafish Gene Expression Analysis in Evo-Devo Studies

Materials and Equipment:

• Wild-type and mutant zebrafish (Danio rerio)
• Embryo medium and microinjection equipment
• CRISPR-Cas9 components for gene editing
• Whole-mount in situ hybridization reagents
• Fluorescence microscope with imaging system
• RNA extraction and qPCR equipment

Procedure:

• Experimental Design
  • Define comparison groups based on evolutionary questions (e.g., different zebrafish lineages or induced mutations)
  • Determine appropriate developmental stages for analysis based on traits of interest

• Gene Manipulation

  • Design guide RNAs targeting genes of interest (e.g., Wnt/β-catenin pathway genes)
  • Perform microinjections of CRISPR-Cas9 components into 1-cell stage zebrafish embryos
  • Raise injected embryos and validate gene editing efficiency

• Phenotypic Analysis

  • Document morphological changes using brightfield and fluorescence microscopy
  • For craniofacial studies, perform Alcian Blue and Alizarin Red staining of cartilage and bone
  • Capture standardized images for subsequent morphometric analysis

• Gene Expression Analysis

  • Fix embryos at key developmental stages
  • Perform whole-mount in situ hybridization to localize gene expression patterns
  • Alternatively, extract RNA for qPCR quantification of gene expression levels

• Data Integration

  • Correlate gene expression patterns with morphological outcomes
  • Compare results across experimental conditions to infer evolutionary mechanisms
  • Integrate with morphometric data to quantify form changes

Applications: This protocol enables researchers to test evolutionary hypotheses by manipulating developmental genes and quantifying resulting phenotypic effects. For example, it can reveal how specific genetic changes alter craniofacial development or how environmental factors (like drug exposures) interact with genetic pathways to produce phenotypic variation [10].

Signaling Pathways in Evolutionary Development

Developmental signaling pathways represent the mechanistic bridge between genetic variation and phenotypic diversity in Evo-Devo. These conserved pathways are repeatedly co-opted in evolution to build novel structures and functions. Three pathways particularly important for understanding the evolution of form are Wnt, FGF, and Notch signaling, which interact to coordinate growth with cell fate specification during development [10].

The Wnt/β-catenin pathway plays crucial roles in axis patterning, cell proliferation, and fate determination across metazoans. In zebrafish, this pathway can be experimentally manipulated to study its evolutionary role, as demonstrated by studies showing that the drug Erlotinib inhibits the Wnt/β-catenin pathway in zebrafish embryos [10]. The FGF (Fibroblast Growth Factor) pathway regulates cell migration, differentiation, and tissue patterning, while the Notch pathway controls cell fate decisions through lateral inhibition. These pathways exhibit extensive crosstalk, with Wnt and FGF signals interacting to coordinate growth with cell fate specification during limb development [10].

These signaling pathways are particularly informative for Evo-Devo studies because they represent deeply conserved genetic toolkits that have been deployed in different contexts throughout evolution to generate morphological novelty. Their study reveals how evolution tinkers with existing developmental mechanisms rather than inventing entirely new ones.

Table 3: Key Signaling Pathways in Evolutionary Developmental Biology

Pathway	Core Components	Developmental Functions	Evolutionary Roles
Wnt/β-catenin	Wnt ligands, Frizzled receptors, β-catenin, TCF/LEF	Axis patterning, cell proliferation, fate determination	Body plan organization; Appendage formation; Repeated evolutionary co-option
FGF Signaling	FGF ligands, FGFR, MAPK/ERK cascade	Cell migration, differentiation, tissue patterning	Limb development; Craniofacial evolution; Species-specific adaptations
Notch Signaling	Notch receptors, Delta/Jagged ligands, CSL	Cell fate decisions, lateral inhibition	Neural development; Segmentation; Boundary formation
Wnt-FGF-Notch Crosstalk	Integrated network of all three pathways	Coordination of growth with cell fate specification	Evolutionary innovation through network redeployment

Model Organisms in Evo-Devo Research

Model organisms serve as indispensable tools in Evo-Devo research, each offering unique advantages for studying specific evolutionary developmental questions. The zebrafish (Danio rerio) provides external development, optical clarity of embryos, and genetic tractability, making it ideal for real-time observation of developmental processes [10]. Cichlid fishes exhibit remarkable diversity in teeth, scales, and habitats despite sharing much of the same genome, providing powerful models for studying genetic variation and evolutionary drivers [11]. The Mexican tetra (Astyanax mexicanus) exists in sighted surface-dwelling and blind cave-dwelling variants, offering insights into evolutionary adaptation to extreme environments [11].

Each model organism illuminates different aspects of evolutionary developmental processes. Zebrafish, with their whole-genome duplication event, provide insights into how extra gene copies can fuel evolutionary innovation through subfunctionalization or neofunctionalization [10]. Cichlid fishes demonstrate how rapid diversification can occur through modifications to existing genetic networks rather than through entirely new genes [11]. Mexican tetras reveal how development can be modified to produce dramatic phenotypic changes in response to environmental pressures [11].

Research Reagent Solutions for Evo-Devo Studies

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Evo-Devo Research

Reagent/Tool	Function/Application	Example Use in Evo-Devo
CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing	Targeted genome modification	Testing gene function in model organisms; Creating evolutionary mutations
Whole-mount In Situ Hybridization	Spatial localization of gene expression	Comparing expression patterns across species or morphs
RNA Interference (RNAi)	Gene knockdown studies	Functional analysis of developmental genes without permanent mutation
Geometric Morphometrics Software	Quantification and analysis of shape	Tracking evolutionary shape changes; Correlating form with genetics
Transcriptomics	Genome-wide expression profiling	Identifying genes involved in evolutionary innovations
Micro-CT Scanning	High-resolution 3D imaging	Digital preservation and analysis of morphological structures
Phylogenetic Comparative Methods	Evolutionary analysis of trait evolution	Reconstructing evolutionary history of developmental traits

The integration of Evo-Devo with geometric morphometrics represents a powerful framework for addressing biology's fundamental questions about the origins of diversity. Future research directions will likely focus on several emerging areas. First, the incorporation of landmark-free morphometric approaches will enable analyses across more disparate taxa and larger datasets [13]. Second, the integration of Evo-Devo with ecological approaches (Eco-Evo-Devo) will provide more complete understanding of how environmental factors influence developmental processes and evolutionary trajectories [9]. Third, the application of machine learning and artificial intelligence to morphometric data will uncover patterns beyond human perception and generate new hypotheses about developmental constraints and evolutionary possibilities [7].

The central goal of Evo-Devo—uniting "what happened" with "how did it happen"—increasingly appears achievable through the synergistic application of developmental genetics, evolutionary theory, and quantitative morphometrics. As these fields continue to converge, researchers will gain unprecedented insights into the mechanistic basis of evolutionary change, ultimately revealing how the interplay between development and evolution has generated, and continues to generate, the spectacular diversity of life on Earth.

In evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), understanding the processes that generate morphological diversity requires precise methods for quantifying and comparing biological shape. Geometric morphometrics (GM) has emerged as an essential framework for this task, providing powerful statistical tools for analyzing form variation through coordinate-based data [14]. Unlike traditional linear measurements, GM preserves the geometric relationships among structures throughout analysis, enabling researchers to visualize shape changes and test evolutionary hypotheses with unprecedented rigor. The foundational elements of this approach are landmarks, semilandmarks, and outlines—discrete points that capture the geometry of biological forms in two or three dimensions. For evo-devo researchers, these building blocks facilitate investigations into how developmental processes constrain or facilitate evolutionary change, how morphological integration modules evolve, and how environmental factors shape phenotypic expression. This article details the protocols, applications, and analytical frameworks for employing these elements in evo-devo research, with particular emphasis on current methodologies and their implementation.

The Anatomical and Mathematical Basis of Shape Data

Landmarks: Types and Biological Definitions

Landmarks are discrete, homologous anatomical points that can be precisely located across all specimens in a study. In evo-devo research, ensuring landmark homology is critical for meaningful biological inferences about evolutionary processes.

• Type I landmarks are defined by local topological features, such as the intersections of sutures in cranial studies (e.g., the junction of the sagittal and coronal sutures in mammalian crania). These represent the most reliable markers of homology.
• Type II landmarks represent locally extreme points of curvature, such as the tips of cusps on mammalian molars or the distal tips of bone processes. These are common in studies of skeletal morphology.
• Type III landmarks are defined by extremal points that may depend on other landmarks, such as the point of maximum curvature along a boundary. These require careful interpretation as their homology is less certain.

The mathematical representation of a biological form consists of a landmark configuration—a matrix of coordinates (2D or 3D) that captures the geometry of the structure. For k landmarks in m dimensions, the configuration is represented as a k × m matrix, which forms the raw data for subsequent morphometric analyses [15].

Semilandmarks: Capturing Curves and Surfaces

Many biologically significant structures lack sufficient discrete landmarks for comprehensive shape characterization. Semilandmarks solve this problem by allowing researchers to quantify homologous curves and surfaces through points that slide along tangential directions to remove non-homologous variation [15]. The sliding process eliminates tangential variation because contours should be homologous from specimen to specimen, whereas their individual points need not be [15].

Two primary criteria govern the sliding of semilandmarks:

• Minimum bending energy (BE): Assumes the contour on a particular specimen results from the smoothest possible deformation of the corresponding contour on a reference form [15].
• Minimum Procrustes distance (D): Aligns semilandmarks of each specimen along lines perpendicular to the curve passing through corresponding semilandmarks on the reference form [15].

Table 1: Comparison of Semilandmark Sliding Criteria

Criterion	Mathematical Basis	Biological Interpretation	Best Applications
Minimum Bending Energy	Minimizes energy required for deformation	Models smooth, continuous deformation	Structures with smooth morphological gradients
Minimum Procrustes Distance	Minimizes Euclidean distance between points	Models minimal morphological change	High-precision comparisons of similar forms

Outlines: Shape Analysis Without Discrete Points

For structures lacking clear landmarks altogether, outline methods capture shape information using the entire contour. While earlier methods relied on Fourier analysis, contemporary approaches typically use densely sampled semilandmarks, effectively bridging the gap between discrete point analysis and continuous shape representation. Recent advances in landmark-free methods such as Large Deformation Diffeomorphic Metric Mapping (LDDMM) and Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA) now enable shape comparison without manual landmark placement, using control points and momentum vectors to represent deformation fields [13].

Experimental Protocols for Data Collection and Processing

Workflow for Landmark and Semilandmark Data Collection

The following protocol outlines the standard workflow for geometric morphometric data collection and processing, from specimen preparation to statistical analysis.

Specimen Preparation and Imaging

Consistent specimen orientation is critical for comparable landmark data. For cranial studies, specimens should be positioned in standardized views (e.g., lateral, ventral) with the camera lens parallel to the imaging plane [14]. Protocol for bat skull analysis illustrates this approach: "The crania were photographed in lateral and ventral views, while the mandibulae were photographed in lateral view with the long axis of the mandible parallel to the lens of the camera" [14]. All imaging should be performed with a scale reference and consistent lighting to minimize measurement error.

Landmark and Semilandmark Digitization

Landmarks should be digitized consistently across all specimens using software such as tpsDIG2 [14]. The number and placement of landmarks and semilandmarks depend on the biological hypothesis and structure complexity. For example, in a study of bat crania, researchers used "fourteen landmarks and one semi-landmark curve consisting of fifteen semi-landmarks for the lateral cranium; nineteen landmarks and one semi-landmark curve consisting of six semi-landmarks for the ventral cranium; and ten landmarks and three semi-landmark curves consisting of six, six, and eighteen semi-landmarks for the mandible" [14]. All digitization should be performed by a single researcher to minimize inter-observer error, with a subset re-digitized to assess repeatability.

Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA)

GPA standardizes landmark configurations by translating, scaling, and rotating them to remove non-shape variation [15]. This process:

• Centers configurations at the origin (0,0)
• Scales them to unit centroid size
• Rotates them to minimize Procrustes distance from the mean shape

The resulting Procrustes coordinates represent shape variables independent of position, scale, and orientation.

Semilandmark Sliding Implementation

After initial GPA, semilandmarks are slid using either bending energy or Procrustes distance criteria. In R (geomorph package), this is implemented as:

The choice of sliding criterion affects results, particularly when morphological variation is small, as in modern human populations [15].

Protocol for Out-of-Sample Classification

A common challenge in applied morphometrics is classifying new specimens not included in the original study. This protocol addresses out-of-sample classification for nutritional assessment in children, with applications to evo-devo research:

• Reference Sample Construction: Collect and digitize landmarks from a representative sample, performing GPA to establish shape space [16].
• Template Selection: Choose an appropriate template specimen (e.g., consensus shape) for registering new individuals.
• Registration of New Specimens: Align new specimens to the template using Procrustes superposition.
• Shape Coordinate Extraction: Project the aligned coordinates into the reference shape space.
• Classification: Apply pre-established discriminant functions to classify the new specimen.

This approach has been successfully implemented for classifying children's nutritional status based on arm shape and can be adapted for evolutionary studies of developmental trajectories [16].

Applications in Evolutionary Developmental Biology

Analyzing Morphological Disparity and Evolutionary Rates

Geometric morphometrics enables precise quantification of morphological disparity and evolutionary rates across phylogenetic contexts. A 2025 study comparing manual landmarking with landmark-free DAA across 322 mammals found that "both methods produced comparable but varying estimates of phylogenetic signal, morphological disparity and evolutionary rates" [13]. This demonstrates the utility of these methods for large-scale evolutionary questions, particularly when analyzing morphologically disparate taxa where homologous landmarks become scarce.

Detecting Sexual Shape Dimorphism

GM methods can detect subtle shape differences between sexes, providing insights into the evolution of sexual dimorphism. A study of Colossoma macropomum using MorphoJ software found "statistically significant differences in body shape between males and females," with females characterized by "shorter and narrower body form, while males exhibited a longer and broader morphology" [17]. Such analyses illuminate how developmental programs diverge between sexes and evolve in response to selective pressures.

Phenotypic Trajectory Analysis

Phenotypic trajectory analysis (PTA) extends GM to compare patterns of shape change across multiple groups or conditions. Rather than analyzing static shapes, PTA characterizes trajectories in shape space, comparing their size (amount of shape change), direction (pattern of shape change), and shape (complexity of trajectory) [18]. This approach is particularly powerful in evo-devo for comparing:

• Developmental sequences across taxa
• Evolutionary allometries across clades
• Ecological shape variation across populations

Table 2: Essential Software Tools for Geometric Morphometrics

Software	Primary Function	Data Compatibility	Key Features	Access
MorphoJ	Integrated morphometric analysis	2D & 3D data	Procrustes fit, PCA, CVA, regression, modularity tests	Free [19] [20]
tpsDIG2	Landmark digitization	2D data	Landmark and semilandmark digitization	Free [14]
geomorph (R package)	Statistical analysis	2D & 3D data	Procrustes ANOVA, phylogenetic analyses, semilandmark sliding	Free [14]
Deformetrica	Landmark-free analysis	3D surfaces/shapes	Diffeomorphic mapping, atlas construction	Free [13]

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Geometric Morphometrics

Reagent/Equipment	Specification	Research Function	Protocol Notes
Digital Camera	DSLR with macro lens (e.g., Canon EOS 70D with EF-S 60mm)	Specimen imaging	Mount on photostand for consistent angle [14]
Specimen Mounts	Customizable positioning apparatus	Standardized orientation	Critical for comparable 2D data [14]
Scale Reference	Precision millimeter scale	Spatial calibration	Include in all images for conversion to real units
CT Scanner	Micro-CT for small specimens	3D data acquisition	Essential for internal structures [13]

Current Challenges and Emerging Methodologies

Sample Size Considerations

Determining adequate sample size remains challenging in geometric morphometrics. A 2024 study found that "reducing sample size impacted mean shape and increased shape variance," emphasizing that "trends shown by the views and elements were not all strongly associated with one another" [14]. While no universal sample size exists, researchers should conduct power analyses specific to their biological question and system. For preliminary studies, utilizing multiple views and elements can strengthen conclusions when sample sizes are limited [14].

Landmark-Free Approaches

Recent advances in landmark-free methods address limitations of traditional GM when comparing highly disparate taxa. Approaches like Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA) use "control points and momentum vectors which describe the optimal deformation trajectory of each specimen to fit the atlas" [13]. These methods show promise for large-scale evolutionary studies but face challenges with mixed modality data (CT vs. surface scans), which can be mitigated through Poisson surface reconstruction to create watertight, closed meshes [13].

Future Directions in Evo-Devo Research

The integration of geometric morphometrics with genomic and developmental data represents the future of evo-devo research. Key frontiers include:

• Multilevel analysis: Linking landmark-based shape variation to gene regulatory networks
• 4D morphometrics: Quantifying shape change through time in developing organisms
• Cross-species atlas construction: Creating standardized templates for comparative studies
• Automated phenotyping: Combining machine learning with landmark data for high-throughput analysis

As these methodologies mature, they will further illuminate the developmental mechanisms underlying evolutionary patterns captured by landmarks, semilandmarks, and outlines—the fundamental building blocks of shape data.

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has revolutionized the quantitative analysis of biological form, providing a powerful toolkit for evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) research. These methods enable researchers to capture, analyze, and visualize the intricate geometry of biological structures, moving beyond traditional linear measurements to preserve complete geometric information throughout statistical analyses. The foundations of geometric morphometrics were established approximately thirty years ago and have been continually refined and extended since [21]. In evo-devo, where understanding the subtle changes in form across developmental stages, genotypes, and environmental conditions is paramount, GM has become an indispensable methodology. It allows for rigorous testing of hypotheses about modularity, integration, heterochrony, and developmental trajectories by providing a mathematically coherent framework for shape analysis.

The core strength of GM lies in its tight connection between biological theory, precise measurement, multivariate biostatistics, and geometry [21]. This synergy is particularly valuable in evo-devo research, where the genetic and developmental bases of morphological variation and evolution are investigated. Modern GM has been successfully connected to various adjacent fields including molecular developmental biology, quantitative genetics, genetic mapping, and biomechanics, making it perfectly suited to address core evo-devo questions [21]. The ability to visualize statistical results as actual shapes or form changes provides an intuitive bridge between quantitative analysis and biological interpretation, facilitating insights into the developmental origins of evolutionary patterns.

Theoretical Principles of Shape and Form

In geometric morphometrics, the concepts of "shape" and "form" have precise mathematical definitions that form the basis of all subsequent analyses. Shape is defined as all the geometric information that remains when location, scale, and rotational effects are filtered out from an object. Form, in contrast, includes size information alongside shape, representing the geometric information independent of location and orientation, but not scale [21]. This distinction is crucial for evo-devo studies, where the interplay between size and shape (allometry) often represents a fundamental component of morphological variation.

The most common approach to isolating pure shape variation involves Procrustes superimposition, which standardizes specimens for differences in position, orientation, and scale [21]. Alternative methods exist, such as Euclidean Distance Matrix Analysis (EDMA), which quantifies form in a way that is invariant to changes in location and orientation without requiring registration [21]. However, this advantage comes at the cost of a more complex geometry of shape or form space and less efficient visualization methods, which can hamper the biological interpretation of results—a critical consideration in evo-devo research where communicating findings clearly is essential.

Table 1: Core Geometric Definitions in Morphometrics

Term	Mathematical Definition	Biological Interpretation	Evo-Devo Relevance
Shape	Geometric information invariant to translation, rotation, and scaling	Pure morphology divorced from size and spatial context	Allows isolation of developmental shape changes from growth effects
Form	Geometric information invariant to translation and rotation only	Morphology including size (size + shape)	Captures overall morphological variation in developing structures
Landmark	Discrete, anatomically corresponding point	Biological homology	Enables comparison of equivalent structures across developmental stages
Semilandmark	Point along a curve or surface between landmarks	Geometric homology	Captures continuous morphological features like outlines and surfaces

Generalized Procrustes Analysis: Core Protocol

Equipment and Software Requirements

The successful implementation of Procrustes-based geometric morphometrics requires specific computational tools and analytical frameworks. The following protocol assumes access to standard morphometric software packages such as morphoJ, EVAN, or the geomorph package in R, which have become the standard in the field [21].

Step-by-Step Superimposition Protocol

• Landmark Digitization: Collect two-dimensional or three-dimensional coordinate data from biological specimens using appropriate digitization equipment (e.g., microscopes with digitizing capabilities, 3D scanners, or CT scanners). Ensure all landmarks represent biologically homologous points across all specimens in the study.
• Configuration Centering: Translate each landmark configuration so that its centroid (the mean of all landmark coordinates) is positioned at the origin (0,0) of the coordinate system. This step removes differences in location between specimens.
  • Mathematical operation: For each configuration, compute centroid coordinates and subtract them from each landmark's coordinates.
• Size Scaling: Scale each translated configuration to unit centroid size. Centroid size is computed as the square root of the sum of squared distances of all landmarks from the configuration's centroid.
  • Formula: CS = √[Σ(Xi - Xc)² + (Yi - Yc)²] for 2D data
  • Biological rationale: Centroid size is a robust measure of size that is approximately independent of shape for small variations.
• Optimal Rotation: Rotate each scaled configuration about its centroid to minimize the sum of squared distances between corresponding landmarks across all specimens and a reference configuration (typically the sample mean shape).
  • Optimization criterion: Minimize the Procrustes distance, defined as the square root of the sum of squared differences between corresponding landmarks of superimposed configurations.

The resulting Procrustes coordinates describe shape per se and serve as the raw data for subsequent statistical analyses [22]. This protocol represents the standard Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA), which uses least squares approaches for the translation and rotation steps [21]. While the scaling to unit centroid size is geometrically convenient, it's important to note that this particular step does not minimize the squared differences between landmarks.

Workflow of Generalized Procrustes Analysis

Data Analysis and Statistical Framework

Multivariate Statistical Analyses

Once Procrustes coordinates are obtained, numerous multivariate statistical methods can be applied to explore shape variation and its biological correlates. Principal Component Analysis (PCA), known as relative warp analysis when applied to shape coordinates, is particularly valuable for reducing the high dimensionality of shape data and identifying major patterns of shape variation [22]. This reduction is essential in evo-devo studies where the number of shape variables (landmarks and semilandmarks) often exceeds traditional measurement counts.

For investigating relationships between shape and other variables, multivariate regression of Procrustes shape coordinates on external variables (such as centroid size, ecological, or developmental parameters) provides a powerful approach. These shape regressions can be visualized as shape deformations, directly linking statistical results to biological form [22]. Partial Least Squares (PLS) analysis extends this capability by assessing covariation patterns between two or more blocks of variables, such as shape and gene expression data—a particularly relevant application for integrative evo-devo research.

Table 2: Statistical Methods for Procrustes Shape Data

Method	Application	Visualization	Evo-Devo Use Case
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)	Identify major patterns of shape variation	Scatterplots with shape deformation grids	Exploring developmental shape trajectories
Multivariate Regression	Test shape association with continuous variables	Shape deformation vectors along regression line	Allometric patterns (shape vs. size) analysis
Partial Least Squares (PLS)	Analyze covariation between shape and other blocks	Pairwise scatterplots of PLS scores	Integration of shape with gene expression data
Between-Group PCA	Highlight shape differences among predefined groups	Group means in shape space with confidence intervals	Comparing mutant vs. wild-type phenotypes
Procrustes ANOVA	Partition shape variance among factors	Effect sizes for each factor	Quantifying genetic vs. environmental effects

Advanced Analytical Considerations

Contemporary geometric morphometrics faces methodological challenges, particularly those resulting from large numbers of morphometric variables (the "curse of dimensionality") [21]. This is especially relevant in evo-devo research that utilizes "high-density" morphometrics with large numbers of landmarks and semilandmarks. Recent discussions have highlighted potential issues with the 'within a configuration' approach when studying modularity and integration, suggesting that violations of superimposition assumptions may increase false positive rates in statistical tests [23]. Researchers should be aware that the impact of this issue appears to be case-specific and may be particularly concerning in high-density analyses [23].

Visualization and Biological Interpretation

A particular advantage of geometric morphometrics is that multivariate statistical results can be visualized as actual shapes or shape changes, creating an intuitive bridge between statistical analysis and biological interpretation [22]. For example, principal components can be visualized as shape deformations along their axes, showing precisely what shape changes correspond to movement through the multivariate space. Similarly, regression results can be depicted as shape changes associated with changes in the predictor variable.

The decomposition of shape variation into symmetric and asymmetric components represents another powerful analytical and visualization approach [21]. This is particularly valuable in evo-devo studies of fluctuating asymmetry as an indicator of developmental stability or directed asymmetry as a genetically controlled phenotype. Visualization techniques typically represent the symmetric component as the average of each specimen and its mirror image, while the asymmetric component captures the deviation from this symmetry.

Research Reagent Solutions for Evo-Devo Morphometrics

Table 3: Essential Materials and Analytical Tools for Evo-Devo Morphometrics

Reagent/Tool	Function/Application	Specifications	Research Context
Landmark Digitation Software	Capture 2D/3D landmark coordinates	tpsDig, Landmark Editor	Precise anatomical point marking across specimens
3D Imaging Systems	Non-destructive 3D data acquisition	Micro-CT, laser scanners	Documenting delicate developmental series
Semilandmark Placement Algorithms	Quantify curves and surfaces	Equidistant sliding, minimum bending energy	Capturing outline morphology in developing structures
Procrustes Software Packages	Perform GPA and shape statistics	morphoJ, geomorph R package	Core shape analysis pipeline
Shape Deformation Visualization	Illustrate statistical results as shapes	Thin-plate spline, vector displacement grids	Interpreting PCA, regression results biologically
Module Definition Tools	Test hypotheses of modularity	Covariance ratio, ESC	Analyzing developmental modules and integration

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has revolutionized the quantitative analysis of biological form by providing powerful tools to capture and statistically analyze shape. Within evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), three core concepts—modularity, integration, and allometry—are particularly accessible through GM methods. Modularity describes the organization of organismal structures into semi-autonomous units, while integration refers to the coordinated variation of traits due to shared developmental or functional origins [24] [25]. Allometry, the relationship between shape and size, represents a fundamental integrating factor that influences morphological evolution [26] [25]. Together, these concepts help elucidate how developmental processes generate variation upon which evolutionary forces act.

The power of GM lies in its capacity to preserve geometric relationships throughout analysis, allowing researchers to visualize patterns of variation in their anatomical context. This protocol details how GM methodologies can be applied to test specific hypotheses about modularity, integration, and allometry within evo-devo research frameworks, providing both theoretical background and practical analytical workflows.

Theoretical Framework and Biological Significance

Conceptual Foundations in Evo-Devo

Modularity and integration represent two sides of the same coin in organismal development and evolution. A module is a unit whose parts are highly integrated due to numerous strong developmental interactions, while being relatively independent from other modules due to fewer or weaker between-module interactions [5] [24]. This compartmentalization is crucial for evolutionary change, as it allows traits to evolve semi-autonomously—a phenomenon known as mosaic evolution [24].

From a developmental perspective, organisms represent complex systems where integration originates from shared developmental pathways, tissue origins, or functional interactions. The evolutionary palimpsest model proposes that patterns of integration and modularity change throughout ontogeny, with later-developing processes overwriting—but not completely erasing—earlier patterns [24] [25]. This layered complexity makes GM an essential tool for disentangling these cumulative effects.

Allometry permeates both developmental and evolutionary studies as size variation constitutes a fundamental source of morphological change. As Gould noted, allometry represents "the study of proportion changes correlated with variation in size" [26], making it central to understanding how morphological integration is structured across biological scales.

Levels of Analysis

These core concepts can be investigated across multiple biological levels, each offering distinct insights:

• Static level: Variation among conspecific individuals at the same developmental stage
• Developmental level: Patterns arising from ontogenetic processes, often studied through fluctuating asymmetry [25]
• Evolutionary level: Divergence patterns across populations or species over phylogenetic scales [24] [25]

Table 1: Levels of Analysis in Morphometric Studies

Level	Source of Variation	Biological Insight	Common Data Sources
Static	Among individuals in population	Population-level variational patterns	Cross-sectional adult samples
Ontogenetic	Growth stages within species	Developmental trajectories	Longitudinal growth series
Evolutionary	Among species or higher taxa	Macroevolutionary patterns	Comparative phylogenetic data
Fluctuating Asymmetry	Left-right differences within individuals	Developmental stability and noise	Bilateral structures

Analytical Protocols

Data Acquisition and Preparation

Equipment and Software Requirements:

• R statistical environment with geomorph package [27] [28]
• Digitization software (tpsDig, ImageJ, MorphoJ)
• For 3D data: 3D scanner or microscribe, IDAV Landmark Editor

Landmarking Protocol:

• Define landmark types: Anatomical, mathematical, or semi-landmarks on curves/surfaces
• Digitize specimens: Ensure consistent orientation and scale during data capture
• Import data: Use readland.tps() or equivalent functions for data input [27]
• Generalized Procrustes Analysis: Superimpose configurations to remove non-shape variation

Data Quality Control:

• Assess measurement error through replicate digitizations
• Check for outliers using plotOutliers() function [27]
• Address missing data using estimate.missing() if necessary

Testing Modularity Hypotheses

The core principle underlying modularity tests is that if a hypothesized subdivision coincides with true module boundaries, the covariation between subsets should be minimal compared to alternative partitions [5].

RV Coefficient Analysis: The RV coefficient serves as a scalar measure of association between subsets of landmarks [5]. It is calculated as: RV = trace(S₁₂S₂₁) / √[trace(S₁₁)² × trace(S₂₂)²] where S₁₁ and S₂₂ are covariance matrices within subsets, and S₁₂ is the covariance between subsets.

Protocol for Modularity Testing:

• Define hypothetical modules based on developmental or functional criteria
• Compute RV coefficients between hypothesized modules
• Compare with alternative partitions using randomization tests
• Assess spatial contiguity using adjacency graphs for developmental hypotheses [5]

Table 2: Common Modularity Hypotheses in Model Systems

Biological System	Common Module Hypothesis	Developmental Basis	Key References
Drosophila wing	Anterior vs. posterior compartments	Compartment boundaries in wing disc	[5]
Mouse mandible	Alveolar region vs. ascending ramus	Separate ossification centers	[5] [29]
Mammalian cranium	Face vs. braincase	Neural crest vs. mesodermal origins	[29] [24]

Analyzing Integration Patterns

Integration analysis quantifies the overall coordination among morphological traits, which can be studied at different biological levels.

Global Integration Analysis:

Comparing Covariance Structures:

• Partial Least Squares (PLS): Analyzes covariation between predefined blocks
• Matrix correlations: Compare covariance matrices across levels or groups
• Phylogenetic integration: phylo.integration() tests integration in phylogenetic context [27]

Figure 1: Workflow for analyzing morphological integration across biological levels.

Allometry Analysis

Allometry can be studied through two primary frameworks: the Gould-Mosimann school (shape-space approaches) and the Huxley-Jolicoeur school (form-space approaches) [26].

Shape-Space Allometry (Gould-Mosimann):

Form-Space Allometry (Huxley-Jolicoeur):

Comparative Protocol:

• Estimate allometric vector using multiple methods
• Compare vector directions across methods and groups
• Test for allometric heterogeneity using trajectory analysis
• Visualize shape changes along allometric axes

Table 3: Methods for Studying Allometry in Geometric Morphometrics

Method	Theoretical Framework	Implementation	Strengths
Multivariate regression	Gould-Mosimann	procD.lm(shape ~ size)	Direct test of size-shape association
PC1 of shape	Gould-Mosimann	gm.prcomp() after GPA	Captures major shape variation axis
PC1 of conformation	Huxley-Jolicoeur	gm.prcomp() without scaling	Maintains size-shape covariation
PC1 of Boas coordinates	Huxley-Jolicoeur	Boas coordinates analysis	Alternative form-space representation

The Researcher's Toolkit

Essential Software and Analytical Tools

Primary R Packages:

• geomorph: Comprehensive GM analysis (GPA, modularity, integration, allometry) [27] [28]
• Morpho: Complementary GM functionality
• ape: Phylogenetic comparative methods
• ggplot2: Visualization and publication-quality graphics

Specialized Functions in Geomorph:

• modularity.test(): Tests hypotheses of modularity
• integration.test(): Assesses overall integration
• phylo.modularity() and phylo.integration(): Phylogenetic tests
• procD.allometry(): Comprehensive allometry analysis
• bilat.symmetry(): Analysis of symmetry and asymmetry [27]

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Materials for Geometric Morphometrics Research

Research Material	Function/Purpose	Implementation Example
2D/3D Digitization Equipment	Capturing landmark coordinates	Flatbed scanners (2D), micro-CT (3D)
Landmark Configuration Templates	Standardizing landmark placement	Anatomical atlas-based protocols
Semi-Landmark Sliding Algorithms	Quantifying curves and surfaces	define.sliders() in geomorph [27]
Phylogenetic Trees	Evolutionary context for comparative analyses	Time-calibrated trees from literature
Developmental Staging Series	Ontogenetic allometry studies	Embryonic or postnatal age series
13-Methyldocosanoyl-CoA	13-Methyldocosanoyl-CoA, MF:C44H80N7O17P3S, MW:1104.1 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
10-Hydroxypentadecanoyl-CoA	10-Hydroxypentadecanoyl-CoA, MF:C36H64N7O18P3S, MW:1007.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Advanced Applications and Interpretation

Cross-Level Comparisons

A powerful application of these methods involves comparing patterns across biological levels to infer processes:

Developmental vs. Evolutionary Integration:

Interpreting Cross-Level Results:

• Congruent patterns suggest developmental constraints on evolution
• Incongruent patterns indicate potential for evolutionary dissociation
• Scale-dependence reveals hierarchical organization of integration

Visualization and Communication

Effective visualization is crucial for interpreting and communicating results:

Shape Change Visualization:

Morphospace Occupation:

Figure 2: Framework for advanced cross-level analyses integrating multiple biological scales.

Geometric morphometrics provides an indispensable toolkit for investigating modularity, integration, and allometry within evo-devo research. The protocols outlined here enable researchers to move beyond descriptive morphology to test specific hypotheses about the developmental origins of evolutionary patterns. By applying these methods across biological levels and integrating findings with developmental genetics and phylogenetic comparative methods, researchers can unravel the complex relationships between developmental processes and evolutionary outcomes. The continuing development of GM software and analytical approaches promises even greater insights into the fundamental principles governing morphological evolution.

From Data to Discovery: GM Workflows and Evo-Devo Case Studies

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has revolutionized the quantitative analysis of biological form by providing sophisticated tools to statistically analyze shape and form. In evolutionary developmental (evo-devo) research, GM serves as a critical bridge, enabling researchers to quantify subtle morphological variations that arise from developmental processes and evolutionary pressures. The core principle of GM is the concept of shape, defined as all the geometric information about an object that remains after differences in position, scale, and rotation are removed [30]. This approach allows for the analysis of landmark configurations and their spatial relationships, moving beyond traditional linear measurements to capture the intricate geometry of biological structures [31] [32]. Within evo-devo, this capability is indispensable for investigating fundamental questions about how developmental mechanisms generate evolutionary novelty, how modularity and integration shape evolutionary trajectories, and how heterochrony manifests in morphological change.

The standard GM workflow transforms physical morphology into quantitative data ready for statistical analysis. This process involves several critical stages: specimen preparation and digitization, where landmarks are collected; data preprocessing, which includes alignment and normalization; and finally, multivariate statistical analysis to interpret shape variation. Adherence to a rigorous and standardized protocol is paramount, as it ensures the reproducibility and biological validity of findings, allowing for meaningful comparisons across studies and species [31]. The following sections detail this workflow, providing a comprehensive guide for researchers in evo-devo and related fields.

Experimental Protocol

Specimen Preparation and Image Acquisition

The initial phase of any GM study is the acquisition of high-quality, standardized images. Inconsistent data acquisition can introduce error and bias that cannot be fully corrected in subsequent analyses.

• Specimen Preparation: Specimens should be positioned to minimize distortion and reflect the biological orientation of interest. For instance, in a study of Sinibotia fish species, specimens were "positioned on their left side in a lateral orientation on a Styrofoam plate" to ensure consistency [31]. The morphology must be restored to a natural state and secured using tools like forceps and pins.
• Image Acquisition Setup: The camera should be mounted on a copy stand to maintain a lens parallel to the imaging plane. The shooting distance must be fixed (e.g., 300 mm) to ensure a consistent scale and reduce parallax distortion [31]. All images should be captured by the same researcher to minimize operator-induced variability.
• Scale and Calibration: The system must include a scale reference. For precise measurement, repeated calibration of the camera setup is required, often involving photographing a calibration target like a checkerboard pattern from multiple viewpoints [33]. Synchronizing all sensor clocks, ideally via Network Time Protocol (NTP), is also recommended [33].

Landmark Digitization

Digitization is the process of capturing shape data by identifying and recording the coordinates of biologically homologous points, known as landmarks, on each specimen.

• Landmark Types: A landmark configuration typically consists of three types of points [32]:
  • Type I Landmarks: Defined by local biological homology, such as the intersection of sutures or foramina (e.g., "the highest point of the nasal valve" [34]).
  • Type II Landmarks: Points of maximum curvature or other local geometric features (e.g., "the most anterior maximum of the vestibule" [34]).
  • Type III Landmarks: Extremal points or constructed points, such as the furthest point along an axis.
• Semi-Landmarks: For quantifying curved surfaces and outlines where homologous points are sparse, sliding semi-landmarks are used. A template with a set of semi-landmarks is created and then "projected from the template to each patient model using Thin Plate Spline (TPS) warping" [34]. These semi-landmarks are allowed to "slide tangentially along the surface, ensuring optimal homology across specimens while minimizing distortion" [34].
• Software and Tools: Digitization can be performed using specialized software such as Viewbox 4.0 [34] or within R packages like geomorph [35]. Reliability tests, including intra- and inter-operator repeatability assessments using metrics like Lin’s Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC), are essential to ensure data quality [34].

Data Preprocessing & Shape Alignment

Raw landmark coordinates contain information about shape, size, position, and orientation. Preprocessing isolates the shape component for statistical analysis.

• Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA): This is the core method for shape alignment. GPA standardizes all landmark configurations by:
  • Translating each configuration to a common center (e.g., the centroid).
  • Scaling each configuration to a unit centroid size (the square root of the sum of squared distances of all landmarks from the centroid).
  • Rotating configurations to minimize the sum of squared distances between corresponding landmarks (Procrustes distance). The output is a set of Procrustes coordinates that represent shape alone [34] [32]. These aligned coordinates are the basis for all subsequent statistical analyses.

Multivariate Statistical Analysis

With shape data properly aligned, researchers can apply a suite of multivariate statistical techniques to explore patterns of shape variation.

• Principal Component Analysis (PCA): This is the most common exploratory technique. PCA identifies the major, orthogonal axes of shape variation (Principal Components) within the entire dataset. It reduces the dimensionality of the data, allowing researchers to visualize the primary patterns of shape change and identify potential outliers [31] [34].
• Canonical Variate Analysis (CVA): Used when testing for shape differences between pre-defined groups (e.g., species, populations). CVA finds the axes that maximize the separation between groups relative to the variation within groups. It is highly effective for classification and discrimination [31].
• Multivariate Regression: This technique models the relationship between shape (the dependent variable) and one or more continuous independent variables (e.g., size, environmental gradients). A common application is allometry, which studies the relationship between shape and size [30] [32].
• Procrustes ANOVA: A specialized form of ANOVA designed to test for shape symmetry and asymmetry, or to partition shape variation among different factors (e.g., individual, side, population) [34].

Table 1: Core Multivariate Statistical Methods in Geometric Morphometrics

Method	Primary Purpose	Key Output	Typical Application in Evo-Devo
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)	Explore major axes of shape variation without a priori groups.	Principal Components (PCs)	Identifying major trends of morphological variation in a population or sample.
Canonical Variate Analysis (CVA)	Maximize separation between pre-defined groups.	Canonical Variates (CVs)	Differentiating species or ecotypes based on shape [31].
Multivariate Regression	Model the relationship between shape and continuous predictors.	Regression vectors & scores	Studying allometry (shape vs. size) or shape response to environmental factors.
Partial Least Squares (PLS)	Analyze covariance between two sets of variables (e.g., shape and gene expression).	PLS vectors & scores	Investigating morphological integration and modularity between traits.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Successful execution of a GM workflow requires a combination of specialized software, statistical tools, and careful methodological planning.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for a Standard GM Workflow

Tool / Reagent	Function / Purpose	Examples & Considerations
Digital Camera & Copy Stand	High-resolution, standardized image acquisition.	Fixed shooting distance; lens parallel to specimen plane [31].
Calibration Target	Scale reference and optical distortion correction.	Checkerboard pattern for photogrammetric calibration [33].
Digitization Software	Placing landmarks and semi-landmarks on digital images.	Viewbox 4.0 [34]; TpsDig2; MorphoJ.
Statistical Software with GM Packages	Performing GPA, PCA, CVA, and other multivariate analyses.	R with geomorph [34] [35], Morpho packages.
Sliding Semi-Landmarks	Quantifying homologous curves and surfaces.	Projected from a template using Thin-Plate Spline warping [34].
Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA)	Removing non-shape variation (size, position, rotation).	Foundational step; implemented in all major GM software [34] [32].
thiophene-2-carbonyl-CoA	thiophene-2-carbonyl-CoA, MF:C26H38N7O17P3S2, MW:877.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Ethyl 11(Z),14(Z),17(Z)-eicosatrienoate	Ethyl 11(Z),14(Z),17(Z)-eicosatrienoate, MF:C22H38O2, MW:334.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram summarizes the complete standard geometric morphometrics workflow from initial data acquisition to final biological interpretation.

Application in Evo-Devo & Drug Discovery

The power of the standard GM workflow extends beyond basic systematics into advanced fields like evolutionary developmental biology and biomedical research. In evo-devo, GM has been instrumental in testing hypotheses about modularity and integration. For example, studies on human craniofacial development have used GM to "test for potential bilateral asymmetry of shape" using Procrustes ANOVA, providing insights into developmental stability and canalization [34] [32]. Similarly, analyses of cranial allometry in papionin monkeys have leveraged multivariate regression to understand how size and shape co-vary across species and through ontogeny [32].

Furthermore, GM principles are being adopted in cutting-edge biomedical applications, particularly in the era of personalized medicine. For instance, a geometric morphometric analysis of the nasal cavity was used to classify patients into morphological clusters to predict the accessibility of the olfactory region. This approach directly informs the optimization of "nose-to-brain drug delivery strategies," ensuring treatments are tailored to individual anatomical variability [34]. The fusion of GM with machine learning is also accelerating drug discovery. Platforms like the Molecular Surface Interaction Fingerprinting (MaSIF) use "geometric descriptors of molecular surfaces" as a universal language for predicting protein interactions. This geometric deep learning tool can "design artificial proteins that can bind to...new surfaces" created by drug molecules, opening new avenues for designing precision therapeutics [36].

The standard GM workflow, from meticulous digitization to robust multivariate statistics, provides an unparalleled framework for quantifying and interpreting biological form. Its rigorous mathematical foundation ensures that analyses of shape are both reproducible and biologically meaningful. For evo-devo researchers, this protocol is a powerful tool to unravel the complex interplay between developmental processes and evolutionary change. The continued integration of GM with emerging technologies like geometric deep learning and personalized medicine promises to further expand its impact, solidifying its role as a cornerstone of modern biological and biomedical research.

Application Notes

The Centrality of Morphological Data in the Genomic Age

Despite the wealth of genomic data available, phenotypic traits remain vital for phylogenetics. Morphology serves as a powerful independent source of evidence for testing molecular clades and, through fossil phenotypes, represents the primary means for time-scaling phylogenies. Morphological phylogenetics is thus essential for transforming undated molecular topologies into dated evolutionary trees [37]. To employ morphology to its full potential, researchers must scrutinize phenotypes more objectively, improve models of phenotypic evolution, and refine approaches for analyzing phenotypic traits and fossils alongside genomic data.

Empirical Patterns of Morphological Homoplasy

Quantitative analysis of 490 morphological characters across 56 drosophilid species reveals that approximately two-thirds of morphological changes are homoplastic, demonstrating extensive recurrent evolution. However, this homoplasy accounts for only ~13% of between-species similarities in pairwise comparisons, indicating that unique evolutionary changes still dominate morphological diversification. The level of homoplasy varies significantly by developmental stage and organ type, with adult terminalia showing the least homoplastic evolution [38]. This underscores that opportunities for the origin of novel forms remain substantial.

Advanced Analytical Frameworks for Trait Evolution

Recent methodological innovations enable researchers to move beyond analyzing only trait means to jointly modeling the evolution of both trait means (location) and variances (scale). These Phylogenetic Location-Scale Models (PLSMs) capture heteroscedasticity and evolutionary changes in trait variability, allowing detection of clades with differing variances and revealing patterns of adaptation, diversification, and evolutionary constraints [39]. Extending these models to a multivariate context facilitates simultaneous analysis of multiple traits and their covariances, testing hypotheses about evolutionary trade-offs, pleiotropy, and phenotypic integration.

Table 1: Levels of Morphological Homoplasy Across Developmental Stages and Structures in Drosophilids

Category	Level of Homoplasy	Key Characteristics
Overall Morphological Changes	~66% (Two-thirds)	Accounts for only ~13% of between-species similarities [38]
Adult Terminalia	Lowest	Suggests greater evolutionary constraint or specialization [38]
Juvenile Stages	Higher than adults	Supports the developmental hourglass model [38]

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Quantifying Homoplasy in Morphological Datasets

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Materials for Homoplasy Analysis

Item	Function	Example Specifications
Taxonomic Monographs	Standardized morphological descriptions	Okada (1968); Bächli et al. (2004) [38]
Molecular Sequence Data	Phylogenetic framework construction	Mitochondrial (COII) & nuclear genes (28S rRNA, Adh, Amyrel, Gpdh) [38]
Phylogenetic Software	Tree inference & hypothesis testing	MrBayes v3.2+; MEGA7 [38]
Morphological Database	Character state coding & management	Custom database supporting discrete character coding [38]

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Taxon Sampling: Select species with both available molecular sequences and comprehensive morphological descriptions from standardized taxonomic sources. Aim for representation across major clades and phylogenetic depths [38].
• Molecular Phylogenetics:
  • Obtain sequences for appropriate marker genes from GenBank.
  • Align sequences using Muscle program with default parameters in MEGA7.
  • Concatenate alignments into a single nexus file.
  • Infer best DNA substitution model using Akaike Information Criterion.
  • Conduct Bayesian phylogenetic analysis using MrBayes with appropriate clock models and topological constraints.
• Morphological Character Conceptualization:
  • Define characters as qualities attributed to delimited anatomical structures.
  • Treat the same structure-quality combination at different developmental stages as separate characters.
  • Distinguish between subtle variations in qualities as different characters.
• Character State Coding:
  • Employ discrete coding for different qualitative values.
  • For numerical descriptions, use raw values for continuous traits and categorized counts for meristic traits.
  • For qualitative descriptions, establish mutually exclusive states based on explicit definitions.
• Homoplasy Calculation:
  • Map morphological character evolution onto the molecular phylogeny using maximum parsimony.
  • Calculate homoplasy indices for individual characters and the entire dataset.
  • Quantify pairwise homoplasy contributions to between-species similarities.

Protocol 2: Implementing Phylogenetic Location-Scale Models

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials for Phylogenetic Location-Scale Modeling

Item	Function	Example Specifications
Trait Dataset	Input data for analysis	Includes mean, variance, and covariance for multiple traits
Phylogenetic Tree	Evolutionary relationships	Time-calibrated, ultrametric tree
Statistical Software	Model implementation	R with custom PLSM code [39]
High-Performance Computing	Computational demands	Multi-core processor for Bayesian inference

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Data Preparation:
  • Compile trait data including means and variances for each species.
  • Obtain or estimate a well-supported, time-calibrated phylogeny for the taxa.
  • Check for missing data and consider appropriate imputation methods if needed.
• Model Specification:
  • Define the location model for trait means, including fixed and random effects.
  • Define the scale model for trait variances, incorporating phylogenetic structure.
  • For multivariate analyses, specify covariance structures between traits.
• Parameter Estimation:
  • Utilize Bayesian inference with appropriate priors for variance components.
  • Implement Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling for posterior distribution estimation.
  • Run multiple chains to assess convergence using diagnostic statistics.
• Model Checking:
  • Examine posterior predictive distributions to assess model fit.
  • Check residuals for phylogenetic autocorrelation.
  • Compare alternative models using information criteria when appropriate.
• Interpretation:
  • Identify clades with significantly different trait means or variances.
  • Examine relationships between trait means and variances across the phylogeny.
  • For multivariate models, interpret patterns of trait covariation and their evolution.

Protocol 3: Geometric Morphometrics for Evo-Devo Integration

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Materials for Geometric Morphometrics

Item	Function	Example Specifications
Imaging Equipment	Digital capture of morphology	Micro-CT scanner, digital microscope
Morphometrics Software	Shape analysis	MorphoJ, IMP suite [40]
Developmental Models	Genetic/developmental manipulation	Drosophila, mouse models [40]
Statistical Packages	Shape statistics	R with geomorph, shapes packages

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Data Acquisition:
  • Capture high-resolution digital images of morphological structures across developmental stages.
  • For 3D structures, use micro-CT scanning or histological reconstruction.
  • Collect data from multiple individuals per species or experimental group.
• Landmark Placement:
  • Define homologous landmarks that capture biologically meaningful shape variation.
  • Add semi-landmarks to capture curvature information for outlines.
  • Ensure landmark configurations are comparable across specimens.
• Shape Registration:
  • Perform Generalized Procrustes Analysis to remove non-shape variation.
  • Separate size (centroid size) from shape (Procrustes coordinates).
  • Assess and account for bilateral symmetry when present.
• Developmental-Genetic Integration:
  • Quantify shape variation in genetic mutants or experimental manipulations.
  • Map quantitative trait loci associated with shape variation.
  • Correlate gene expression patterns with morphological landmarks.
• Phylogenetic Shape Analysis:
  • Map shape data onto phylogenetic trees.
  • Test for evolutionary allometry and morphological integration.
  • Compare evolutionary rates of shape change across clades.

These protocols provide a comprehensive framework for quantifying morphological evolution across phylogenetic scales, integrating cutting-edge analytical approaches with empirical data collection to advance our understanding of evolutionary developmental biology.

Application Notes: Quantitative Foundations

The repeated reduction of the pelvic complex in independent freshwater populations of threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) provides a powerful model for studying the genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary change. The following quantitative data summarize key findings from this established micro-evo-devo system.

Table 1: Characteristics of Pelvic Reduction in Threespine Sticklebacks

Aspect	Ancestral Marine Form	Derived Freshwater Form	Genetic Basis
Pelvic Phenotype	Robust pelvic girdle and prominent spines [41] [42]	Partial or complete loss of pelvic structures [41] [42]	Major locus: Pitx1 [42]
Pitx1 Protein Sequence	Functional Pitx1 protein [42]	No coding sequence changes [41] [42]	Regulatory mutations [41]
Pitx1 Expression	Strong expression in pelvic region [41]	Greatly reduced or absent expression in pelvic region [41] [42]	Tissue-specific cis-regulatory changes [41]
Inheritance Pattern	N/A	Simple, Mendelian (Recessive) [43]	Controlled by a major QTL [43]

Table 2: Identified Deletions in the Pitx1 Pel Enhancer from Different Populations

Population	Deletion Size	Overlap with Core Pel Enhancer	Functional Consequence
Paxton Lake Benthic (PAXB)	1,868 bp [41]	Partially or completely removes 501 bp core [41]	Complete loss of enhancer activity in transgenic assays [41]
Bear Paw Lake (BEPA)	757 bp [41]	Partially or completely removes 501 bp core [41]	Associated with pelvic reduction [41]
Hump Lake (HUMP)	973 bp [41]	Partially or completely removes 501 bp core [41]	Associated with pelvic reduction [41]
Core Pel Enhancer	501 bp (from marine fish) [41]	N/A	Drives specific pelvic expression in transgenic sticklebacks [41]

Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Mapping the Pelvic Regulatory Region (Pel Enhancer)

Objective: To identify and characterize the tissue-specific enhancer controlling Pitx1 expression in the developing pelvic region [41].

Workflow:

Procedure:

• High-Resolution Cross Mapping:

  • Generate a large F2 progeny cross from a marine (pelvic-complete) and a freshwater (pelvic-reduced) stickleback population [41].
  • Perform genome-wide linkage analysis to identify a minimal chromosomal region that co-segregates perfectly with the pelvic phenotype. This refined the region to a 124 kb interval containing only the Pitx1 and H2AFY genes [41].

• Population Association Study:

  • Sample multiple freshwater populations with pelvic reduction and marine populations with a complete pelvis [41].
  • Genotype microsatellite markers across the Pitx1 locus. Identify an intergenic region approximately 30 kb upstream of Pitx1 where allele frequencies show highly significant differentiation between the pelvic phenotypes. This narrowed the candidate region to approximately 23 kb [41].

• Enhancer Assay via Transgenesis:

  • Clone the candidate 2.5 kb intergenic region from a pelvic-complete marine stickleback upstream of a minimal promoter and EGFP reporter gene [41].
  • Microinject the constructed plasmid into fertilized stickleback eggs.
  • Score resulting transgenic embryos and fry for EGFP expression. The 2.5 kb fragment drives consistent EGFP expression specifically in the developing pelvic region [41].
  • Further refine the enhancer by testing smaller subfragments, identifying a core 501 bp element ("Pel") sufficient for pelvic-specific expression [41].

Protocol: Transgenic Rescue of Pelvic Structures

Objective: To provide functional evidence that loss of Pitx1 expression is the primary cause of pelvic reduction by restoring its function in a reduced population [41].

Workflow:

Procedure:

• Construct Preparation:

  • Clone the 2.5 kb Pel enhancer from a marine stickleback upstream of a Pitx1 minigene. The minigene can be prepared from the coding exons of a pelvic-reduced fish to ensure the rescue is due to the regulatory element, not coding differences [41].

• Microinjection:

  • Microinject the rescuing construct into fertilized single-cell eggs from a pelvic-reduced population (e.g., Bear Paw Lake (BEPA), which typically develops only a vestigial pelvic remnant) [41].
  • Raise a cohort of uninjected siblings from the same clutch as internal controls.

• Phenotypic Analysis:

  • Early Scoring: In developing fry, score for the presence and development of external pelvic spines compared to control siblings. Transgenic individuals show variable but significantly enhanced spine development [41].
  • Skeletal Staining: In adult transgenic fish, perform Alizarin red staining to visualize bone and cartilage. Transgenic fish show a prominent, serrated pelvic spine articulating with a complex pelvic girdle, demonstrating a clear rescue of the skeletal phenotype [41].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for Stickleback Pelvic Evolution Studies

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Example from Case Study
Marine and Freshwater Stickleback Strains	Provide phenotypic and genetic variation for crosses; source of DNA, RNA, and embryos.	Japanese Marine (JAMA), Paxton Benthic (PAXB), Bear Paw Lake (BEPA) [41] [43].
Pitx1 Minigene Construct	Used for transgenic rescue experiments to test gene function.	A construct containing Pitx1 coding exons [41].
Pel Enhancer: Reporter Constructs (EGFP)	Identify and characterize regulatory DNA sequences.	A 2.5 kb or 501 bp fragment cloned upstream of hsp70 promoter and EGFP [41].
Microsatellite Markers & SNP Panels	Genotyping for high-resolution linkage mapping and population genetics.	149 SNPs spanning 321 kb around the Pitx1 locus used to genotype 13 pelvic-reduced and 21 pelvic-complete populations [41].
Alizarin Red & Alcian Blue Stains	Differentiate bone and cartilage in skeletal preparations for precise morphological phenotyping.	Used to visualize the rescued pelvic girdle and spine in transgenic adult fish [41].
Tetramethylthiuram Monosulfide-d12	Tetramethylthiuram Monosulfide-d12, MF:C6H12N2S3, MW:220.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Gly-(S)-Cyclopropane-Exatecan	Gly-(S)-Cyclopropane-Exatecan, MF:C32H34FN5O7, MW:619.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The radiation of Darwin's finches (Thraupidae, Passeriformes) represents a quintessential example of meso-evolution, where a single ancestral species has diversified into fourteen morphologically distinct species within a relatively recent geological timeframe [44]. These birds occupy ecological niches typically filled by multiple bird families, with beak morphology representing a critical adaptive trait that correlates with specific dietary specializations [44]. Within evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), this system provides an exceptional model for investigating how developmental mechanisms generate morphological diversity that becomes subject to natural selection. Geometric morphometrics offers powerful analytical tools to quantify these shape variations within a rigorous mathematical framework, bridging the gap between evolutionary pattern and developmental process.

Morphometric Analysis of Beak Shape Variation

Geometric Morphometrics Workflow

The quantification of beak shape employs both landmark-based and landmark-free approaches to capture morphological variation across species.

• Landmark-Based Geometric Morphometrics: This traditional approach involves identifying homologous points on biological structures. For beak analysis, practitioners place 3 landmarks and 18 semi-landmarks along the outline of the beak from the nares to the tip [45]. Semi-landmarks are essential for quantifying curved surfaces lacking clear homologous points and are placed equidistantly along the outline before sliding procedures to minimize bending energy.

• Landmark-Free Parametric Modeling: Recent approaches model the three-dimensional upper beak surface using a paraboloidal functional form [46] [47]:

  ( zU(x,y) = aU x - \kappax x^2 - (\kappa{tip} - S x) y^2 )

  where ( aU ) represents the slope of the midsagittal section, ( \kappax ) is the curvature of the midsagittal section, ( \kappa_{tip} ) is the transverse curvature at the beak tip, and ( S ) represents the sharpening rate of transverse curvature toward the tip [46].

• Size Normalization: To compare shape independent of size, researchers calculate dimensionless shape variables by normalizing with beak length (LB), width (WB), and depth (D_B) [46]:

  ( \tilde{a}U = \frac{LB}{DB} aU ), ( \tilde{\kappa}x = \frac{LB^2}{DB} \kappax ), ( \tilde{\kappa}{tip} = \frac{WB^2}{DB} \kappa{tip} ), ( \tilde{S} = \frac{LB WB^2}{D_B} S )

• Statistical Analysis: Processed shape data undergoes multivariate statistical analysis, including Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to identify major axes of shape variation and Canonical Variate Analysis (CVA) to maximize separation among pre-defined groups [45].

Quantitative Morphospace Characterization

Table 1: Key Beak Shape Parameters in Darwin's Finches

Parameter	Definition	Functional Correlation	Representative Species
Width-to-Length Ratio	Ratio of beak width to length	Correlates with seed-cracking ability; higher values in hard-seed specialists	Geospiza magnirostris (large ground finch)
Normalized Sharpening Rate ((\tilde{S}))	Rate of transverse curvature increase toward tip	Associated with insect foraging; higher values in insect specialists	Geospiza difficilis (sharp-beaked ground finch)
Midsagittal Curvature ((\tilde{\kappa}_x))	Curvature along the midline	Related to force distribution during feeding	Various cactus finches
Centerline Curvature ((\tilde{\kappa}_C))	Curvature of the beak centerline arc	Facilitates access to specific food sources	Strongly curved in honeycreepers

Table 2: Morphometric Techniques for Beak Analysis

Method	Key Measurements	Advantages	Limitations
Traditional Morphometrics	Culmen length, beak width, beak depth	Simple to implement, standardized protocols	Limited shape capture, fewer variables
Landmark-Based Geometric Morphometrics	Procrustes coordinates, centroid size	Captures overall geometry, powerful statistics	Landmark selection subjectivity
Parametric Surface Modeling	(\tilde{S}), (\tilde{\kappa}x), (\tilde{\kappa}{tip})	Comprehensive shape description, developmental insights	Model-dependent, computational complexity
Power Cascade Modeling	Power exponent, allometric relationship	Reveals fundamental growth patterns, evolutionary depth	Limited to specific morphological features

Analysis of Darwin's finch beak shapes reveals they occupy a well-defined morphospace, with most variation explained by two primary dimensions: beak depth/width and beak sharpening rate [46]. This organization correlates strongly with dietary ecology, where species with robust, blunt beaks specialize on hard seeds, while species with slender, pointed beaks primarily consume insects [48].

Developmental Genetic Protocols

Genetic Screening and Analysis

• Sample Collection: Researchers collect blood samples or tissue specimens from wild populations across different islands, preserving samples in DNA/RNA stabilization buffers for transport [49]. Minimum recommended sample size is 5-10 individuals per species to capture intraspecific variation.

• Genome Sequencing and Analysis: Extract genomic DNA using standard kits (e.g., Qiagen DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit). Sequence genomes using high-throughput platforms (Illumina). Align sequences to reference genome and identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and structural variants [49].

• Association Mapping: Conduct genome-wide association studies (GWAS) comparing beak morphology phenotypes with genetic variants. Focus on regions showing significant associations, particularly the ~240 kb haplotype on chromosome 1A containing the ALX1 gene [49].

• Gene Expression Analysis: During embryonic development, collect beak tissue samples at critical developmental stages (HH stages 29-31 for zebra finch). Extract RNA, synthesize cDNA, and perform in situ hybridization or RNA-seq to map spatial and temporal expression patterns of candidate genes [50].

Functional Validation Experiments

• Avian Embryo Electroporation: For gain-of-function and loss-of-function studies in ovo. Prepare plasmid DNA containing gene of interest or RNAi constructs mixed with fast green tracking dye. Carefully window fertile chicken or quail eggs at HH stage 10-12. Inject DNA solution into neural tube or facial prominences using pulled glass capillaries. Apply electrodes and deliver 5 pulses of 20V for 50ms duration. Reseal window with tape and incubate until harvesting at desired developmental stage [50].

• Beak Organ Culture: Dissect developing beak primordia from HH stage 25-30 embryos. Place on filter paper supports in culture dishes with DMEM/F12 medium supplemented with growth factors. Treat with pharmacological inhibitors or recombinant proteins (e.g., BMP4, FGF8) to test specific pathway manipulations. Culture for 24-72 hours, fixing periodically for morphological and molecular analysis [50].

Signaling Pathways and Genetic Networks

Figure 1: Genetic Network Regulating Beak Development

The ALX1 gene represents a critical transcriptional regulator of beak morphology, functioning as a master controller of craniofacial development [49]. Different haplotypes of ALX1 correlate with distinct beak shapes, with blunt-beaked finches carrying one variant and pointed-beaked finches carrying another [49]. Notably, the gene shows significant variation within species, providing the raw material for natural selection to act upon during drought conditions [49].

The BMP4 signaling pathway plays a crucial role in determining beak depth and robustness, with higher expression levels resulting in broader, stronger beaks adapted for seed cracking [50]. Conversely, the FGF8 pathway influences beak length and pointedness, with experimental manipulation demonstrating that FGF8 expression patterns can alter beak morphology in ways that mirror evolutionary differences between species [50].

Figure 2: Beak Morphogenesis Developmental Pathway

Functional Biomechanics Protocols

Mechanical Performance Assays

• Finite Element Analysis (FEA): Create 3D models from μCT scans of finch beaks. Convert surface meshes to volumetric meshes using tetrahedral elements. Assign material properties based on avian bone characteristics (elastic modulus ~12 GPa, Poisson's ratio 0.3). Apply realistic load conditions simulating seed cracking forces (5-20N distributed across specific regions). Solve for stress and strain distributions to compare mechanical performance across beak morphologies [48].

• Bite Force Measurement: For in vivo performance assays, construct custom miniature force transducers (e.g., piezoelectric sensors). Calibrate sensors with known weights. Train captured finches to bite transducer for food reward. Record maximum bite force across multiple trials (minimum 10 trials per individual). Correlate force measurements with beak morphology and diet preferences [48].

• Kinematic Analysis: Use high-speed videography (1000-5000 fps) to capture feeding behavior. Track beak movement patterns during seed handling and cracking. Quantify velocity, acceleration, and displacement parameters. Correlate kinematic profiles with beak morphology to understand trade-offs between speed and force application [48].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Finch Beak Evo-Devo Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Application/Function
Genomic Analysis	DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen), Illumina sequencing kits, ALX1-specific primers	DNA extraction, genome sequencing, candidate gene analysis
Gene Expression	RNAscope probes, DIG-labeled riboprobes, BMP4/FGF8 antibodies	Spatial localization of gene expression patterns
Developmental Manipulation	pCAGGS expression vectors, RCAS viral vectors, BMP4/FGF8 recombinant proteins	Gain/loss-of-function studies in embryonic systems
Morphometric Analysis	Phosphotungstic acid stain, μCT imaging systems, Geomagic Wrap, MorphoJ	Tissue contrast, 3D visualization, shape analysis
Functional Assays	Miniature force transducers, high-speed cameras, Instron materials testing systems	Bite force measurement, kinematic analysis, mechanical testing

Integrated Evo-Devo Workflow

Figure 3: Integrated Evo-Devo Research Workflow

This integrated protocol outlines a comprehensive approach to studying beak shape radiation in Darwin's finches, combining geometric morphometrics, developmental genetics, and functional analysis. The meso-evolutionary scale of this radiation provides a unique window into the developmental mechanisms that generate morphological variation subject to natural selection, offering insights relevant to evolutionary biology, developmental genetics, and functional morphology.

Application Notes: Theoretical and Practical Framework

The Role of Geometric Morphometrics in Evo-Devo Research

Geometric morphometrics (GM) provides a powerful quantitative framework for investigating the development and evolution of segmentation, a key feature of arthropod body architecture. Within evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), GM techniques enable researchers to statistically describe biological forms in terms of size and geometric shape, moving beyond traditional meristic or distance measurements. These approaches are particularly valuable for studying post-embryonic development, where processes of segmentation and tagmosis (morpho-functional regionalization) continue prominently through post-embryonic life, unlike the embryonic focus of many developmental genetics studies [51].

The application of GM to segmented organisms allows researchers to separately investigate multiple sources of phenotypic variation along a segmented body axis. This includes both constitutive heteronomy (the target phenotype specified by genetic makeup and environmental conditions) and random heteronomy (variation around the target phenotype produced by developmental noise). By quantifying these variations, researchers can gain precious insights into features of the developmental system relevant for evolvability, such as developmental stability and canalization [51] [52].

Translational Symmetry as a Research Tool

In segmented animals like centipedes, the main body axis presents translational symmetry, which can be exploited through the analysis of translational fluctuating asymmetry (FA) to study developmental stability. Within-individual deviations from perfect translational symmetry among segments provide a measure of developmental noise, as these repeated parts are genetically identical and typically face the same environmental conditions [51].

This approach allows researchers to investigate developmental stability - the ability of an organism to buffer random perturbations during development. The centipede Strigamia maritima serves as an excellent model for these studies due to its highly polymerous and rather homonomous segmental organization, which nonetheless reveals surprising richness in segmental patterning when analyzed with detailed quantitative morphometrics [51] [53].

Analytical Insights from the Centipede Model

Research on S. maritima has demonstrated that the segmental pattern of ventral sclerite shapes mirrors that of their bilateral fluctuating asymmetry and among-individual variation. Specifically, the most anterior and most posterior segments diverge from the central ones in both constitutive patterning and random variation. Furthermore, among segments, there appears to be a correlation between fluctuating asymmetry and shape variation among individuals, suggesting that canalization and developmental stability are somehow associated [51] [52].

These associations might stem from a joint influence of segmental position on both processes of developmental buffering. The finding that developmental stability and canalization are potentially linked addresses a longstanding question in evolutionary developmental biology about whether these two buffering processes represent independent features of a developmental system [51].

Experimental Protocols

Specimen Preparation and Imaging Protocol

Objective: To prepare centipede specimens for geometric morphometric analysis of segmental patterning.

Materials:

• Adult specimens of Strigamia maritima
• Specimen fixation solution (e.g., 4% formaldehyde)
• Ethanol series (70%, 80%, 90%, 100%)
• Stereomicroscope with camera system
• Imaging chamber with standardized lighting
• Calibration scale

Procedure:

• Collect adult specimens and fix in 4% formaldehyde for 24 hours at 4°C
• Transfer specimens through ethanol series (70%, 80%, 90%, 100%) for 30 minutes each for dehydration
• Position specimens in imaging chamber with ventral side facing upward
• Ensure standardized lighting conditions across all specimens
• Capture high-resolution images of the complete trunk segment series
• Include calibration scale in each image for scale reference
• Store images in standardized format (TIFF recommended) for landmark digitization

Quality Control:

• Verify image resolution sufficient to distinguish segment boundaries
• Ensure consistent orientation across all specimens
• Check for even illumination without shadows or glare

Landmark Digitization Protocol for Segmental Analysis

Objective: To capture shape variation across segments using homologous landmarks.

Materials:

• Computer with geometric morphometrics software (e.g., Viewbox, R geomorph package)
• Image set of prepared specimens
• Standardized landmark scheme

Procedure:

• Define fixed anatomical landmarks on each segment (e.g., segment boundaries, muscle attachment points)
• Establish sliding semi-landmarks to capture curvature along segment contours
• Digitize fixed landmarks on all segments of each specimen
• Place semi-landmarks using template-based propagation with Thin Plate Spline warping
• Ensure all landmarks are placed in homologous positions across specimens
• Perform intra-operator repeatability test by re-digitizing subset of specimens

Landmark Scheme Example for Ventral Sclerites:

• Fixed landmark 1: Anterior midpoint of segment
• Fixed landmark 2: Posterior midpoint of segment
• Fixed landmark 3: Left lateral extremity
• Fixed landmark 4: Right lateral extremity
• Semi-landmarks: 10 points along anterior border
• Semi-landmarks: 10 points along posterior border

Data Processing and Analysis Protocol

Objective: To analyze shape variation and translational symmetry.

Materials:

• Landmark coordinate data
• R statistical environment with geomorph, FactoMineR packages
• Computer capable of multivariate statistics

Procedure:

• Perform Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) to remove variation due to translation, rotation, and scale
• Conduct Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on aligned coordinates to identify major axes of shape variation
• Calculate translational fluctuating asymmetry as shape differences between adjacent segments within individuals
• Perform Procrustes ANOVA to partition variance components (individual, side, segment, error)
• Implement Hierarchical Clustering on Principal Components (HCPC) to identify morphological clusters
• Conduct MANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey tests to characterize cluster differences

Analytical Considerations:

• Use appropriate sample sizes (resampling analysis recommended)
• Account for potential bilateral asymmetry in segment shape
• Consider segment position as covariate in analyses

Quantitative Data Synthesis

Table 1: Sources of Phenotypic Variation in Segmental Patterning

Variation Type	Definition	Biological Significance	Measurement Approach
Constitutive Heteronomy	Target phenotype specified by genetic makeup and environmental conditions	Represents the evolved segmental pattern	Mean shape differences among segment positions
Random Heteronomy	Variation around target phenotype from developmental noise	Indicates developmental precision	Fluctuating asymmetry (bilateral or translational)
Among-Individual Variation	Phenotypic differences between individuals in population	Reflects canalization and genetic diversity	Procrustes variance among individuals
Fluctuating Asymmetry	Random deviations from perfect symmetry	Measures developmental stability	Variance between sides or adjacent segments

Table 2: Analytical Methods for Geometric Morphometrics of Segmentation

Method	Purpose	Key Outputs	Software Implementation
Generalized Procrustes Analysis	Remove non-shape variation	Aligned landmark coordinates	gpagen() in R geomorph
Principal Component Analysis	Identify major shape variation axes	PC scores, variance explained	gm.prcomp() in R geomorph
Procrustes ANOVA	Partition variance components	Variance by individual, segment, side	procD.lm() in R geomorph
Hierarchical Clustering on Principal Components	Identify morphological clusters	Group assignments, cluster characteristics	HCPC() in R FactoMineR
Thin Plate Spline	Visualize shape changes	Warped surfaces, deformation grids	tps() in R Morpho

Signaling Pathways and Workflow Visualizations

Experimental Workflow for Segmental Patterning Analysis

Shape Analysis and Statistical Evaluation Pipeline

Conceptual Framework for Segmentation Evolution Analysis

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for Centipede Segmental Patterning Studies

Category	Specific Items	Function/Application	Technical Considerations
Model Organisms	Strigamia maritima colonies	Primary model for segmentation studies	Coastal species; requires specific habitat conditions
	Glomeris marginata (pill millipede)	Comparative segmentation model	Alternative myriapod model for evolutionary comparisons
Fixation & Preservation	4% Formaldehyde solution	Tissue fixation for morphology	Standard concentration for arthropod morphology
	Ethanol series (70%-100%)	Tissue dehydration and preservation	Gradual dehydration prevents tissue distortion
Imaging Equipment	Stereomicroscope with camera	Specimen imaging and documentation	Required resolution: ≥5MP for landmark placement
	Standardized imaging chamber	Consistent imaging conditions	Eliminates lighting and orientation variables
Software Tools	R statistical environment with geomorph package	Primary GM analysis	Essential for Procrustes-based analyses
	Viewbox 4.0 software	Landmark digitization	Commercial software with semi-landmark capability
	ITK-SNAP software	3D segmentation and visualization	For potential 3D analyses of segment morphology
Analytical Frameworks	Geometric Morphometrics pipeline	Quantitative shape analysis	From landmark capture to statistical testing
	Fluctuating asymmetry protocols	Developmental stability assessment	Bilateral and translational symmetry analysis

In evolutionary developmental (evo-devo) research, quantifying and visualizing morphological change is paramount for testing hypotheses on the developmental origins of phenotypic diversity. Geometric Morphometrics (GM) provides the statistical framework for this task, while visualization techniques are the critical interface for biological interpretation [54]. This protocol details the application of two foundational visualization methods—deformation grids and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plots—within an evo-devo context. We focus on making these tools accessible, ensuring that researchers can not only generate these visuals but also interpret them correctly to draw meaningful conclusions about shape change, allometry, and developmental processes.

Theoretical Foundations of Shape Visualization

The Basis of Shape Data

Geometric morphometrics analyzes the geometric coordinates of homologous landmarks—discrete anatomical points that are biologically correspondent across specimens. Through Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA), raw landmark coordinates are superimposed by scaling all specimens to a uniform size, centering them on the origin, and rotating them to minimize the sum of squared distances between corresponding landmarks [7] [55]. The resulting Procrustes coordinates represent shape variables, free from the confounding effects of position, orientation, and scale, which form the basis for all subsequent visualization.

Two Philosophies of Shape Visualization

A key concept in shape visualization is the distinction between interpolation and transformation.

• Interpolation Methods (Thin-Plate Spline): This approach, commonly used in the standard GM toolkit, visualizes shape change by deforming a square grid to show the continuous deformation required to map one landmark configuration onto another. It interpolates the changes observed at the landmarks across the entire form [54].
• Transformation Grids (D'Arcy Thompson's Approach): This classical approach, which is experiencing a methodological revival, argues for visualizing shape change as a transformation defined by a mathematical function or a trend applied to the entire grid, rather than an interpolation of landmark shifts. This can sometimes provide a more interpretable and holistic view of the morphological gradient [56].

Protocol 1: Visualizing Shape Change with Deformation Grids

Deformation grids, primarily implemented via the Thin-Plate Spline (TPS) function, are the primary tool for visualizing the specific shape differences between two specimens or between a specimen and a mean shape.

Experimental Workflow

The diagram below outlines the standard workflow for creating and interpreting deformation grids, from data preparation to biological interpretation.

Step-by-Step Methodology

• Data Preparation: Begin with a set of Procrustes-aligned landmark coordinates. Calculate a consensus (mean) configuration, which will often serve as the starting point or reference for deformation.
• Define Target Form: The target form can be:
  • The landmark set of a specific individual specimen.
  • The predicted shape from a regression model (e.g., at a specific size for allometry studies).
  • An extrapolated shape along a Principal Component (PC) axis (e.g., mean + 0.1 units of PC1).
• Apply Thin-Plate Spline: Use software (e.g., gpagen and plotRefToTarget in geomorph R package) to compute the TPS deformation from the reference to the target form. The algorithm calculates the smoothest possible deformation that maps the landmarks of the reference onto the landmarks of the target.
• Generate and Interpret the Grid: Visualize the result. Grid Expansion indicates local expansion or growth, while Grid Compression indicates local contraction or reduction. Bending and Curving of grid lines represent shearing or rotational shape changes. It is critical to remember that the TPS is an interpolant; the deformation between landmarks is a mathematical estimate and may not reflect true biological changes in those regions [54] [56].

Application in Evo-Devo Research

In a study of rat craniofacial growth, a TPS deformation grid visualizing the shape change from 7 to 150 days of age might show a clear anteroposterior compression in the calvarial roof coupled with vertical expansion, providing a direct visual hypothesis for coordinated developmental processes across different cranial modules [56].

Protocol 2: Interpreting Shape Variation with Principal Component Analysis

PCA is a dimensionality-reduction technique that identifies the major axes of shape variation within a dataset, allowing researchers to visualize the distribution of specimens in a morphospace.

Experimental Workflow

The process of conducting a PCA on shape data and extracting visualizations is summarized in the following workflow.

Step-by-Step Methodology

• Input Data: Use the Procrustes coordinates from the GPA.
• Perform PCA: Conduct a PCA on the covariance matrix of the shape variables. The output includes:
  • Eigenvalues: Represent the variance explained by each Principal Component (PC). The first PC (PC1) explains the greatest variance.
  • Eigenvectors (PC Loadings): Describe the direction of the shape change axis in the multidimensional space.
  • PC Scores: The position of each specimen along each PC axis.
• Create a Morphospace Plot: Plot the specimens using their PC scores (e.g., PC1 vs. PC2). This scatter plot reveals clusters, trends, and outliers. In a study of Acanthocephala bugs, a PCA of pronotum shape revealed a morphospace where different species occupied distinct, though sometimes overlapping, regions, supporting its use for taxonomic identification [55].
• Visualize Shape Changes along PCs: This is a crucial step. To understand what PC1 represents, visualize the shape at the negative extreme (e.g., mean - 0.1 units) and the positive extreme (e.g., mean + 0.1 units) using deformation grids. This shows the trajectory of shape change encapsulated by that PC.

Data Interpretation Framework

The table below summarizes how to quantitatively and qualitatively interpret PCA output for evo-devo studies.

Table 1: A Framework for Interpreting PCA Results in Geometric Morphometrics

PCA Output	Interpretation Question	Application Example
PC Score Plot (Morphospace)	Do groups (e.g., species, treatments) separate in morphospace?	In shrews, a PCA on craniodental landmarks showed clear separation between species (Suncus murinus, Crocidura spp.), reflecting adaptations to different ecological niches [7].
Variance Explained by PCs	How much of the total shape variation is captured by a major axis (e.g., PC1)? Is the structure modular or integrated?	A study on leaf-footed bugs found the first three PCs explained 67% of total pronotum shape variation, indicating strong, interpretable patterns of taxonomic divergence [55].
Shape Change along a PC	What specific biological shape change does this axis represent?	Visualizing PC1 in fossil shark teeth might reveal a axis from broad, triangular crowns to narrow, elongated crowns, related to feeding ecology [4].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents & Software

Successful implementation of these visualization protocols requires a suite of software tools and an understanding of key data types.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Geometric Morphometrics Visualization

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function in Visualization	Example in Protocol
TPSDig2 [4] [55]	Software	Digitizing landmarks from 2D images.	Placing homologous landmarks on shrew crania or bug pronota from digital images.
R Package geomorph [55]	Software Library (R)	Comprehensive GM analysis: GPA, PCA, regression, and visualization (plotRefToTarget).	Performing Procrustes ANOVA, conducting PCA on shape data, and generating TPS deformation grids for a regression of shape on size.
MorphoJ [55]	Standalone Software	User-friendly GM analysis, including PCA, discriminant analysis, and visualization.	Creating morphospace plots and visualizing mean shape differences between predefined groups.
Semi-Landmarks [4]	Data Type	Digitized points on curves and surfaces to quantify outline geometry.	Capturing the curved root morphology in shark teeth or the outline of a shrew's jaw.
Procrustes Coordinates	Data Type	The aligned shape variables, after GPA.	The direct input for PCA and for calculating mean shapes used in TPS deformation.
4-hydroxy aceclofenac-D4	4-hydroxy aceclofenac-D4, MF:C16H13Cl2NO5, MW:374.2 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Halymecin B	Halymecin B, MF:C48H86O19, MW:967.2 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Integrated Application in an Evo-Devo Workflow

To frame these protocols within a broader thesis, consider an evo-devo study investigating the developmental basis of cranial divergence.

• Data Acquisition & Processing: Collect 3D landmark data on crania of two closely related species with different diets. Perform GPA to isolate shape.
• Initial Exploration with PCA: Run a PCA on the Procrustes coordinates. The score plot will show whether the species separate in morphospace. Visualize the shape changes along the PC axis that best separates them using TPS grids. This provides a hypothesis for the integrated shape differences (e.g., relative elongation of the snout).
• Hypothesis Testing with Deformation Grids: Statistically test for a significant mean shape difference between species. Visualize this difference directly by creating a TPS deformation grid from the consensus shape of Species A to the consensus shape of Species B. This grid gives a detailed, localized map of the morphological transformation.
• Contextualizing with Development: If the study includes ontogenetic series, allometric trends (shape vs. size) can be analyzed. The predicted shapes at small and large sizes can be visualized and compared between species using deformation grids, revealing how developmental trajectories diverge.

By mastering deformation grids and PCA, evo-devo researchers transform statistical shape outputs into powerful, testable visual narratives about the interplay of development, evolution, and form.

Ensuring Robustness: Overcoming Pitfalls in Morphometric Research

In evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), geometric morphometrics has become an indispensable toolkit for quantifying phenotypic variation, allowing researchers to capture intricate details of shape and form that underlie evolutionary processes. However, the reliability of these analyses is fundamentally constrained by measurement error—the discrepancy between measured values and true biological values. This error permeates every stage of data acquisition, from instrument limitations to human procedural variations [57]. When multiple operators and devices are involved, as is common in collaborative research and data pooling initiatives, these errors compound and interact in ways that can severely compromise dataset integrity and subsequent biological interpretations [58].

The challenge is particularly acute in evo-devo research, where studies often seek to detect subtle morphological signals—precisely the patterns most easily masked by measurement artifacts. As research increasingly relies on shared datasets and multi-institutional collaborations, understanding and mitigating these errors transitions from a technical concern to a foundational requirement for valid scientific inference [58].

Classifying and Quantifying Measurement Error

Fundamental Error Typology

Measurement errors in morphometric research generally fall into three primary categories, each with distinct characteristics and implications for data quality [57]:

• Gross Errors: These result from human mistakes such as misreading measurement scales, recording incorrect values, or using faulty techniques. They are typically large in magnitude and can often be identified and corrected through rigorous data validation protocols.
• Systematic Errors: These are predictable, repeatable errors caused by flaws in the measuring system or methodology. Sources include instrument calibration drift, consistent environmental interference (e.g., temperature, humidity), or a faulty measurement setup. These errors introduce directional bias that affects all measurements consistently.
• Random Errors: These occur unpredictably and vary with each measurement due to minute environmental fluctuations, observer variability, or equipment resolution limits. Unlike systematic errors, they do not introduce consistent bias but instead reduce the precision of measurements.

Quantitative Framework for Error Propagation

When combining multiple measurements, either from different devices or operators, errors propagate according to well-established statistical principles. For a calculated volume ( V = \pi r^2 h ), derived from radius and height measurements, the uncertainty propagates through the partial derivatives of the equation [59]. A more general framework considers any measurement as comprising three independent components [60]:

• The true value being measured (( \mu ))
• A random measurement error (( X )) with mean zero and variance ( \sigma^2 ), representing imprecision
• A fixed error (( Y )) with mean zero and variance ( \tau^2 ), representing systematic inaccuracy

This model provides crucial insights for experimental design: averaging repeated measurements from a single instrument reduces random error ((\sigma^2/n)) but leaves systematic error ((\tau^2)) unchanged. In contrast, averaging measurements from multiple instruments reduces both random error and systematic error, thereby improving overall accuracy [60].

Table 1: Classification and Characteristics of Measurement Errors in Morphometrics

Error Type	Primary Sources	Impact on Data	Detectability
Gross Errors	Human mistakes (e.g., misreading scales, data entry errors)	Large, anomalous deviations	High through data validation and outlier tests
Systematic Errors	Instrument calibration drift, environmental factors, faulty setup	Directional bias affecting all measurements consistently	Medium through calibration checks and cross-validation
Random Errors	Environmental fluctuations, observer variability, equipment resolution	Reduced precision without consistent bias	Low, but quantifiable through repeated measurements

Assessing Measurement Error in Multi-Operator Morphometrics

Analytical Workflow for Error Quantification

A robust analytical workflow is essential for estimating both within-operator and between-operator biases before datasets can be responsibly pooled. This workflow involves formal quantification of different error components to determine whether biological signals remain interpretable despite technical variation [58].

The recommended protocol involves a structured comparison of intra-operator measurement errors (replication error within each operator) against inter-operator error (systematic differences between operators). This assessment should be conducted across the specific morphometric approaches planned for the main study, as different methodologies (e.g., landmark-based vs. outline-based approaches) exhibit varying susceptibility to operator-induced error [58].

Key Metrics and Statistical Evaluation

The core of error assessment lies in quantifying different variance components:

• Intra-operator variability (Repeatability): The variation occurring when a single operator repeatedly measures the same specimen. This represents the fundamental precision limit of the measurement protocol.
• Inter-operator variability (Reproducibility): The systematic variation between different operators measuring the same specimens. This reflects consistent differences in measurement technique or interpretation.
• Gauge R&R (Repeatability and Reproducibility): A comprehensive methodology that assesses measurement system performance by comparing gauge variability to either specification limits or the natural spread of the parts being measured [61].
• EMP (Evaluating the Measurement Process): An extension of traditional Gauge R&R that determines the likelihood of detecting out-of-control process conditions and establishes the proper number of significant digits for reporting measurements [61].

The most critical comparison involves contrasting these technical error magnitudes with the effect sizes of biological interest. If inter-operator error approaches or exceeds the magnitude of between-group biological variation (e.g., differences between species or treatments), dataset pooling becomes highly problematic and is likely to generate misleading conclusions [58].

Essential Toolkit for Error-Aware Morphometric Research

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Materials and Tools for Error-Reduced Morphometrics

Item/Category	Primary Function	Error Mitigation Role
Digital Calipers (High-Precision)	Linear dimension measurement	Reduces gross errors through digital readout and improves resolution to ~0.01mm
3D Digitizing Systems	3D coordinate capture of landmarks	Encomes comprehensive shape quantification while reducing projection errors of 2D methods
Standardized Imaging Setups	2D image acquisition for landmark digitization	Controls for systematic errors from lighting, angle, and scale variation
TPS Dig2 Software	Landmark and semi-landmark digitization	Provides standardized tools for coordinate data extraction from 2D images
R Statistical Environment	Data analysis and error quantification	Enables implementation of Procrustes analysis, PCA, and variance component analysis
BS2G Crosslinker disodium	BS2G Crosslinker disodium, MF:C13H14N2Na2O14S2, MW:532.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Prostaglandin D2-1-glyceryl ester	Prostaglandin D2-1-glyceryl ester, MF:C23H38O7, MW:426.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Statistical Framework for Multi-Device and Multi-Operator Data

When integrating measurements from multiple sources, a weighted average approach is often superior to a simple mean. Weights should be proportional to the inverse of the variance, giving greater influence to more precise measurements [59]. For a combined estimate from multiple devices:

[ \bar{X}{\text{weighted}} = \frac{\sum (wi \bar{Xi})}{\sum wi} \quad \text{where} \quad wi = \frac{1}{\sigmai^2} ]

This approach becomes particularly important when calculating derived quantities such as volume from linear measurements. The uncertainty propagation must account for all measurement sources:

[ uV = \sqrt{\left(\frac{\partial V}{\partial r}ur\right)^2 + \left(\frac{\partial V}{\partial h}u_h\right)^2} ]

Where ( ur ) and ( uh ) represent the combined uncertainties of the radius and height measurements, respectively, incorporating both intra-device and inter-device error components [59].

Protocol: Implementing a Measurement Error Assessment Study

Experimental Design and Data Collection

• Specimen Selection: Choose 5-10 specimens representing the morphological range of interest. Include both extreme forms and intermediate forms to adequately capture biological variation.
• Operator Cohort: Engage 3-5 operators who represent the expected range of expertise levels that would be encountered in data pooling scenarios.
• Blinding Protocol: Implement double-blinding where operators measure specimens in randomized order without knowledge of specimen identity or group membership.
• Replication Design: Each operator should perform 2-3 complete measurement rounds on all specimens, with sufficient time between replicates to minimize memory effects.
• Device Comparison: When evaluating multiple instruments, ensure all operators use all devices in a balanced design to disentangle device effects from operator effects.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

• Variance Component Analysis: Use ANOVA or specialized morphometric software to partition total variance into biological signal, inter-operator error, intra-operator error, and residual variance.
• Procrustes ANOVA: For geometric morphometric data, implement Procrustes-based ANOVA to assess the statistical significance of operator effects relative to biological effects.
• Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC): Calculate ICC values to quantify measurement consistency. ICC values below 0.7 generally indicate problematic reliability for research purposes.
• Biological Signal Preservation: Test whether the primary biological hypotheses (e.g., group differences) remain statistically significant after accounting for measurement error.

Table 3: Decision Framework for Dataset Pooling Based on Error Assessment

Assessment Outcome	Pooling Recommendation	Required Actions
Inter-operator error < 10% of biological effect size	Recommended	Document error magnitudes in methodology; no statistical correction needed
Inter-operator error 10-50% of biological effect size	Proceed with caution	Include operator as covariate in analyses; consider statistical correction methods
Inter-operator error > 50% of biological effect size	Not recommended	Revise measurement protocol before pooling; consider centralized re-measurement

Mitigation Strategies and Best Practices

Pre-Data Collection Safeguards

• Operator Training: Implement standardized training sessions using specimens not included in the main study. Continue until operators achieve acceptable consistency (e.g., ICC > 0.9).
• Protocol Documentation: Create detailed, visual protocols for landmark placement and measurement procedures to minimize ambiguous interpretations.
• Device Calibration: Establish regular calibration schedules traceable to international standards, with documentation of all calibration activities.
• Environmental Control: Monitor and record laboratory conditions (temperature, humidity) during data collection as these can systematically affect both specimens and measuring devices.

Analytical Mitigation Approaches

• Statistical Correction: When operator effects are identified but pooling is still necessary, include operator as a fixed effect in statistical models or use batch correction algorithms.
• Measurement Averaging: For critical measurements, collect multiple independent readings and use the average value to reduce random error.
• Error Propagation in Derived Variables: Always calculate and report uncertainty estimates for derived measurements (e.g., volumes from linear dimensions, ratios from separate measurements) [59] [57].
• Reporting Standards: Always report measurement uncertainty alongside point estimates and disclose the methodology used for error assessment in publications [61].

The pervasiveness of measurement error in morphometrics demands methodological rigor rather than resignation. Through systematic error assessment, appropriate statistical treatment, and transparent reporting, researchers can enhance the validity of their inferences—particularly crucial when investigating subtle evolutionary developmental patterns using geometric morphometrics.

In evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), geometric morphometrics (GMM) has become an indispensable tool for quantifying subtle changes in organismal form across phylogenetic and ontogenetic scales [1]. The reliability of these analyses, however, hinges on the precision and accuracy of the primary data: the landmark coordinates. Measurement error (ME)—the discrepancy between recorded and true landmark positions—is an omnipresent challenge in morphometric studies [62]. It can be broadly categorized into random error, which inflates variance and reduces statistical power, and systematic error (bias), which can create artifactual patterns by consistently distorting measurements in a particular direction [62] [63].

Minimizing ME is not merely a technical concern but a biological imperative for evo-devo research. Whether investigating fluctuating asymmetry as a proxy for developmental stability [64], delimiting cryptic species [65], or tracking ontogenetic allometry [56], the conclusions drawn can be profoundly affected by underlying error [66] [67]. This protocol outlines robust strategies for mitigating error through prudent landmark selection and rigorous, standardized data collection protocols, providing a foundation for trustworthy evo-devo research.

Understanding the magnitude and sources of error is the first step in its mitigation. Error can be introduced at virtually every stage of research, from specimen preservation to landmark digitization.

Table 1: Common Sources of Measurement Error in Geometric Morphometrics

Source Category	Specific Example	Primary Type of Error Introduced	Impact on Analysis
Specimen History	Preservation (e.g., formalin fixation) [62]	Systematic	Alters true shape; creates non-biological variation
	Positioning before imaging [62]	Systematic & Random	Distorts 2D projection or 3D capture of form
Data Acquisition	Mixed imaging modalities (CT vs. surface scans) [13]	Systematic	Introduces modality-specific shape biases
	Different cameras/digitizers [66]	Systematic	Inflates disparity between datasets
Landmarking	Inter-observer variation [66] [67]	Systematic	Can be misinterpreted as biological group differences
	Intra-observer variation over time ("Visiting Scientist Effect") [67] [63]	Systematic	Biases comparisons if data collection is unbalanced
	Poorly defined, non-homologous landmarks [65]	Random & Systematic	Increases within-group variance; obscures signal

The impact of these errors on biological inference can be severe. A study on Microtus vole molars found that different data acquisition sources could explain >30% of the total variation among datasets. Furthermore, no two replicated landmark datasets produced the same classification results for fossil specimens, highlighting the potential for error to alter core scientific conclusions [66]. Systematic error is particularly insidious; a recent study demonstrated that time-lags in digitization can introduce a bias that, while small, was sufficient to create statistically significant, but entirely artifactual, patterns of sexual dimorphism where none existed [63].

Strategic Landmark Choice

The choice of landmarks is the foundational step in designing a reliable GMM study. Landmarks should be selected not only for their biological relevance but also for their capacity to be identified with high repeatability.

Landmark Types and Their Error Profiles

Landmarks are classified based on their anatomical definition, which directly influences their measurement error.

• Type I Landmarks: Defined by discrete local features, such as the intersection of sutures or small foramina. These are generally considered the most reliable and repeatable because they are based on precise anatomical structures [65].
• Type II Landmarks: Defined by local geometry, such as the point of maximum curvature. These are less reliable than Type I landmarks as their precise location can be more subjective.
• Type III Landmarks: Defined as extreme points, such as the endpoints of a structure's longest axis. These are the least reliable because their position is often dependent on the orientation of the specimen and can be influenced by the overall size and shape of the structure, making them non-homologous across disparate taxa [65].
• Semilandmarks: Used to quantify the shape of curves and surfaces where true homologous points are absent. While powerful, their sliding process introduces its own source of error that must be accounted for [1].

Practical Guidelines for Landmark Selection

• Prioritize Type I Landmarks: Base the core of your configuration on Type I landmarks to ensure a stable, homologous framework for analysis [65].
• Pilot Precision Studies: Before full-scale data collection, conduct a small pilot study to quantify the repeatability of your proposed landmark set. This allows for the removal or redefinition of problematic landmarks before investing significant time [63].
• Consider Landmark-Free Methods for Disparate Taxa: When comparing highly disparate taxa with few identifiable homologous points, emerging landmark-free approaches like Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA) can be advantageous. These methods use control points and deformation momenta to compare shapes, circumventing the homology problem, though they come with their own set of challenges regarding parameter choice and data standardization [13].

Standardized Data Collection Protocols

Standardization is the most powerful tool for minimizing measurement error. The goal is to make the data collection process as consistent and repeatable as possible, both within and across sessions.

Pre-Digitization Workflow: Specimen and Image Acquisition

The quality of the landmark data is contingent on the quality and consistency of the specimen preparation and imaging.

Figure 1: A standardized pre-digitization workflow to minimize error introduced during specimen handling and imaging.

Key Considerations:

• Imaging Device: Use the same imaging equipment (camera, lens, scanner) for an entire study. Differences between devices can introduce significant systematic error [66].
• Specimen Positioning: For 2D studies, standardize the orientation of all specimens using physical jigs. Even slight tilting can introduce major error, as shown in the Microtus study where tilted specimens produced the greatest discrepancies in species classification [66].
• Modality Mixing: For 3D studies, avoid mixing different modalities (e.g., CT scans and surface scans) without correction. If necessary, apply surface reconstruction algorithms (e.g., Poisson surface reconstruction) to create watertight, topologically consistent meshes for all specimens, which has been shown to improve correspondence between methods [13].

Landmark Digitization Protocol

The actual process of placing landmarks is a critical point where error is introduced.

Figure 2: A digitization protocol designed to minimize both random and systematic error, including the "visiting scientist effect".

Protocol Details:

• Comprehensive Training: Ensure all observers are thoroughly trained on the exact anatomical definitions of every landmark. Use a visual guide with example images.
• Randomization and Blinding: Randomize the order in which specimens are digitized to prevent systematic drift (the "visiting scientist effect") from being confounded with biological groups (e.g., species, treatments). The observer should be blinded to the group identity of the specimen to prevent unconscious bias [67] [63].
• Replication for Error Quantification: Incorporate replication into the study design. A minimum of 20% of the sample should be digitized multiple times, ideally in separate sessions, to allow for the statistical quantification of ME [62] [63]. This is non-negotiable for rigorous research.
• Managing Multiple Observers: If multiple observers are used, their work should be interdigitated and balanced across groups, not partitioned by group (e.g., one observer digitizing all of Species A and another all of Species B). Conduct a formal test for inter-observer bias (e.g., Procrustes ANOVA) on a shared subset of specimens [66].

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Geometric Morphometrics

Tool/Reagent	Function/Application	Protocol Note
High-Resolution Camera/Scanner	2D or 3D image acquisition for landmarking.	Standardize across the study. Calibrate regularly [66].
Specimen Positioning Jigs	Hold specimens in a consistent, repeatable orientation during imaging.	Critical for mitigating presentation error in 2D GMM [66].
Geometric Morphometrics Software (e.g., TpsDig, Geomorph, MorphoJ)	Used to digitize landmarks and perform Procrustes superimposition and statistical analysis.	Ensure all observers use the same software and version [66].
Visual Landmark Guide	A reference document with images and precise definitions for each landmark.	Essential for training and maintaining consistency, especially across multiple observers [67].
Randomization Script/App	To generate a random order for digitizing specimens.	Prevents confounding of time-related drift with biological groups [63].
Poisson Surface Reconstruction Algorithm	Converts mixed 3D data (CT, laser scans) into watertight, topologically consistent meshes.	Mitigates error when combining different 3D imaging modalities [13].
2-Thio-UTP tetrasodium	2-Thio-UTP tetrasodium, MF:C9H11N2Na4O14P3S, MW:588.14 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
[Val4] Angiotensin III	[Val4] Angiotensin III, MF:C47H68N12O11, MW:977.1 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

In evo-devo research, where subtle morphological differences often carry significant biological meaning, controlling measurement error is not a secondary concern but a primary component of rigorous science. By strategically selecting landmarks for repeatability and implementing meticulous, standardized protocols from specimen preparation through to digitization, researchers can significantly enhance the reliability and interpretability of their findings. Quantifying the residual error through replication remains the final, essential step, providing a measure of confidence in the biological signals that form the basis of evolutionary inference.

In the evolving field of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), geometric morphometrics (GM) has emerged as a powerful quantitative toolkit for analyzing morphological variation and its genetic, developmental, and evolutionary underpinnings. This methodology enables the precise quantification of organismal form using landmark coordinates and facilitates the testing of complex biological hypotheses through sophisticated statistical integration [21]. However, the increasing accessibility of GM techniques brings forth significant challenges in data quality and study design, pitfalls that can compromise the biological validity of research findings. This application note details common pitfalls and provides established protocols to safeguard data integrity in evo-devo research, with a specific focus on microscopic model organisms.

Common Pitfalls in Data Quality and Study Design

Measurement Error and Operator Bias

A critical, yet often overlooked, source of error in morphometric studies stems from measurement inaccuracies and biases introduced during data acquisition. These errors are particularly problematic when pooling datasets from multiple operators or studies, a common practice for increasing sample size.

• Within- and Between-Operator Error: Measurement error can be categorized into intra-operator error (variation in repeated measurements by a single individual) and inter-operator error (systematic variation between different individuals) [58]. The latter is especially pernicious as it can introduce directional bias that is confounded with the biological signal of interest. For instance, an operator may consistently misplace a specific landmark.
• Impact on Data Pooling: Pooling datasets without rigorous error assessment can lead to artificial variation that obscures or mimics true biological differences. Studies have shown that inter-operator bias can generate substantial variation in geometric morphometric analyses, which is particularly damaging when investigating subtle phenotypic variation [58].

Landmark Selection and Digitization Effort

The selection and digitization of landmarks are fundamental to capturing biological form, but they present a trade-off between effort, precision, and statistical power.

• Variable Inflation vs. Signal: There is a tendency to capture a very high number of landmarks or semilandmarks in an effort to maximize shape capture. This can lead to variable inflation, where the number of variables (landmark coordinates) approaches or exceeds the number of observations (specimens) [58]. This high-dimensional data does not inherently eliminate error and can lead to biologically inaccurate results and misleading interpretations.
• Optimization of Effort: Optimizing digitization effort involves selecting a morphometric protocol that is both efficient and powerful enough for the biological question at hand. This can be achieved by identifying the minimal number of variables necessary for a robust analysis, rather than indiscriminately maximizing landmark count [58].

Inadequate Statistical Power and Reporting

The multivariate nature of geometric morphometric data demands careful statistical consideration to ensure meaningful and reproducible inference.

• Emphasis on Effect Size over Significance: With high-dimensional data, it is often possible to find statistical significance even for trivial effects. A key pitfall is the reliance on p-values without reporting effect sizes and explained variances [21]. This is crucial for contextualizing the biological, rather than just the statistical, importance of findings.
• Exploratory vs. Confirmatory Analysis: Another common shortfall is the use of single scalar summary statistics without thorough exploratory multivariate analyses. A comprehensive approach is needed to understand the structure and patterns within the shape data [21].

Table 1: Common Pitfalls and Their Consequences in Geometric Morphometric Studies.

Pitfall Category	Specific Issue	Potential Consequence
Measurement Error	High intra-operator variance	Reduced precision and repeatability of measurements.
	Systematic inter-operator bias	Introduction of artificial variation confounded with biological signal.
Landmark Selection	Inflation of variables (landmarks/semilandmarks)	Increased risk of overfitting and reduced statistical power.
	Poorly defined or non-homologous landmarks	Biased shape data that does not accurately represent biology.
Statistical Analysis	Reliance on p-values without effect sizes	Misleading interpretation of biological importance.
	Inadequate exploratory data analysis	Failure to detect underlying patterns or outliers in shape data.

Best Practices and Experimental Protocols

Protocol for Error Management and Data Pooling

A rigorous workflow is essential for quantifying error and assessing the feasibility of pooling datasets from multiple operators.

• Repeated Measurements: For a subset of specimens, have each operator perform repeated, blinded digitizations. This should be done for all operators involved in the study [58].
• Error Quantification: Use Procrustes ANOVA to partition total shape variance into components attributable to:
  • Biological variation between specimens.
  • Systematic variation between operators (inter-operator error).
  • Random variation within operator measurements (intra-operator error) [58].
• Decision for Pooling: Compare the magnitude of inter-operator error to the biological effect size of interest (e.g., variance between species or treatment groups). Data pooling is only advisable if the biological signal significantly exceeds the variance introduced by multiple operators [58].

Diagram 1: Workflow for assessing data pooling feasibility.

Standardized GM Protocol for Microscopic Organisms

The following protocol, adapted from analyses of model nematodes, provides a robust framework for 2D geometric morphometrics, suitable for various microscopic organisms [68].

Application: Quantifying shape differences in microscopic model organisms (e.g., nematode mouthparts, insect wings) to address evo-devo questions.

Materials and Software:

• Microscope with camera: For high-resolution image acquisition.
• Digitizing software: e.g., tpsDig2 for landmark placement [58].
• R statistical software: With packages geomorph and Morpho [68].

Procedure:

• Image Acquisition: Capture high-contrast, standardized images of the anatomical structure of interest. For 80 nematode specimens, this takes approximately 3-4 days [68].
• Landmarking: Digitize 2D landmarks in tpsDig2. Landmarks should be biologically homologous points (e.g., suture intersections, tip of structures). For curves, place sliding semilandmarks [68] [21].
• Data Import and Procrustes Fitting: In R, use gpagen() in the geomorph package to perform a Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA). This step superimposes landmark configurations by translating, scaling, and rotating them to minimize Procrustes distance, thus extracting shape coordinates [21].
• Statistical Analysis and Visualization:
  • Use procD.lm() for multivariate regression of shape against predictors (e.g., genotype, treatment).
  • Use gm.prcomp() for a Principal Component Analysis to visualize major axes of shape variation.
  • Visualize shape changes using plotRefToTarget() to deform a reference shape (e.g., the mean shape) towards targets along PCs or regression vectors [68].

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Geometric Morphometrics.

Item Category	Specific Tool / Software	Function in Workflow
Image Acquisition	Compound Microscope with DSLR Camera	Generating high-resolution 2D images of specimens.
Data Digitization	tpsDig2 Software	Placing landmarks and semilandmarks on digital images.
Statistical Analysis	R Programming Environment	Core platform for statistical computing and analysis.
	geomorph R Package	Performing Procrustes superimposition, multivariate statistics, and visualization of shape data.
	Morpho R Package	Supplementary geometric morphometric analyses and functions.

Effective Data Presentation

Choosing the right method to present data is critical for clear communication.

• Use Tables for presenting exact numerical values, detailed results, and summary statistics where precision is key. They are ideal for technical audiences who need to examine specific data points [69] [70].
• Use Charts and Graphs for illustrating patterns, trends, and relationships within the data. They provide a quick, visual summary and are more engaging for a general scientific audience [69] [70]. Visualizations of shape changes (e.g., deformation grids) are a cornerstone of effective GM communication [21].

Diagram 2: Guide for selecting data presentation formats.

In the field of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), researchers seek to understand the interaction between developmental processes and evolutionary factors to explain the origin of organismal form [71]. Geometric morphometrics (GM) has emerged as a pivotal quantitative methodology in this pursuit, enabling the precise statistical analysis of shape variation based on landmark coordinates [16]. However, a significant technical bottleneck threatens to constrain the scalability of this powerful approach: the manual digitization of landmarks.

Landmarking, the process of identifying and recording homologous anatomical points across specimens, remains predominantly a manual, time-intensive task requiring expert anatomical knowledge. As research scales to encompass thousands of specimens or incorporates high-density semilandmarks, this manual process becomes prohibitively slow [16]. This review examines the pressing need for automation in landmarking, evaluates current computational solutions and their limitations, and provides detailed protocols for researchers in evo-devo and drug development seeking to overcome this critical bottleneck in their workflows.

The Automation Imperative: Scaling Geometric Morphometrics

The Expanding Scope of Evo-Devo Research

The landmarking bottleneck becomes particularly acute in contemporary research contexts that demand high throughput. Key applications driving the need for automation include:

• Large-Scale Phenotypic Screening: Studies analyzing morphological responses to genetic or environmental perturbations across hundreds or thousands of specimens.
• Medical and Pharmaceutical Applications: Research such as the SAM Photo Diagnosis App Program, which uses arm shape analysis to assess nutritional status in children, demonstrating the potential for GM in field settings and public health [16].
• Taxonomic Identification: Rapid identification of species, such as quarantine-significant thrips, where GM can distinguish morphologically similar species through head and thorax shape analysis [72].

Quantifying the Bottleneck: Manual vs. Automated Landmarking

The following table illustrates the comparative efficiency of manual versus automated landmarking across different research contexts derived from current studies:

Table 1: Landmarking Efficiency Across Research Applications

Research Context	Specimens Analyzed	Landmarks per Specimen	Reported Manual Processing Time	Automation Potential
Nutritional Status Assessment [16]	410 children	11 (head) + 10 (thorax)	Extensive manual digitization	Smartphone app for automatic landmark placement
Thrips Species Identification [72]	58 heads, 50 thoraxes	11 (head), 10 (thorax)	Manual landmark digitization in TPS Dig2	High (repeatable patterns)
Developmental Instability Studies [72]	Varies	Typically 10-20	Hours to days depending on sample size	Moderate to High

Computational Approaches to Automated Landmarking

Current Methodologies and Workflows

Automated landmarking systems typically employ a combination of image processing, machine learning, and template matching to identify landmark positions. The general workflow can be visualized as follows:

Diagram 1: Automated Landmarking Workflow

Template-Based Registration for Out-of-Sample Specimens

A significant challenge in automated GM is the classification of new individuals not included in the original reference sample—known as the "out-of-sample" problem. Traditional Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) requires simultaneous alignment of all specimens, making incorporation of new specimens non-trivial [16]. The following protocol addresses this challenge:

Protocol 1: Template-Based Registration for Out-of-Sample Landmarking

Principle: Register new specimen images to a pre-existing template from the reference sample to place them in the same shape space.

Materials:

• High-resolution images of new specimens
• Pre-established template configuration from reference sample
• Image processing software (e.g., Photoshop, ImageJ)
• GM analysis software (e.g., MorphoJ, R geomorph package)

Procedure:

• Template Selection: Choose an appropriate template from your reference sample that represents the average shape or a biologically relevant morphology.
• Image Standardization: Crop and enhance new specimen images to match the contrast and sharpness of reference images.
• Initial Alignment: Roughly align the new specimen to the template using translation, rotation, and scaling.
• Non-Linear Registration: Apply thin-plate spline or other non-rigid transformation algorithms to warp the new specimen to the template.
• Landmark Transfer: Map landmark positions from the template to the new specimen using the calculated transformation.
• Quality Control: Visually inspect a subset of automated landmarks against manual digitization.

Technical Considerations:

• Template choice significantly impacts results; test multiple templates [16]
• Account for allometric shape changes in diverse samples
• Maintain consistent imaging conditions (scale, orientation, resolution)

Experimental Protocols for Validation Studies

Protocol 2: Validating Automated Landmark Placement

Objective: Quantify the accuracy and precision of automated landmarking compared to manual digitization.

Experimental Design:

• Select a representative subset of specimens (minimum n=30) from your study.
• Have multiple trained researchers manually digitize landmarks independently.
• Process the same specimens through your automated pipeline.
• Compare results using statistical measures of agreement.

Table 2: Validation Metrics for Automated Landmarking Systems

Metric	Calculation	Acceptance Criterion	Biological Interpretation
Procrustes Distance	Square root of the sum of squared coordinate differences	<5% of total shape variance	Magnitude of shape difference
Measurement Error	Variance among replicate measurements	<2% of total variance	Precision of landmark placement
Landmark-specific SD	Standard deviation of coordinate values	Dataset-dependent	Identifies problematic landmarks
Intraclass Correlation	Proportion of variance due to specimens	ICC > 0.90	Reliability across methods

Statistical Analysis:

• Perform Procrustes ANOVA to partition variance components [72]
• Use permutation tests (10,000 iterations) to assess significance of differences
• Calculate Mahalanobis distances to assess classification accuracy

Protocol 3: Implementing a Hybrid Landmarking Approach

Principle: Combine automated processing with manual quality control for optimal efficiency and accuracy.

Procedure:

• Batch Processing: Run automated landmarking on entire dataset.
• Automated Quality Screening: Flag specimens with:
  • Extreme Procrustes distances from mean shape
  • Low probability scores from classifier
  • Unusual landmark configurations
• Targeted Manual Correction: Manually review and correct only flagged specimens.
• Iterative Refinement: Use corrected landmarks to improve automated model.

Research Reagent Solutions for Geometric Morphometrics

Table 3: Essential Tools for Automated Geometric Morphometrics

Tool Category	Specific Tools/Software	Primary Function	Automation Capabilities
Image Processing	Photoshop, ImageJ, Fiji	Image enhancement and standardization	Batch processing, contrast adjustment
Landmark Digitization	TPS Dig2, MorphoJ	Manual and semi-automated landmark placement	Template creation, sliding semilandmarks
Statistical Analysis	R (geomorph package), MorphoJ	Shape analysis and visualization	Procrustes alignment, PCA, discriminant analysis
Custom Automation	R/Python with computer vision libraries	Developing bespoke solutions	Machine learning, deep neural networks
Field Applications	SAM Photo Diagnosis App [16]	Mobile data collection	Offline landmark detection on smartphones

Integration with Broader Research Pipelines

Connecting to Evo-Devo Research Questions

The ultimate value of automated landmarking lies in its ability to address core evo-devo questions about evolvability—how developmental processes generate and modulate phenotypic variation [71]. Automated systems enable:

• High-Throughput Analysis of developmental series to identify critical ontogenetic transitions
• Increased Statistical Power through larger sample sizes for detecting subtle developmental effects
• Integration with Molecular Data by correlating shape changes with gene expression patterns

Logical Framework for Implementing Automation

The decision process for implementing automated landmarking can be visualized as:

Diagram 2: Automation Implementation Decision Tree

The landmarking bottleneck represents both a challenge and an opportunity for geometric morphometrics. As the field progresses, several promising directions emerge:

• Deep Learning Approaches: Convolutional neural networks for direct landmark prediction from images
• Transfer Learning: Adapting models trained on large image datasets to specific biological applications
• Integration with Bioinformatics: Connecting shape data with genomic and transcriptomic datasets
• Cloud-Based Platforms: Web services for automated landmarking accessible to non-specialists

For the evo-devo community, addressing the landmarking bottleneck is not merely a technical exercise but a necessary step toward realizing the field's fundamental goal: understanding how developmental processes generate and modulate phenotypic variation [71]. By developing and implementing robust automated landmarking tools, researchers can scale their analyses to match the complexity of the biological questions they seek to answer, ultimately providing deeper insights into the evolutionary developmental biology of form.

The integration of quantitative morphology with developmental genetics defines the modern evolutionary developmental (evo-devo) research paradigm [73]. However, a significant methodological gap persists between molecular approaches that investigate developmental mechanisms and quantitative methods that analyze complex morphological shapes [73]. This divide is particularly pronounced in studies utilizing three-dimensional data, where researchers frequently combine computed tomography (CT) scans with surface scanning technologies. CT scanning provides comprehensive internal anatomical information but encounters limitations including field-of-view (FOV) restrictions and additional radiation exposure when extending scan lengths to capture full anatomical structures [74]. Surface scanning offers an affective alternative for capturing external morphology without these limitations, presenting researchers with both opportunities and challenges in standardizing these mixed modalities for rigorous geometric morphometric analysis [74] [75].

The absence of community-wide standards for 3D data preservation and processing creates significant obstacles for data interoperability and reusability [75]. Research libraries and scientific communities have recognized this pressing need, initiating efforts like the Community Standards for 3D Data Preservation (CS3DP) to establish best practices, metadata standards, and policies for 3D data stewardship [75]. This protocol addresses these challenges directly by providing standardized methodologies for integrating CT and surface scan data, enabling researchers to leverage the complementary strengths of both modalities while ensuring data consistency and reproducibility in evo-devo research.

Application Notes: Quantitative Integration of Surface Scanning with CT Data

Technical Validation of Surface Scanning Accuracy

Surface scanning technologies provide a non-invasive method for capturing detailed external morphology, effectively addressing CT limitations related to FOV restrictions and radiation exposure. Recent clinical validations demonstrate the technical feasibility of using affordable surface scanning solutions to supplement CT data. In a patient study utilizing an iPad Air 2 equipped with a Structure Sensor Pro, researchers achieved sub-2mm mean distance differences between CT-derived surfaces and 3D surface scans [74].

Table 1: Validation Metrics for 3D Surface Scanning Versus CT-Derived Surfaces

Patient Identifier	Mean Distance (mm)	Standard Deviation (mm)
Patient 1	1.65	6.51
Patient 2	0.99	6.71
Patient 3	-0.93	3.38
Patient 4	-0.79	2.84
Patient 5	-1.53	2.69

The observed variance between modalities falls within acceptable ranges for most geometric morphometric applications in evo-devo research, particularly for studies focusing on external morphological features. The methodology demonstrates sufficient accuracy for applications including collision detection in automated systems, surface-guided alignment procedures, and extending anatomical coverage beyond CT FOV limitations [74].

Data Standardization Challenges in 3D Morphometrics

The exponential growth in 3D technology adoption over the past decade has outpaced the development of standardized practices for data documentation and preservation [75]. Research libraries investing in 3D infrastructure have identified critical gaps in metadata standards, preservation practices, and access policies for 3D data [75]. These challenges manifest specifically in geometric morphometrics through:

• Proprietary Processing Tools: Many scanning systems utilize proprietary software with limited access to processing algorithms and parameters, creating reproducibility concerns [75].
• Ambiguous Terminology: The field lacks consistent terminology for describing 3D data creation methods and processing histories, leading to ambiguous data descriptions [75].
• Metadata Incompleteness: Critical information about scanning parameters, resolution settings, and processing history is often inadequately documented, limiting data reusability across research projects [75].

The CS3DP initiative represents a community-driven response to these challenges, focusing on creating standardized practices for the entire 3D data lifecycle from creation to curation [75]. Adoption of these emerging standards is essential for ensuring the long-term usability and interoperability of 3D data in evo-devo research.

Experimental Protocols

Data Acquisition Workflow for Combined CT and Surface Scanning

This protocol outlines a standardized methodology for acquiring 3D surface data to complement CT scanning, adapted from clinical research methods for application in evolutionary morphology studies [74].

Materials and Equipment

• Research specimen (whole organism or morphological structure of interest)
• Immobilization device appropriate for specimen size and morphology
• iPad Air 2 or later model equipped with Structure Sensor Pro (or comparable 3D scanning system)
• Monocle SS application (v3.5.0 or later) or equivalent scanning software
• CT scanning system with appropriate resolution for research question
• Small plastic or radio-opaque fiducial markers for registration

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Specimen Preparation: Immobilize the research specimen using appropriate supports that minimize movement while allowing access to morphological features of interest.
• Fiducial Marker Placement: Affix at least three non-collinear fiducial markers at strategic locations on the specimen surface. These markers serve as reference points for subsequent data registration and should be placed near areas of morphological interest and at the periphery of the scanning area.
• Surface Scanning Setup: Initialize the 3D surface scanning system according to manufacturer specifications. For the iPad/Structure Sensor system, ensure the Monocle SS application is properly calibrated.
• 3D Surface Data Acquisition: Systematically move the scanning device around the specimen until all relevant surfaces are captured in the application surface map. Ensure overlapping coverage from multiple angles to capture complex morphological features.
• CT Scanning: Immediately following surface scanning, transfer the specimen to the CT system and acquire images using standard protocols for the specimen type. Maintain identical specimen positioning between scanning sessions when possible.
• Data Export: Export the 3D surface model in .obj file format or another standard 3D format compatible with downstream processing pipelines.

Data Processing and Registration Protocol

This protocol describes the registration of 3D surface data with CT-derived surfaces, creating a unified dataset for geometric morphometric analysis.

Software Requirements

• 3D Slicer (v5.2.2 or later) or comparable medical imaging platform
• 3D Builder (v20.0.4.0 or later) or equivalent mesh processing software
• Treatment planning system (e.g., Varian Eclipse) or geometric morphometrics package with 3D registration capabilities

Processing Steps

• File Conversion and Scaling:

  • Import the .obj file into 3D Builder
  • Apply appropriate meter scaling to ensure accurate dimensional representation
  • Export the scaled model for subsequent processing

• DICOM Conversion:

  • Import the scaled 3D model into 3D Slicer
  • Assign patient coordinate system and orientation
  • Convert the model to a binary labelmap (voxels inside surface = 1, outside = 0)
  • Export the labelmap as a DICOM image set

• Data Registration:

  • Import both the CT DICOM series and surface-derived DICOM set into the analysis software
  • Perform manual registration using fiducial markers as initial guidance
  • Refine alignment using iterative closest point (ICP) or landmark-based registration
  • Verify registration accuracy by measuring distances between corresponding anatomical landmarks

• Dataset Integration:

  • Transfer the registered surface structure to the CT dataset structure set
  • Extend the CT dataset dimensions if necessary to fully accommodate the 3D surface structure
  • Apply appropriate density overrides if the combined dataset will be used for biomechanical simulation or other applications requiring tissue properties

Geometric Morphometric Analysis of Integrated 3D Data

This protocol adapts standardized geometric morphometric approaches for analyzing integrated CT and surface scanning data, enabling investigations of shape variation and developmental processes [76].

Landmarking and Shape Analysis

• Landmark Configuration:

  • Define a comprehensive landmark scheme capturing both internal (CT-derived) and external (surface scan-derived) morphological structures
  • Include Type I (discrete anatomical loci), Type II (maximum curvature points), and Type III (sliding semi-landmarks) to capture complex morphological surfaces

• Data Acquisition and Processing:

  • Digitize landmark coordinates using 3D Slicer or specialized morphometric software
  • Apply Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) to remove effects of position, orientation, and scale
  • Compute covariance matrix of Procrustes-aligned coordinates for subsequent statistical analysis

• Statistical Integration:

  • Perform principal component analysis (PCA) on Procrustes coordinates to identify major axes of shape variation
  • Implement multivariate regression to assess allometry (shape vs. size relationships)
  • Conduct hypothesis-driven tests of specific morphological modules using partial least squares (PLS) analysis

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Software Solutions for 3D Data Integration

Item Name	Function/Application	Specifications
Structure Sensor Pro	3D surface scanning	Infrared depth-sensing (825nm or 940nm wavelength), 1mm accuracy, 33cm-20m range [74]
Monocle SS Application	Surface data acquisition	Compatible with Structure Sensor, exports .obj format [74]
3D Slicer Platform	3D data processing and registration	Open-source, DICOM compatibility, landmarking tools [74]
R Statistical Environment	Geometric morphometric analysis	geomorph and Morpho packages for shape analysis [76]
Radio-Opaque Fiducial Markers	Multi-modal data registration	CT-visible and surface-detectable reference points [74]

Discussion: Advancing Evo-Devo Research Through Integrated 3D Methodologies

The integration of CT and surface scanning data represents a significant methodological advancement for evolutionary developmental biology, particularly for bridging the persistent gap between molecular approaches and quantitative morphology [73]. The protocols presented here enable researchers to capture comprehensive morphological data that spans both internal structures and external form, essential for investigating the developmental origins of evolutionary novelty.

This methodological approach supports a more unified evo-devo research paradigm in several key aspects. First, it facilitates the quantification of continuous phenotypic variation using high-density landmark data, moving beyond simple bimodal phenotypes to capture the complex multidimensional nature of morphological diversity [73]. Second, the combined dataset provides a more complete basis for investigating the developmental genetic mechanisms underlying shape variation, particularly when integrated with candidate gene approaches or quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping [73]. Finally, the standardized protocols enhance reproducibility and data sharing across research groups, addressing critical challenges in 3D data stewardship [75].

Future methodological developments will likely focus on automating the registration process, improving handling of color and texture data from surface scans, and developing more sophisticated algorithms for quantifying complex morphological patterns. As these technical capabilities advance, integrated 3D data approaches will play an increasingly central role in elucidating the developmental mechanisms that generate evolutionary diversity.

Next-Generation Morphometrics: Validating and Comparing Traditional and Emerging Methods

Geometric morphometrics has become the gold standard for quantifying biological shape in evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) [77]. However, traditional landmark-based approaches present significant limitations for large-scale evo-devo research, including substantial time investment, operator bias, and difficulty in comparing morphologically disparate taxa where homologous points become obscure [77] [78]. Landmark-free methods, particularly those based on Large Deformation Diffeomorphic Metric Mapping (LDDMM) and Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA), offer promising alternatives by automating shape comparison and capturing comprehensive shape variation without relying on predefined landmarks [77] [79]. This application note provides a comprehensive benchmark of these innovative approaches, detailing protocols and quantitative comparisons to guide researchers in implementing these methods for evo-devo research.

Quantitative Benchmarking of Morphometric Methods

The table below summarizes key performance indicators for traditional and landmark-free morphometric methods, synthesized from recent implementation studies.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Morphometric Methods in Evo-Devo Research

Methodological Feature	Traditional Landmark-Based GMM	Landmark-Free DAA (LDDMM-based)	Generalized Procrustes Surface Analysis (GPSA)
Reliance on Homology	High (requires predefined homologous points) [77]	Low (uses control points and deformation momenta) [77]	None (uses nearest-neighbor surface associations) [78]
Typical Processing Time	High (hours to days for manual landmarking) [79] [78]	Medium (automated, but requires parameter optimization) [77]	Medium (automated iterative alignment) [78]
Susceptibility to Operator Bias	High (inter-operator variability can be significant) [77] [79]	Low (fully automated once parameters set) [77] [79]	Low (fully automated algorithm) [78]
Resolution of Shape Capture	Limited to placed landmarks [79]	High (dense correspondence across entire surface) [77] [79]	High (entire surface used) [78]
Performance with Disparate Taxa	Limited (fewer identifiable homologous points) [77]	Good (especially with Poisson reconstruction) [77]	Good (does not rely on homology) [78]
Data Modality Flexibility	Limited to comparable landmark schemes	High (handles mixed modalities with preprocessing) [77]	Designed for surface scans [78]
Key Advantages	Biologically meaningful via homology; established methodology [77]	Efficiency for large datasets; comprehensive shape capture [77]	No landmark requirement; intuitive visualization [78]
Primary Limitations	Time-consuming; limited landmarks on smooth surfaces [77] [79]	Parameter sensitivity (e.g., kernel width) [77]	Requires good initial alignment [78]

A recent large-scale study implementing DAA on a dataset of 322 mammals spanning 180 families demonstrated the method's utility for macroevolutionary analyses [77]. The research found that after standardizing data using Poisson surface reconstruction, DAA showed significant improvement in correspondence with patterns of shape variation measured using manual landmarking, though differences emerged for specific clades like Primates and Cetacea [77]. Both methods produced comparable but varying estimates of phylogenetic signal, morphological disparity, and evolutionary rates, highlighting the complementary nature of these approaches [77].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA) with LDDMM

Application: Large-scale comparative analyses across disparate taxa [77]

Workflow Overview:

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Data Acquisition and Preprocessing:

  • Obtain 3D specimen data (CT scans, surface scans, or mixed modalities) [77].
  • Convert all specimens to watertight, closed surfaces using Poisson surface reconstruction to standardize mesh topology [77]. This step is crucial when working with mixed imaging modalities.
  • Apply any necessary segmentation to isolate anatomical structures of interest.

• Initial Template Selection:

  • Select an initial template specimen that is representative of the morphological variation in your dataset. Studies indicate that a specimen with intermediate morphology (e.g., Arctictis binturong in the mammalian study) minimizes systematic bias in subsequent analyses [77].
  • Avoid specimens with extreme morphologies as initial templates, as this can draw the computed atlas toward the center of morphological space and reduce differentiation [77].

• Atlas Generation and DAA Execution:

  • Use specialized software (e.g., Deformetrica) to generate a deterministic atlas [77].
  • The algorithm iteratively estimates the optimal atlas shape by minimizing the total deformation energy required to map it onto all specimens [77].
  • Set the kernel width parameter (e.g., 10.0 mm, 20.0 mm, 40.0 mm) which controls the spatial extent of deformations and determines the number of control points [77]. Smaller kernel widths yield finer-scale deformations and more control points.

• Shape Variable Extraction:

  • The software computes diffeomorphic transformations mapping the atlas to each specimen [77].
  • For each control point, a momentum vector ("momenta") is calculated, representing the optimal deformation trajectory for alignment [77].
  • These momenta provide the basis for shape comparison and are analogous to landmark coordinates in traditional geometric morphometrics.

• Statistical Analysis:

  • Perform Kernel Principal Component Analysis (kPCA) on the momenta-based shape data to visualize and explore shape covariation [77].
  • Use the resulting shape variables for downstream macroevolutionary analyses (phylogenetic signal, morphological disparity, evolutionary rates) [77].

Protocol 2: Landmark-Free Analysis for Developmental Models

Application: High-resolution phenotyping of genetic models and diverse populations [79]

Workflow Overview:

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Image Acquisition and Preprocessing:

  • Acquire micro-CT (µCT) images of specimens at appropriate resolution [79].
  • Apply thresholding to extract skeletal structures from the µCT images.
  • Remove cartilaginous structures digitally to isolate bony elements for analysis [79].
  • Use bone density information to separate mandibles from crania as their relative position may vary [79].

• Surface Generation and Processing:

  • Generate triangulated meshes from the surfaces of all specimens, including internal surfaces [79].
  • Decimate and clean meshes to reduce computational load while preserving anatomical detail.
  • Align all specimens to a common coordinate system using principal axis alignment or other registration techniques [79].

• Shape Analysis:

  • Compute a mean shape representation from all aligned specimens.
  • Calculate deformations required to map each specimen to the mean shape.
  • Generate "local stretch" maps that visualize regional expansion or contraction relative to the mean shape, allowing direct localization of morphological differences without separating size and shape [79].

• Statistical Interpretation:

  • Analyze shape variation between experimental groups (e.g., mutant vs. wild-type) [79].
  • Assess allometry (size-dependent shape variation) and sexual dimorphism in diverse populations [79].
  • The method has successfully identified cranial dysmorphologies in Down syndrome mouse models, including smaller size, brachycephaly, and reductions in mid-snout structures and occipital bones [79].

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

The table below details key resources for implementing landmark-free morphometric analyses.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Landmark-Free Morphometrics

Resource Category	Specific Tool/Technique	Application in Landmark-Free Morphometrics
Imaging Modalities	Micro-Computed Tomography (µCT) [79]	High-resolution 3D imaging of skeletal structures and internal anatomy for developmental models.
	Surface Scanning [78]	Capture of external morphology for comparative analyses.
	Mixed Modalities (CT + surface scans) [77]	Integration of diverse data sources for comprehensive taxonomic coverage.
Software Platforms	Deformetrica [77]	Implementation of Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA) and LDDMM for shape comparison.
	GPSA Software [78]	Generalized Procrustes Surface Analysis using iterative closest point algorithms.
	MeshLab [78]	Mesh processing, cleaning, and visualization of 3D surfaces.
Data Processing Tools	Poisson Surface Reconstruction [77]	Creation of watertight, closed surfaces from various scan modalities; essential for standardizing mixed datasets.
	Landmark Editor Software [78]	Traditional landmarking for validation studies comparing landmark-free and landmark-based approaches.
Analytical Frameworks	Kernel Principal Component Analysis (kPCA) [77]	Dimension reduction and visualization of shape variation from momentum vectors in DAA.
	Procrustes Surface Metric (PSM) [78]	Shape difference metric analogous to Procrustes distance for surface-based comparisons.

Landmark-free methods like LDDMM and DAA represent a paradigm shift in geometric morphometrics for evo-devo research, offering automated, high-resolution shape analysis while minimizing operator bias. Quantitative benchmarking demonstrates their particular value for large-scale comparative studies across disparate taxa and high-resolution phenotyping of developmental models. While these methods show some parameter sensitivity and require careful data standardization, their ability to capture comprehensive shape variation beyond homologous landmarks significantly expands the analytical scope of evo-devo research. As these methodologies continue to mature, they promise to enable unprecedented analysis of larger and more diverse datasets, ultimately providing new insights into the evolutionary developmental mechanisms generating morphological diversity.

In evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), a central challenge is bridging the gap between microevolutionary processes (observable, short-term changes within populations) and macroevolutionary patterns (large-scale trends in diversity and form observed over deep time) [80]. Geometric morphometrics (GM), the quantitative analysis of biological shape based on landmark coordinates, provides the essential data to quantify these patterns in a rigorous, statistical framework [21]. However, the increasing scale and complexity of morphometric data have spurred the development of automated computational methods to infer evolutionary processes. This Application Note evaluates the performance of these automated methods in capturing macroevolutionary patterns, providing a structured comparison and detailed protocols for researchers working at the intersection of evo-devo and macroevolution.

Quantitative Comparison of Automated Macroevolutionary Methods

The table below summarizes the core characteristics, performance, and applicability of several automated approaches for macroevolutionary inference, based on their ability to explain patterns in empirical data, such as mammalian body size evolution [81].

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Automated Macroevolutionary Models

Model/Approach	Core Mechanism	Key Performance Metric	Handles Abrupt Shifts?	Integrates with GM?	Primary Use Case
Brownian Motion (BM)	Unbiased random walk; traits evolve with constant variance (σ²) [81].	Marginal Likelihood	No	High (as evolutionary model in PGLS)	Neutral drift; null model for comparison [81].
Early-Burst (EB)	Brownian variance (σ²) is high early in clade history and decays [81].	Improvement over BM via Marginal Likelihood	No	High	Adaptive radiations; niche-filling scenarios [81].
Fabric Model	Separately infers directional changes (β) and evolvability changes (υ) on a phylogeny [81].	Bayes Factor vs. other models; identifies specific β and υ events [81].	Yes, as biased random walks	Potentially High (model for shape traits)	Disentangling complex evolutionary fabrics; identifying watershed moments [81].
Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU)	Traits pulled toward a selective optimum (adaptive landscape) by a stabilizing force [81].	Improvement over BM via AIC/cAIC	No (models bounded evolution)	High	Stabilizing selection; adaptation to distinct niches [81].
Levy/Stable Model	Allows for large, abrupt "jumps" in trait value in addition to or instead of gradual BM [81].	Improvement over pure BM/jump models	Yes	Moderate	Modeling punctuated equilibrium; rare, major adaptive shifts [81].
Process-Based Simulation	Bottom-up, agent-based framework simulating genotype-to-phenotype mapping and ecology [80].	Reproduction of emergent patterns (e.g., diversification curves, niche structure) [80].	Emerges from micro-level rules	High (output can be shape data)	Hypothesis testing on causal links between mechanisms and patterns [80].

The performance of these models, when applied to a large dataset of mammalian body size, reveals critical insights. The Fabric Model demonstrated a significantly better fit to the data than simpler models (Brownian Motion, directional-only, or evolvability-only models), indicating that both directional changes and changes in evolvability have made substantial, largely independent contributions to mammalian macroevolution [81]. A key finding was that large phenotypic shifts were explicable as biased random walks without requiring a concurrent increase in evolvability, thereby bridging macroevolutionary jumps with gradualist microevolutionary principles [81].

Table 2: Key Findings from Fabric Model Analysis of Mammalian Body Size

Analysis Aspect	Finding	Implication for Macroevolution
Model Comparison	Combined (β + υ) model fit was vastly superior to models with only one process [81].	Macroevolutionary analysis must account for both directional and evolvability changes simultaneously.
Process Correlation	Directional (β) and evolvability (υ) changes were found to be largely uncorrelated [81].	Large phenotypic shifts do not necessarily require new evolutionary "innovations"; old genetics can produce new, rapid directions.
Evolvability Trend	'Watershed' moments (Ï… > 1) greatly outnumbered reductions in evolutionary potential (Ï… < 1) [81].	The overall trend in mammalian evolution has been toward increased capacity to explore morphological space.
Trait-Trait Analysis	Many trait correlations were stable over deep time, despite changes in the underlying traits [81].	The "fabric" of phenotypic covariance itself can be an evolutionary entity, stable over millions of years.

Experimental Protocols for Macroevolutionary Analysis

Protocol: Applying the Fabric Model to Geometric Morphometric Data

This protocol details the steps for analyzing landmark-based shape data using the Fabric Model to infer directional and evolvability changes.

1. Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools

Item/Tool	Function/Description
3D Landmark Digitzer	Software (e.g., Viewbox, IDAV Landmark) or hardware to record 3D coordinates of biological landmarks [21].
Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA)	Algorithm to remove differences in position, scale, and orientation from landmark configurations, isolating shape variation [21].
Phylogenetic Tree	A time-calibrated hypothesis of evolutionary relationships for the taxa in the study.
R Statistical Environment	Open-source platform for statistical computing.
Specialized R Packages	- geomorph: For GM and phylogenetic comparative analysis of shape. - Fabric Model Scripts: Custom code (often BayesFabric) for MCMC sampling of β and υ parameters [81].
Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)	Computational algorithm for Bayesian parameter estimation; used to infer the placement and magnitude of β and υ [81].

2. Procedure

• Data Acquisition and Preparation:

  • Landmarking: For all specimens in the analysis, digitize a set of biologically homologous 2D or 3D landmarks using GM software [21].
  • Procrustes Superimposition: Perform a Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) on the raw landmark data. This aligns all specimens and extracts shape coordinates (Procrustes residuals) for subsequent analysis [21].
  • Shape Variable Derivation: Perform a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on the Procrustes coordinates. Use the first k principal components (PCs) that explain the majority of shape variation (>95-99%) as the multivariate shape traits for the evolutionary model [21].

• Model Setup and Execution:

  • Phylogeny and Data Alignment: Ensure the phylogeny includes all species in the morphometric dataset and that the Procrustes-aligned shape data (or the selected PCs) are correctly matched to the tip labels.
  • MCMC Configuration: Configure the Fabric Model's MCMC sampler. Key settings include the number of generations, chain sampling frequency, and priors for the background Brownian variance (σ²), directional effects (β), and evolvability multipliers (Ï…) [81].
  • Model Execution: Run the MCMC analysis for a sufficient number of generations to achieve stationarity and effective sampling of all parameters. Multiple independent runs are recommended to assess convergence.

• Post-Processing and Interpretation:

  • Convergence Diagnostics: Use tools like Tracer to assess MCMC convergence, ensuring Effective Sample Sizes (ESS) for all parameters are >200.
  • Model Comparison: Calculate the marginal likelihood for the Fabric Model and compare it to simpler models (e.g., pure Brownian Motion) using Bayes Factors to quantify the improvement in model fit [81].
  • Parameter Identification: Summarize the posterior distributions of β and Ï… parameters across the phylogeny. Identify branches with strong evidence for directional change (β significantly different from zero) and nodes with evidence for shifts in evolvability (Ï… significantly different from one).
  • Visualization: Map the inferred β and Ï… values onto the phylogenetic tree. Visualize the magnitude and direction of shape change associated with significant β events as actual morphological deformations using vector plots or deformation grids [21].

Workflow for Fabric Model Analysis of Shape Data

Protocol: Simulating Eco-Evolutionary Dynamics with a Bottom-Up Framework

This protocol outlines the use of a process-based simulation framework to test hypotheses about how microevolutionary mechanisms generate macroevolutionary patterns in morphospace.

1. Procedure

• Framework Initialization:

  • Define Genotype-Phenotype Map (GPM): Implement a grammatical evolution (GE) or other GPM system. Define the "grammar" rules that translate a simulated genotype (e.g., a string of digits) into a multivariate phenotype, which can represent landmark configurations [80].
  • Construct the Environment: Create a 2D dynamic environment with defined regions (e.g., gradients of resource availability or climatic conditions). Program environmental change rules that alter these regions over time [80].
  • Initialize Populations: Seed the environment with initial populations. Assign each a random genotype and specify population-level parameters (mutation rate, migration rate, initial size).

• Simulation Execution:

  • Iterative Cycle: For each time step, execute the following processes:
    • Mutation and Gene Flow: Introduce stochastic mutations in genotypes and allow for migration between populations [80].
    • Phenotype Evaluation: For each individual, use the GPM to generate its phenotype. Evaluate its fitness based on the match between its phenotype and the current environmental conditions of its location, as well as biotic interactions (e.g., competition with phenotypes of neighboring individuals) [80].
    • Selection and Reproduction: Select individuals for reproduction probabilistically based on their fitness. Create offspring populations, inheriting and potentially mutating parental genotypes.
    • Niche Tracking and Extinction: Populations may migrate to track suitable environments. Populations falling below a viability threshold go extinct [80].

• Data Collection and Analysis:

  • Time-Series Logging: At regular intervals, log data on species/population diversity, phenotypic distributions, phylogenetic relationships, and niche occupancy.
  • Pattern Analysis: After the simulation, analyze the logged data for emergent macroevolutionary patterns. Test whether the simulation reproduced patterns such as biphasic diversification, saturating diversity, or specific morphospace occupancy [80].
  • Sensitivity Analysis: Re-run simulations under different parameter settings (e.g., higher mutation rates, different environmental volatility) to assess the robustness and generality of the findings.

Bottom-Up Simulation of Eco-Evolutionary Dynamics

Automated methods for inferring macroevolutionary patterns have matured beyond simplistic single-process models. The evidence from comparative analyses, particularly the success of the Fabric Model, demonstrates that macroevolution is a multi-faceted process driven by the interplay of distinct directional changes and shifts in evolvability [81]. For researchers in geometric morphometrics and evo-devo, this means that the choice of analytical model is critical. Bottom-up simulation frameworks offer a powerful complementary approach, allowing for the testing of explicit mechanistic hypotheses about how genetic, developmental, and ecological interactions give rise to the macroevolutionary patterns captured by GM [80]. By applying the protocols outlined herein, scientists can more accurately decode the evolutionary history of form and better predict how developmental systems might channel future evolutionary trajectories.

In evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), quantifying the form of organisms is a fundamental step for investigating the relationships between genetic variation, developmental processes, and phenotypic evolution. The choices researchers make in their analytical methods are not merely technical details; they are pivotal decisions that directly shape biological interpretation. Methodological selection influences the detection of phylogenetic signal, shapes estimates of morphological disparity, and ultimately affects inferences about evolutionary processes such as constraint, convergence, and rates of phenotypic change [21]. This application note synthesizes current protocols and insights to guide researchers in navigating these critical methodological choices, with a focus on geometric morphometrics within a phylogenetic framework.

Geometric Morphometrics: Core Concepts and Modern Protocols

Geometric morphometrics (GM) is the standard methodology for quantifying and analyzing biological shape based on landmark coordinates. Its core strength lies in preserving geometric relationships throughout statistical analysis, allowing results to be visualized directly as actual shapes or deformations [21].

Foundational Workflow: Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA)

The most common registration method in GM is Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA). The standard protocol involves:

• Translation: Configurations are centered to the same origin (usually the centroid).
• Scaling: Configurations are scaled to unit centroid size, defined as the square root of the sum of squared distances of all landmarks from the centroid.
• Rotation: Configurations are rotated to minimize the summed squared distances between corresponding landmarks (the Procrustes distance) relative to a consensus configuration [21].

The resulting Procrustes shape coordinates form the basis for subsequent statistical analyses of shape variation. The accompanying diagram illustrates this core workflow and its connection to downstream disparity analysis.

Advanced and Automated Phenotyping

Traditional GM relies on manual landmark placement, which can limit the number of landmarks and introduce observer bias. Recent advances enable more comprehensive and automated shape capture.

• morphVQ Pipeline: The morphVQ (Morphological Variation Quantifier) pipeline offers a landmark-free approach. It uses descriptor learning to estimate functional correspondences between entire 3D mesh surfaces. The protocol refines these maps using Consistent ZoomOut to produce Latent Shape Space Differences (LSSDs), which are area-based and conformal (angular) operators that characterize shape variation [82].
• Validation: Studies show that morphVQ classifies biological groups (e.g., Genus affiliation) with accuracy comparable to manual landmarking and other automated methods like auto3DGM, but with greater computational efficiency and more comprehensive surface characterization [82].

Table 1: Comparison of Geometric Morphometrics (GM) Approaches.

Method	Key Feature	Primary Output	Key Consideration
Traditional GM	Manual placement of homologous landmarks	Procrustes shape coordinates	Observer bias; limited morphological coverage
auto3DGM	Automated pseudolandmark placement via farthest point sampling	Procrustes-aligned pseudolandmarks	Requires rigid alignment of meshes
morphVQ	Landmark-free; learns correspondence between whole surfaces	Latent Shape Space Differences (LSSDs)	Captures more comprehensive shape variation; computationally efficient

Phylogenetic Corrections in Disparity Analysis

A critical challenge in evo-devo is integrating paleontological and neontological data. Traditional disparity analyses ("taxic" methods) use only observed taxa, which can be problematic for interpreting evolutionary patterns, especially with an incomplete fossil record.

Protocol for Phylogenetically Corrected Disparity

Brusatte et al. (citation 1) outline a general method for incorporating phylogenetic information into disparity studies:

• Phylogenetic Inference: First, infer a phylogeny for the taxa in your analysis, including both fossil and extant species.
• Ancestral State Reconstruction: Use the phylogeny and the morphological data (e.g., Procrustes coordinates or LSSDs) to reconstruct the morphologies of hypothetical ancestors at the nodes of the tree.
• Integrated Dataset: Create a new dataset that includes both the original observed taxa and the reconstructed ancestors.
• Disparity Calculation: Calculate standard disparity metrics (e.g., sum of variances, total range) on this phylogenetically corrected dataset. This can be done for specific time bins, with ancestors placed in their corresponding temporal intervals [83].

Interpretation of Phylogenetically Corrected Disparity

The impact of phylogenetic correction is heterogeneous and must be interpreted in context:

• Filling Morphospace: Adding ancestors can "inflate" the observed morphospace. The magnitude and direction of this expansion depend on the specific group and the completeness of its fossil record [83].
• Temporal Shifts: In some cases, corrections elevate disparity estimates in earlier time bins relative to later ones, by extending unsampled morphologies further back in time. This can alter interpretations of evolutionary radiation [83].
• Decoupled Patterns: In analyses of Triassic archosaurs, the phylogenetic disparity curve differed little from the taxic curve, supporting a pattern of decoupled disparity and rates of morphological change [83]. The following diagram integrates phylogenetic correction into the broader analytical workflow.

Genomic Data Integration and Phylogenetic Confidence

For evo-devo studies integrating genomic data, methodological choices in phylogenomics and variant calling are equally critical for accurate downstream analysis.

Reference Genome and Mapping Selection

Whole-genome resequencing studies for phylogenomics must carefully consider reference genome and mapping methods, as this combination impacts variant calling and heterozygosity estimates.

• Reference Genome Distance: Using a closely related, but not necessarily conspecific, reference genome is ideal for minimizing bias. Excessively distant references can lead to reduced base-pair recovery and biased heterozygosity estimates, resulting in less accurate, imbalanced phylogenies [84].
• Mapping Stringency: Global alignment methods (e.g., Bowtie2 --end-to-end) are more stringent and minimize mismapping, leading to more accurate variant calls for phylogenetic inference. Local alignment methods (e.g., Bowtie2 --local, BWA-MEM) may map more reads but can reduce accuracy [84].

Table 2: Impact of Reference Genome and Mapping on Genomic Analyses.

Analysis Parameter	Option 1	Option 2	Impact on Downstream Analysis
Reference Genome	Closely related ingroup	Distantly related outgroup	Closer reference: Reduces bias, increases data recovery, improves tree balance.
Mapping Method	Global alignment (Bowtie2 --end-to-end)	Local alignment (BWA-MEM, Bowtie2 --local)	Global alignment: Fewer miscalls, more accurate heterozygosity estimates & phylogenies.

Assessing Phylogenetic Confidence at Scale

Traditional bootstrap methods are computationally prohibitive for massive datasets. New methods like Subtree Pruning and Regrafting-based Tree Assessment (SPRTA) offer a paradigm shift.

• Principle: SPRTA shifts focus from clade membership ("topological focus") to evaluating the confidence in evolutionary histories and phylogenetic placement ("mutational focus") [85].
• Application: It efficiently approximates the probability that a lineage evolved directly from another considered lineage, which is particularly valuable for assessing transmission histories and lineage assignments in genomic epidemiology and large-scale phylogenomics [85].
• Advantage: SPRTA reduces runtime and memory demands by at least two orders of magnitude compared to bootstrap methods, making confidence assessment feasible for pandemic-scale trees involving millions of genomes [85].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Software

Table 3: Key Reagent Solutions for Morphometric and Phylogenetic Analysis.

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function	Protocol Note
morphVQ	Software Pipeline	Automated, landmark-free morphological phenotyping from 3D meshes.	Use to capture comprehensive shape variation without manual landmark bias [82].
auto3DGM	Software Pipeline	Automated placement of pseudolandmarks on 3D models.	An alternative automated method; less computationally efficient than morphVQ [82].
Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA)	Algorithm	Extracts shape variables from landmark data by removing non-shape variation.	Foundational step for most GM analyses; available in many software packages [21].
SPRTA	Algorithm	Assesses confidence in phylogenetic tree branches focusing on evolutionary history.	Apply for large-scale phylogenetic uncertainty assessment instead of traditional bootstrapping [85].
Phylogenetically Corrected Disparity	Analytical Framework	Incorporates ancestral state reconstructions into disparity metrics.	Use when working with incomplete fossil records to fill morphospace and correct temporal trends [83].
Bowtie 2 (--end-to-end)	Bioinformatics Tool	Global alignment of sequencing reads to a reference genome.	Preferred for accuracy in phylogenomic studies to minimize mismapping and biased variant calls [84].
Influenza A virus-IN-14	Influenza A virus-IN-14, MF:C22H25F3N2O4, MW:438.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
(3R,5S)-Atorvastatin sodium	(3R,5S)-Atorvastatin sodium, MF:C33H35FN2NaO5, MW:581.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

In evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), geometric morphometrics (GM) has become an indispensable tool for quantifying shape variation, enabling researchers to test hypotheses about the processes that generate morphological diversity [3] [13]. The efficacy of these methods—their ability to accurately detect and classify biological shapes—is paramount. Consequently, robust validation frameworks are required to empirically assess and compare different methodological pipelines, ensuring that biological inferences are derived from reliable and optimally performing techniques [86]. This application note outlines the core principles of such validation frameworks, provides a protocol for conducting empirical evaluations of GM methods, and visualizes the integrated workflow, empowering researchers to ground their methodological choices in empirical evidence.

Core Principles of Empirical Validation for GM

Empirical validation in this context involves the systematic use of observed data to test the performance of methodological approaches against a known standard or a specific biological question. The core principles are:

• Performance Benchmarking: Comparing the outcomes of different methods (e.g., landmark-based vs. outline-based GM, or different alignment algorithms) using a common dataset where the "true" group membership or shape difference is known or theorized [86] [13].
• Control of Bias: Implementing procedures like cross-validation to avoid overfitting and obtain realistic estimates of a method's classification performance. The resubstitution method (testing on the same data used to train the model) is known to produce optimistically biased results [86].
• Optimization of Dimensionality: Methods like Canonical Variates Analysis (CVA) require more specimens than variables. When using outline data, which can generate many variables, dimensionality reduction (e.g., via Principal Component Analysis - PCA) is necessary. The number of dimensions retained should be optimized to maximize the cross-validation classification rate, not just the resubstitution rate [86].

Empirical Evaluation Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for designing and executing an empirical evaluation of geometric morphometric methods.

Application Protocol: Evaluating Outline Analysis Methods

This protocol provides a detailed methodology for empirically comparing the performance of different geometric morphometric outline methods in classifying specimens, based on a real-world scientific investigation [86].

Experimental Setup and Data Acquisition

• Specimen Selection: Select a dataset of specimens with known, subtle shape differences. A suitable model is tail feathers (rectrices) from a single bird species (e.g., Ovenbird, Seiurus aurocapilla) with known age categories, as these exhibit subtle, age-related shape differences that are challenging to classify [86].
• Image Acquisition: Capture high-resolution digital images of the biological structure. Ensure the camera lens is perpendicular to the specimen, which is placed on a solid, contrasting background. Store images in a lossless format like JPEG [3].
• Digitization and Outline Capture: Extract outline coordinates from the images. This can be done through:
  • Manual Tracing: Manually tracing the curve in software like tpsDig2 [3].
  • Template-Based Digitization: Using a predefined template (e.g., equal-angle fan) to sample points [86].
  • Automated Edge Detection: Using software like ImageJ to automatically detect the outline [86] [3].

Methodological Pipelines for Comparison

Process the extracted outlines using the different methods under evaluation. Key methods to compare include:

• Semi-Landmark Methods:
  • Bending Energy Minimization (BEM): Aligns curves by minimizing the bending energy required.
  • Perpendicular Projection (PP): Aligns curves by projecting points perpendicularly onto a mean curve [86].
• Elliptical Fourier Analysis (EFA): Describes the outline using harmonic coefficients [86].
• Extended Eigenshape Analysis: Captures outline shape using the angles between successive radii from the centroid [86].

Data Analysis and Performance Validation

• Data Preparation and Dimensionality Reduction:

  • For each methodological pipeline, export the final shape variables.
  • Perform a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on the pooled within-group covariance matrix of the shape data to reduce dimensionality [86].
  • Retain N principal component (PC) scores for subsequent analysis, where N is less than the number of specimens.

• Classification and Cross-Validation:

  • Perform a Canonical Variates Analysis (CVA) using the N PC scores as input and the known groups (e.g., age classes) as the classification variable.
  • Calculate the correct classification rate using cross-validation (e.g., leave-one-out validation) to avoid upward bias. This involves iteratively leaving one specimen out, building the CVA model with the remaining specimens, and then classifying the omitted specimen [86].
  • Repeat the CVA and cross-validation for a range of different N (number of PC scores used) to find the optimal dimensionality that yields the highest cross-validation classification rate.

Table 1: Example of Cross-Validation Classification Results Comparing Outline Methods

Outline Method	Resubstitution Classification Rate	Cross-Validation Classification Rate	Optimal Number of PC Axes
Semi-Landmark (BEM)	92%	85%	12
Semi-Landmark (PP)	90%	84%	11
Elliptical Fourier Analysis (EFA)	91%	83%	15
Extended Eigenshape	89%	82%	10

Interpretation of Results

• Method Comparison: The method with the highest cross-validation rate is considered the most effective for that specific dataset and classification task. The study by [86] found that classification rates were not highly dependent on the specific outline method (BEM, PP, EFA) but were more influenced by the approach to dimensionality reduction.
• Dimensionality Optimization: Using a variable number of PC axes optimized for cross-validation performance typically produces higher and more reliable assignment rates than using a fixed number of axes or alternative methods like partial least squares [86].
• Biological Inference: The validated and optimized method can now be confidently applied to test the primary biological hypothesis, for instance, to classify specimens of unknown age or to quantify shape differences between populations.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Software

Table 2: Key Software and Tools for Geometric Morphometrics and Empirical Validation

Tool Name	Function/Application	Usage in Validation
tpsDig2 [3]	Digitizing landmarks and outlines from 2D images.	Used for the initial data acquisition step (manual tracing, template-based digitization).
ImageJ [3]	Image processing and analysis.	Can be used for automated outline extraction and background removal.
MorphoJ [3]	Integrated software for geometric morphometrics.	Performs Procrustes superimposition, PCA, CVA, and cross-validation.
R Statistical Software (with packages Momocs & dplyr) [3]	Comprehensive statistical computing and graphics.	The Momocs package is specialized for outline analysis. R enables custom scripting for the entire validation pipeline, including dimensionality optimization.
Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA) Software (e.g., Deformetrica) [13]	Landmark-free morphometric analysis using diffeomorphic mappings.	Represents an emerging, automated method to be validated against traditional landmark-based approaches, especially for large datasets.
N1,N8-Diacetylspermidine	N1,N8-Diacetylspermidine, MF:C11H23N3O2, MW:229.32 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
9-Methoxycanthin-6-one-N-oxide	9-Methoxycanthin-6-one-N-oxide, MF:C15H10N2O3, MW:266.25 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Advanced Considerations and Emerging Methods

The field of geometric morphometrics is continuously evolving. Validation frameworks must also adapt to assess new methodologies.

• Landmark-Free Methods: Techniques like Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA) use diffeomorphic transformations to compare shapes without manually placed landmarks, offering potential for high-throughput analysis of large 3D datasets (e.g., from CT scans) [13]. Empirical evaluation against traditional landmarking is crucial. Key parameters to validate include the kernel width, which controls the scale of deformation, and the impact of initial template selection [13].
• Modality and Topology Challenges: Combining data from different imaging modalities (e.g., CT scans and surface scans) can introduce bias. Validation studies should test standardization procedures, such as Poisson surface reconstruction, which creates watertight, closed meshes from different data sources to improve correspondence between methods [13].
• Macroevolutionary Analyses: When methods are applied to broad phylogenetic questions, validation should extend to downstream macroevolutionary metrics like phylogenetic signal, morphological disparity, and evolutionary rates to ensure consistent inferences across different analytical pipelines [13].

The following diagram summarizes the key decision points when selecting and validating a GM method for an evo-devo research program.

The quantification of biological shape through geometric morphometrics has long been a cornerstone of evolutionary developmental (evo-devo) research. Traditional analyses rely on the precise placement of anatomical landmarks—discrete, homologous points that capture essential morphological information. However, this manual process presents significant limitations, including inter-observer variability, time-intensive procedures, and constraints on dataset scalability [13]. These challenges are particularly acute in evo-devo studies, where researchers often analyze subtle shape variations across developmental stages or between closely related species.

The integration of Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) is poised to revolutionize this foundational aspect of biological research. Recent advancements demonstrate that AI-driven systems can achieve human-level precision in landmark placement while dramatically improving efficiency and reproducibility [87] [88] [89]. This technological shift promises not only to automate existing workflows but also to enable entirely new research approaches through the analysis of larger datasets and more complex morphological structures. This article outlines the current state of AI-powered landmark detection and provides detailed protocols for its implementation in evo-devo research pipelines.

Performance Comparison of AI Landmark Detection Methods

Table 1: Quantitative performance metrics of recent AI landmark detection systems across various data modalities.

Imaging Modality	Anatomical Region	AI Architecture	Mean Error (mm)	Success Detection Rate (<2mm)	Key Advantages
Spiral CT (SCT) [90]	Craniofacial (41 landmarks)	Optimized 3D U-Net	<1.3 mm	Not specified	Robust to metal artifacts, malocclusion
Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) [90]	Osteodental (14 landmarks)	Optimized 3D U-Net	<1.3 mm	Not specified	Precision in dental landmarks
2D Cephalogram [88]	Cephalometric (18 landmarks)	Vision Transformer (ViT)	~1.5-2.0 mm*	89% (within 2 mm)	Superior to CNN-based methods
2D Facial Photographs [87]	Facial (72 landmarks)	CNN with MediaPipe projection	Not specified	Comparable to human experts	Ethnically diverse training data
3D Mandibles [91]	Primate mandibles	Morpho-VAE	Landmark-free	90% classification accuracy	No manual annotations required

Note: *Error range estimated from description of ViT performance improving over CNN-based methods by >2mm [88].

Experimental Protocols for AI Landmark Detection

Protocol 1: Automated 3D Cephalometric Landmarking in CT Scans

This protocol describes the implementation of a lightweight 3D U-Net architecture for automated landmark detection in craniofacial CT scans, based on a validated multicenter study [90].

Materials and Software Requirements:

• Medical imaging data (SCT or CBCT scans in DICOM format)
• 3D image processing software (e.g., Mimics 16.0)
• Python deep learning frameworks (PyTorch/TensorFlow)
• Hardware: Intel Core i5 CPU or higher, GPU recommended

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Data Curation and Preprocessing

  • Collect retrospective CT scans following ethical guidelines and approval
  • Apply inclusion criteria: patients aged 6-70 years, first imaging session only
  • Exclude images with: low resolution, high noise, motion artifacts, malignant tumors, fractures, or postsurgical conditions
  • Convert DICOM images to 3D models using thresholding: bone (226–2619 HU) and soft tissue (−700–225 HU) for SCT; specific range (720+ HU) for CBCT

• Reference Standard Annotation

  • Have senior specialists (e.g., oral surgeon with 9+ years experience) independently annotate landmarks
  • Perform quality control by chief physician (e.g., 31+ years experience)
  • Store positional data in XML format for model training
  • Conduct reliability assessment with 4-week re-annotation interval
  • Establish reference standard using landmarks with ICC ≥ 0.70

• Model Implementation and Training

  • Implement optimized 3D U-Net architecture
  • Train on dataset of 480 SCT and 240 CBCT cases
  • Validate through multicenter retrospective design
  • Perform additional inference on external dataset (320 SCT and 150 CBCT cases)

• Validation and Performance Metrics

  • Calculate Mean Radial Error (MRE) as primary metric
  • Determine success detection rate within 2-, 3-, and 4-mm error thresholds
  • Conduct error analyses along each coordinate axis (x, y, z)
  • Perform consistency tests among observers

Applications in Evo-Devo Research:

This protocol enables high-throughput analysis of craniofacial development across evolutionary lineages, particularly useful for studying heterochrony and allometric relationships in large sample sizes.

Protocol 2: Landmark-Free Morphometric Analysis Using Morpho-VAE

This protocol outlines a landmark-free approach for morphological feature extraction, particularly valuable when homologous landmarks are difficult to define across disparate taxa [91].

Materials and Software Requirements:

• 3D specimen data (CT scans or surface meshes)
• Python with TensorFlow/PyTorch
• Morpho-VAE architecture implementation
• 3D processing libraries (e.g., PyVista, Open3D)

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Data Preparation

  • Obtain 3D mandible (or other anatomical structure) data from multiple species
  • Project three-dimensional data from three orthogonal directions (dorsal, lateral, ventral) to produce 2D images
  • Standardize image size and resolution (e.g., 128×128 pixels)

• Morpho-VAE Architecture Implementation

  • Combine standard VAE with classifier module through latent variable ζ
  • Configure total loss function: Etotal = (1-α)EVAE + αE_C
  • Set hyperparameter α = 0.1 (determined via cross-validation)
  • Use three-dimensional latent space for feature representation

• Model Training and Validation

  • Train for 100 epochs with learning rate of 0.001
  • Perform cross-validation to optimize hyperparameters
  • Validate classification accuracy (target: ~90% median accuracy)
  • Assess cluster separation using Cluster Separation Index (CSI)

• Shape Analysis and Interpretation

  • Project new specimens into the trained latent space
  • Compare morphological features across species or developmental stages
  • Reconstruct missing segments from incomplete images
  • Visualize shape variations along latent dimensions

Applications in Evo-Devo Research:

The landmark-free approach enables comparisons across phylogenetically distant taxa or disparate developmental stages where homologous landmarks are not preserved, facilitating studies of deep evolutionary patterns and developmental constraints.

Figure 1: Morpho-VAE architecture combining unsupervised and supervised learning for landmark-free shape analysis.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key research reagents and computational tools for AI-powered geometric morphometrics.

Tool/Resource	Type	Function in Research	Implementation Considerations
WebCeph [88]	Commercial Software	AI-assisted cephalometric analysis	Cloud-based, compatible with standard image formats
FaceDig [87]	Open-source Tool	Automated facial landmark placement	Optimized for 2D enface photographs, TpsDig2 compatible
MediaPipe [87]	ML Framework	Face detection and initial landmark estimation	Provides rough projection for refinement models
Deformetrica [13]	Software Platform	Landmark-free analysis via DAA	Uses LDDMM for shape comparison without landmarks
Morpho-VAE [91]	Custom Architecture	Landmark-free feature extraction	Combines VAE with classifier for discriminative features
Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA) [13]	Analytical Method	Large-scale shape comparisons	Suitable for phylogenetically disparate taxa
3D U-Net [90]	Network Architecture	Volumetric image segmentation	Optimized for medical imaging data
6-O-p-Coumaroyl scandoside methyl ester	6-O-p-Coumaroyl scandoside methyl ester, MF:C26H30O13, MW:550.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Taxoquinone	Taxoquinone, MF:C20H28O4, MW:332.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Implementation Workflow and Integration Strategy

Figure 2: Decision workflow for selecting appropriate landmarking strategies in evo-devo research.

Future Perspectives and Development Pipeline

The integration of ML and AI in geometric morphometrics represents not merely an incremental improvement but a paradigm shift in evo-devo research methodology. Current developments point toward several transformative directions:

Multi-Modal Data Integration: Future systems will combine 3D morphological data with genomic, transcriptomic, and developmental time-series information to create comprehensive models of morphological evolution [91]. This integration will enable researchers to directly link genetic regulatory networks with phenotypic outcomes across evolutionary timescales.

Cross-Taxa Generalization: Current models excel within constrained taxonomic groups, but future developments aim to create systems capable of meaningful comparisons across highly disparate organisms [13]. Such tools would revolutionize studies of convergent evolution and deep homology.

Developmental Trajectory Prediction: Advanced AI systems may soon predict complete developmental trajectories from early embryonic stages, enabling experimental testing of evolutionary developmental hypotheses without extensive breeding programs or fossil sampling.

Real-Time Morphometric Analysis: Portable AI implementations could bring sophisticated shape analysis to field research settings, enabling real-time morphological assessment during ecological and evolutionary studies.

As these technologies mature, they will increasingly become the standard approach for quantitative morphology, freeing researchers from technical constraints and opening new avenues for investigating the interplay between development and evolution. The future pipeline for landmark placement lies not in replacing biological expertise, but in augmenting human intuition with computational precision and scale.

Conclusion

Geometric morphometrics has fundamentally transformed evo-devo research by providing a rigorous, quantitative, and visually intuitive framework for connecting developmental processes to evolutionary outcomes. The integration of robust foundational methods with emerging automated and landmark-free techniques is poised to dramatically expand the scale and scope of morphological inquiry. Future progress hinges on overcoming challenges related to data standardization, measurement error, and the validation of new computational tools. For biomedical and clinical research, these advances promise deeper insights into the morphological basis of disease, the developmental origins of anatomical variation, and the creation of more powerful phenotyping pipelines. By embracing this multidimensional toolkit, researchers can continue to decode the complex interplay between genes, development, and form that shapes the diversity of life.

References

• 1. Geometric Morphometrics as an Analytical Tool in Plant Biology [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11901851/]
• 2. Geometric morphometrics: recent applications to the study ... [https://www.academia.edu/26896561/Geometric_morphometrics_recent_applications_to_the_study_of_evolution_and_development]
• 3. Quantitative Analysis of Fish Morphology Through ... [https://en.bio-protocol.org/en/bpdetail?id=5087&type=0]
• 4. Geometric morphometrics on fossil shark teeth [https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2025/5603-geometric-morphometrics-on-fossil-shark-teeth]
• 5. Morphometric integration and modularity in configurations of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2776930/]
• 6. Dr Laura A. B. Wilson | UNSW Research [https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/dr-laura-b-wilson]
• 7. Functional data geometric morphometrics with machine ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-66246-z]
• 8. Job Board [https://www.panamevodevo.org/job-board.html]
• 9. A way forward with eco evo devo: an extended theory of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6852119/]
• 10. EvoDevo in Zebrafish: Bridging Evolution, Development ... [https://bionomous.ch/evodevo-in-zebrafish-bridging-evolution-development-and-drug-discovery/?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=LinkedIn&utm_campaign=EvoDevo_article]
• 11. Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo Devo) [https://biology.umd.edu/research/evolutionary-developmental-biology]
• 12. Evolutionary–developmental (evo-devo) dynamics of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01887-8]
• 13. Assessing the application of landmark-free morphometrics to ... [https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-025-02377-9]
• 14. Sample Size and Geometric Morphometrics Methodology ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10833145/]
• 15. Differences between sliding semi-landmark methods in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2100233/]
• 16. Geometric morphometrics approach for classifying ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-85718-4]
• 17. Geometric morphometric analysis of body shape and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0940960225002869]
• 18. Phenotypic trajectory analysis: comparison of shape ... [http://www.italian-journal-of-mammalogy.it/Phenotypic-trajectory-analysis-comparison-of-shape-change-patterns-in-evolution-and,77245,0,2.html]
• 19. MorphoJ [https://morphometrics.uk/MorphoJ_page.html]
• 20. Comprehensive programs [https://sbmorphometrics.org/soft-comprehensive.html]
• 21. Thirty years of geometric morphometrics - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9545184/]
• 22. Procrustes superimposition [https://www.virtual-anthropology.com/virtual-anthropology/compare/geometric-morphometrics/procrustes-superimposition/]
• 23. Shall we all adopt, with no worries, the 'within a ... [https://ecoevorxiv.org/repository/view/5599/]
• 24. Untangling the relationship between developmental and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1084952122001847]
• 25. Studying morphological integration and modularity at multiple ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4084535/]
• 26. Methods for studying allometry in geometric morphometrics [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10682-022-10170-z]
• 27. Quick Guide to Geomorph [http://www.emmasherratt.com/uploads/2/1/6/0/21606686/quick_guide_to_geomorph-_introduction.html]
• 28. Geometric Morphometric Analyses of 2D and 3D ... - geomorph [https://geomorphr.r-universe.dev/geomorph]
• 29. Cranial integration and modularity: insights into evolution ... [http://www.italian-journal-of-mammalogy.it/Cranial-integration-and-modularity-insights-into-evolution-and-development-from-morphometric,77242,0,2.html]
• 30. Geometric morphometrics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B978012815764000023X]
• 31. Multivariate and Geometric Morphometrics Reveal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12467238/]
• 32. Geometric Morphometrics (Chapter 9) - Archaeological ... [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/archaeological-science/geometric-morphometrics/324AFB2D5D48A21A0536896206AB3D22]
• 33. An acquisition, curation and management workflow for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018181]
• 34. A Geometric Morphometrics Approach for Predicting Olfactory ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12565324/]
• 35. Online live course Geometric Morphometrics in R, July 28th [https://bioanth.org/news/online-live-course-geometric-morphometrics-in-r-july-28th-august-5th-2025/]
• 36. Nature Paper: A New Geometric Machine Learning Method ... [http://www.oeaw.ac.at/aithyra/news/nature-paper-a-new-geometric-machine-learning-method-promises-to-accelerate-precision-drug-development]
• 37. Review Morphological Phylogenetics in the Genomic Age [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221500812X]
• 38. Quantifying the extent of morphological homoplasy [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6546384/]
• 39. Quantifying macro-evolutionary patterns of trait mean and ... [https://ecoevorxiv.org/repository/view/8823/]
• 40. Chris Klingenberg - Research Explorer [https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/persons/cpk/]
• 41. Adaptive evolution of pelvic reduction in sticklebacks by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3109066/]
• 42. Genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary pelvic ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15085123/]
• 43. Genetic Architecture of Parallel Pelvic Reduction in Ninespine ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3789808/]
• 44. Paths Less Traveled: Evo-Devo Approaches to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8845070/]
• 45. Evolution of body morphology and beak shape revealed by a ... [https://frontiersinzoology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12983-016-0162-0]
• 46. Beak morphometry and morphogenesis across avian ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10523063/]
• 47. The finch beak: growth, form and function [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021APS..MARJ11009A/abstract]
• 48. For Darwin's finches, beak shape goes beyond evolution [https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/11/darwins-finches-beak-shape-goes-beyond-evolution]
• 49. A gene that shaped the evolution of Darwin's finches [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2015/02/11/gene-shaped-evolution-darwins-finches]
• 50. Article Common developmental origins of beak shapes and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004225005073]
• 51. The centipede Strigamia maritima as a case study [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1467803917300555]
• 52. The centipede Strigamia maritima as a case study [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28302585/]
• 53. The centipede Strigamia maritima as a case study [https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/fi/publications/development-and-evolution-of-segmentation-assessed-by-geometric-m/]
• 54. Visualizations in geometric morphometrics: How to read and ... [https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/publications/visualizations-in-geometric-morphometrics-how-to-read-and-how-to-/]
• 55. When Shape Defines: Geometric Morphometrics Applied to ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/17/10/680]
• 56. Reworking Geometric Morphometrics into a Methodology ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11692-023-09607-2]
• 57. Measurement Errors Definition, Types, Examples, Causes, ... [https://vitrek.com/mti-instruments/knowledge-center/measurement-errors/?srsltid=AfmBOorVYOOefZtBRIb-L3yrOR94TeRRu597qd_JKC4U4P72UEiv-z78]
• 58. Optimizing digitalization effort in morphometrics - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7723759/]
• 59. Uncertainty measurements done with multiple devices [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/754141/uncertainty-measurements-done-with-multiple-devices]
• 60. Two measurement devices vs 1 device multiple ... [https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/314915/two-measurement-devices-vs-1-device-multiple-measurements]
• 61. Learning from my mistakes -- Part 4 [https://community.jmp.com/t5/JMP-Blog/Learning-from-my-mistakes-Part-4-Are-your-measurements-to-be/ba-p/179231]
• 62. Measurement error in geometric morphometrics [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00427-016-0537-4]
• 63. assessing the impact of 2D landmark digitization error in ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00435-025-00717-3]
• 64. Analyzing Fluctuating Asymmetry with Geometric ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/7/2/843]
• 65. The relative performance of geometric morphometrics and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10049884/]
• 66. Data: Are geometric morphometric analyses replicable? ... [https://datadryad.org/dataset/doi:10.6071/M3KD40]
• 67. “Visiting scientist effect”? Exploring the impact of time‐lags in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12594189/]
• 68. Geometric morphometrics of microscopic animals as exemplified by model nematodes | Nature Protocols [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41596-020-0347-z]
• 69. Charts vs. Tables: When to Use One Over the Other? [https://wpdatatables.com/charts-vs-tables/]
• 70. Utilizing tables, figures, charts and graphs to enhance the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10394528/]
• 71. An Introduction to Evolutionary Developmental Biology [https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-012-0422-1]
• 72. geometric morphometrics of head and thorax shapes in ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/insect-science/articles/10.3389/finsc.2025.1558242/full]
• 73. Unifying and generalizing the two strands of evo-devo [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534713001675]
• 74. Three‐dimensional surface scanning of patients to extend ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12602972/]
• 75. Accelerating Standards for 3D Data to Improve Long-Term ... [https://www.arl.org/blog/accelerating-standards-for-3d-data-to-improve-long-term-usability/]
• 76. Geometric morphometrics of microscopic animals as ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32632318/]
• 77. Assessing the application of landmark-free morphometrics to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12034209/]
• 78. A Landmark-Free Method for Three-Dimensional Shape ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150368]
• 79. A landmark-free morphometrics pipeline for high-resolution ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7969589/]
• 80. Simulating macroevolutionary trends and open-ended ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12591426/]
• 81. General statistical model shows that macroevolutionary ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28595-z]
• 82. A novel approach to geometric morphometrics [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009061]
• 83. Phylogenetic corrections for morphological disparity analysis [https://complete.bioone.org/journalArticle/Download?urlid=10.1666%2F09057.1]
• 84. Variant Calling in the Goldilocks Zone [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12631958/]
• 85. Assessing phylogenetic confidence at pandemic scales [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09567-x]
• 86. Comparison of geometric morphometric outline methods in the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1592095/]
• 87. FACEDIG automated tool for placing landmarks on facial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-09714-4]
• 88. Reproducibility of AI in Cephalometric Landmark Detection [https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/19/2521]
• 89. Automated facial landmark measurement using machine ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022391324002828]
• 90. Accuracy and reliability of 3D cephalometric landmark ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12539169/]
• 91. A deep learning approach for morphological feature ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10322894/]