“Biogeography of species” is a huge concept. What’s the geographical scale? …and the taxonomic scale? In a broad sense, it could be assumed that biogeographical relationships can be traced back by phylogeny in a scenario of limited dispersal. Therefore, if we assume that phylogeny imposes some constraints to the evolution of shape, it could be expected also some relationship between shape and biogeographical relationships. However, the shape of a structure can be moulded by local environmental scenarios. Thus, it could be partially independent of geographical distance or of the existence of (present or past) biogeographical barriers. What’s the part of the shape change (current species versus ancestors) attributable to phylogeny/biogeography? and the part correlated with current environmental scenarios?
In my view, it could be more direct to test environment/shape relationships after adjusting for phylogenetic inertia than vice versa because we are able to obtain independent phylogenetic estimates (DNA sequences). Miquel morphmet escribió: > Dear Morphometricians > I like to use my Geometric morphometrics results for detecting > biogeography of the species. Has anybody experience about that? I would > appreciate it if introduce me some papers or proper statistical tests > to help me. > Best Regards > hamid > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers > <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48254/*http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/_ylc=X3oDMTI5MGx2aThyBF9TAzIxMTU1MDAzNTIEX3MDMzk2NTQ1MTAzBHNlYwNCQUJwaWxsYXJfTklfMzYwBHNsawNQcm9kdWN0X3F1ZXN0aW9uX3BhZ2U-?link=list&sid=396545469>from > someone who knows. > Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. > > -- Replies will be sent to the list. For more information visit http://www.morphometrics.org
