Suzana Adelino - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Suzana Adelino

Standardization and repeatability is at the heart of all scientific research, yet very little lit... more Standardization and repeatability is at the heart of all scientific research, yet very little literature exists to standardize mor-phometric measurements within vertebrate groups. This is particularly true for amphibians. Our study attempts to rectify this lack of methodological standardization for the measurement of morphological characters in anurans through an extensive literature survey of 136 species descriptions representing 45 currently recognized families of frogs. The survey revealed 42 morphological measurements represented in five percent or more of the literature reviewed. All measurements are listed by most commonly used name, acronym, and most precise definition, and we provide statistics summarizing the variation in measurement use and description from the surveyed literature. Of these 42 measurements, a subset of 16 were found in the top 75% of all surveyed descriptions and identified as a focal set of recommended measurements in an effort to standardize the morphometric measurements that describe anuran species diversity. Illustrations of these 16 measurements are provided as a visual reference for standardizing their measurement. Introduction Morphometric measurements of herpetological organisms are necessary for species delineation, phylogenetic analyses, and even our understanding of evolutionary change in an organism's physical characteristics, yet there is little consistency of physical measurements and descriptions across, or even within, taxa (Dubois 2010; Wiens 2001). Terminology used by many researchers may seem obvious or self-explanatory, however, there are many instances when characteristics vary markedly in the literature and require explanation (Harvey et al. 2000). Despite the importance of the proper application of specialized terms and definitions in morphological studies of amphibian and reptile species, there are few publications that address this issue. Recently a publication on Anolis taxonomy became the first to analyze the use of characters (both measurements and counts) in current species description publications (Köhler 2014). Köhler (2014) found a high degree of variation across surveyed Anolis literature regarding the choice, definition, and use of characters that were deemed important and how they were used and defined in each study. This publication also discussed the lack of detail and standardization in descriptions of species of the genus (Köhler 2014). Two decades prior to Köhler's study, in a publication on a computer-based application using morphological characters in the identification of Anolis species, Williams (1994) recognized 37 useful Anolis characters that could be well defined and incorporated into computer software. Both Williams (1994) and Köhler (2014) addressed issues in standardization of morphological terms, such as the use of equivocal terms and definitions for characters, and whether working definitions of each character are included in the published methods. Two editions of the Dictionary of Herpetology provide sample terms for the study of herpetology, including those used to describe morphometric characters (Peters 1964; Lillywhite 2008). Lillywhite's (2008) newest edition provides guidelines for the application of terms relevant to herpetology. The author offers the definitions of herpetological terms, including the earliest or most relevant use of the word, current and obsolete usages, and

Standardization and repeatability is at the heart of all scientific research, yet very little lit... more Standardization and repeatability is at the heart of all scientific research, yet very little literature exists to standardize mor-phometric measurements within vertebrate groups. This is particularly true for amphibians. Our study attempts to rectify this lack of methodological standardization for the measurement of morphological characters in anurans through an extensive literature survey of 136 species descriptions representing 45 currently recognized families of frogs. The survey revealed 42 morphological measurements represented in five percent or more of the literature reviewed. All measurements are listed by most commonly used name, acronym, and most precise definition, and we provide statistics summarizing the variation in measurement use and description from the surveyed literature. Of these 42 measurements, a subset of 16 were found in the top 75% of all surveyed descriptions and identified as a focal set of recommended measurements in an effort to standardize the morphometric measurements that describe anuran species diversity. Illustrations of these 16 measurements are provided as a visual reference for standardizing their measurement. Introduction Morphometric measurements of herpetological organisms are necessary for species delineation, phylogenetic analyses, and even our understanding of evolutionary change in an organism's physical characteristics, yet there is little consistency of physical measurements and descriptions across, or even within, taxa (Dubois 2010; Wiens 2001). Terminology used by many researchers may seem obvious or self-explanatory, however, there are many instances when characteristics vary markedly in the literature and require explanation (Harvey et al. 2000). Despite the importance of the proper application of specialized terms and definitions in morphological studies of amphibian and reptile species, there are few publications that address this issue. Recently a publication on Anolis taxonomy became the first to analyze the use of characters (both measurements and counts) in current species description publications (Köhler 2014). Köhler (2014) found a high degree of variation across surveyed Anolis literature regarding the choice, definition, and use of characters that were deemed important and how they were used and defined in each study. This publication also discussed the lack of detail and standardization in descriptions of species of the genus (Köhler 2014). Two decades prior to Köhler's study, in a publication on a computer-based application using morphological characters in the identification of Anolis species, Williams (1994) recognized 37 useful Anolis characters that could be well defined and incorporated into computer software. Both Williams (1994) and Köhler (2014) addressed issues in standardization of morphological terms, such as the use of equivocal terms and definitions for characters, and whether working definitions of each character are included in the published methods. Two editions of the Dictionary of Herpetology provide sample terms for the study of herpetology, including those used to describe morphometric characters (Peters 1964; Lillywhite 2008). Lillywhite's (2008) newest edition provides guidelines for the application of terms relevant to herpetology. The author offers the definitions of herpetological terms, including the earliest or most relevant use of the word, current and obsolete usages, and