The Inappropriate Symmetries of Multivariate Statistical Analysis in Geometric Morphometrics.

In today's geometric morphometrics the commonest multivariate statistical procedures, such as principal component analysis or regressions of Procrustes shape coordinates on Centroid Size, embody a tacit roster of symmetries-axioms concerning the homogeneity of the multiple spatial domains or descriptor vectors involved-that do not correspond to actual biological fact. These techniques are hence inappropriate for any application regarding which we have a-priori biological knowledge to the contrary (e.g., genetic/morphogenetic processes common to multiple landmarks, the range of normal in anatomy atlases, the consequences of growth or function for form). But nearly every morphometric investigation is motivated by prior insights of this sort. We therefore need new tools that explicitly incorporate these elements of knowledge, should they be quantitative, to break the symmetries of the classic morphometric approaches. Some of these are already available in our literature but deserve to be known more widely: deflated (spatially adaptive) reference distributions of Procrustes coordinates, Sewall Wright's century-old variant of factor analysis, the geometric algebra of importing explicit biomechanical formulas into Procrustes space. Other methods, not yet fully formulated, might involve parameterized models for strain in idealized forms under load, principled approaches to the separation of functional from Brownian aspects of shape variation over time, and, in general, a better understanding of how the formalism of landmarks interacts with the many other approaches to quantification of anatomy. To more powerfully organize inferences from the high-dimensional measurements that characterize so much of today's organismal biology, tomorrow's toolkit must rely neither on principal component analysis nor on the Procrustes distance formula, but instead on sound prior biological knowledge as expressed in formulas whose coefficients are not all the same. I describe the problems of the standard techniques, discuss several examples of the alternatives, and draw some conclusions.