YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 38:137-161 (1995)

Shape, Relative Size, and Size-Adjustments

in Morphometrics

WILLIAM L. JUNGERS, ANTHONY B. FALSETTI, AND

CHRISTINE E. WALL
Department of Anatomical Sciences, School of Medicine, S.U.N.Y. at
Stony %rook, Stony Brook, New York 11 794 (W.L.J.);National Museum
of Health and Medicine, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology,
Washington, D.C. 20306 (A.B.F.);Department of Biological
Anthropology and Anatomy, Duke University Medical Center, Durham,
North Carolina 27710 (C.E.W.)

KEY WORDS Size, Shape, Ratios, Residuals, Morphometrics

ABSTRACT Many problems in comparative biology and biological an-

thropology require meaningful definitions of “relative size” and ‘(shape.’’
Here we review the distinguishing features of ratios and residuals and their
relationships to other methods of “size-adjustment’’ for continuous data.
Eleven statistical techniques are evaluated in reference to one broadly in-
terspecific data set (craniometrics of adult Old World monkeys) and one
narrowly intraspecific data set (anthropometrics of adult Native American
males). Three different types of residuals are compared to three versions of
shape ratios, and these are contrasted to ‘(cscores,”Penrose shape, and mul-
tivariate adjustments based on the first principal component of the logged
variance-covariance matrix; all methods are also compared to raw and
logged raw data. In order to help us identify appropriate methods for size-
adjustment, geometrically similar or “isometric” versions of the male vervet
and the Inuit male were created by scalar multiplication of all variables.
The geometric mean of all variables is used as overall “size” throughout this
investigation, but our conclusions would be the same for most other size
variables.
Residual adjustments failed to correctly identify individuals of the same
shape in both samples. Like residuals, cscores are also sample-specific and
incorrectly attribute different shape values to individuals known to be iden-
tical in shape. Multivariate “residuals” (e.g., discarding the first principal
component and Burnaby’s method) are plagued by similar problems. If one
of the goals of a n analysis is to identify individuals (OTUs) of the same
shape after accounting for overall size differences, then none of these meth-
ods can be recommended. We also reject the assertion that size-adjusted
variables should be uncorrelated with size or “size-free”; rather, whether or
not shape covaries with size is an important empirical determination in any
analysis. Without explicit similarity criteria, “lines of subtraction” can be
very misleading.
Only variables in the Mosimann family of shape ratios allowed u s to
identify different sized individuals of the same shape (“iso-OTUs”). Resid-
uals from isometric lines in logarithmic space, projections of logged data
onto a plane orthogonal to a n isometric vector, and Penrose shape distance
based on logged data are also part of this shape family. Shape defined in this
0 1995 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
138 YEARBOOK O F PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY [Vol. 38, 1995

manner can be significantly correlated with size in allometric data sets

(e.g., guenon craniometrics); ratio shape differences may be largely inde-
pendent of size in narrowly intraspecific or intrasexual data sets (e.g., Na-
tive American anthropometrics). Log-transformations of shape variables
are not always necessary or desirable. We hope our findings encourage other
workers to question the assumptions and utility of residuals as size-adjusted
data and to explore shape and relative size within Mosimann’s explicitly
geometric framework. o 1995 WiIey-Liss, Inc.

Although size is widely regarded as a fundamental aspect of any organism’s

biology that will influence behavior, anatomy and physiology (McMahon and Bon-
ner, 1983; Peters, 1983; Calder, 1984; Schmidt-Nielsen, 1984; Jungers, 1985a;
Damuth and MacFadden, 1990; McGowan, 19941, the goal of many comparative
studies is to assess similarity or differences among taxa after size is taken into
account, controlled for, or “factored out.” In morphometric terms, if we were to take
a suite of the same measurements on a mouse lemur and on a gorilla and did
nothing to adjust for gross differences in scale between the two, we would probably
discover little beyond the obvious fact that Gorilla is larger than Microcebus.
Recognition of this pervasive problem is intuitive and obvious; the choice of a n
analytical strategy and statistical methodology is neither. “Size” itself can be
defined in many different ways depending on one’s biological and statistical goals
(see below), and the task of determining differences in “shape” and relative size
among taxa is especially challenging. As Mosimann and Malley (1979: 175) noted
in their review of size and shape variables, “there are a number of precise, inter-
esting and quite different possible meanings and these need to be distinguished.”
Attempts to provide useful and consistent formulations of size and shape fuel the
current “revolution in morphometrics” (Rohlf and Marcus, 1993; see also Rohlf,
1990; Bookstein, 1991; and Richtsmeier et al., 1992). Although 2-D and 3-D coor-
dinates of landmark points are championed as the data of choice in geometric
morphometrics, profound disagreement exists over their analysis (e.g.,Lele, 1991,
1993). Whereas size is defined as a n attribute of a n organism (e.g., centroid size),
most coordinate-based methods of shape analysis focus on shape differences rather
than on shape per se (e.g., finite-element scaling; thin plate splines; Procrustes
superimposition; Euclidean distance matrix analysis). Following Mosimann
(1970), we suggest that shape should also be viewed a s a n intrinsic property of a n
organism rather than a s a changing function of different comparative sets. More-
over, and contrary to repeated predictions of their imminent doom (e.g., Bookstein,
1978, 1991), interpoint distances remain important sources of information in the
study of size and shape.
Whether one is dealing with linear dimensions, areas or volumes, it is not un-
common for shape to be redefined as “relative size.” Ratios and residuals represent
competing expressions of shape within this relative framework, and both formula-
tions have their advocates and detractors; e.g., compare Lemen (1983) and Cor-
ruccini (1987,1995) to Reist (1985) and Albrecht et al. (1993,1995).Some workers
have approached this problem by partitioning multivariate distance coefficients
into separate size and shape distances (Penrose, 1954; Spielman, 1973; Relethford,
1984; Vasulu and Pal, 19891, while others have tried to sweep size from discrim-
inant functions (Burnaby, 1966) or principal components (Flessa and Bray, 1977;
Humphries et al., 1981; Bookstein et al., 1985; Somers, 1986, 1989). Apparently
new solutions to the same problem continue to appear (e.g., Darroch and Mosi-
mann, 1985; Kazmierczak, 1985, 1986; Rohlf and Bookstein, 1987; Howells, 1989;
Albrecht et al., 1993; Richtsmeier and Lele, 1993).
The goal of this review is to explore further the distinguishing features of ratios
and residuals and their possible connections to other methods of “size-adjustment’’
and shape analysis in comparative studies. Eleven alternative techniques are eval-
uated here in application to two very different data sets, one broadly interspecific
Jungers et al.1 SHAPE AND RELATIVE SIZE 139

(craniometrics of cercopithecine crania), and one narrowly intraspecific (anthro-

pometrics of male Native Americans). As a preliminary to detailing our materials
and methods, we offer a brief review and graphical depiction of the concepts geo-
metric similarity and allometry in both raw and logarithmic data space.
GEOMETRIC SIMILARITY AND ALLOMETRY
“Geometric similarity” is usually taken to be synonymous with “isometry” in
analyses of scaling. In simplest terms, this implies that shape is preserved among
organisms of different sizes. In raw data space, points lying on the same positively
directed ray emanating from the origin exhibit this quality (Fig. la). The ratio of
Y/X will be the same for all points on the line Y = m,X; other slopes (e.g., m2 and
m3 here) imply different isometric shape vectors (Mosimann, 1970; Mosimann and
James, 1979; Bookstein, 1989). Isometry in logarithmic space is revealed by lines
with a slope of 1.0 (Huxley, 1932; Gould, 1966,1977); again, the ratio of YIX is the
same for all points on such a line (Fig. lb). Different isometric shape vectors are
parallel but different in elevation.
“Allometry” refers to nonisometric scaling, wherein shape changes as a function
of size; geometric similarity is not preserved. Many functions describe allometric
relationships in raw data space (Bookstein et al., 1985; Albrecht et al., 1993). For
example, any linear function with a non-zero intercept (e.g., Y = m,X + b, in
Figure lc) implies that the ratio YIX will change as a function of X (“linear
allometry”). Power functions can also describe allometric changes. The “full allo-
metric” data model of Y = mlXkl + b, and the “simple allometric” data model
Y = m3Xk3(Albrecht et al., 1993) describe curvilinear distortions in shape. Simple
allometry is frequently described in log-log plots by straight lines with slopes
greater than or less than 1.O (“positive” and “negative” allometry, respectively;
Fig. Id). Obviously, curvilinear and even segmented linear relationships in loga-
rithmic space could reflect allometric changes in the ratio Y/X (e.g., Chappell,
1989; Deacon, 1990; Koops and Grossman, 1993). If shape is defined explicitly and
in advance, then isometry and allometry can also be disclosed by nonsignificant
versus significant correlations between shape and size (Mosimann and James,
1979; Falsetti et al., 1993).
It will be shown below that some size-adjustments can behave very poorly when
allometric relationships characterize a given data set. It is recommended that all
variables be examined for isometry versus allometry prior to any size-adjustment.
The variables in the two data sets used here are tested in both raw and logarithmic
spaces, with isometry as the null hypothesis (raw H,: linear intercept = 0; log H,:
slope = 1.0).
SAMPLES AND MEASUREMENTS
Our interspecific sample is drawn from the summary data base provided in the
comparative study of guenon craniometrics by Verheyen (1962).Males and females
of 13 species (i.e., 26 operational taxonomic units or OTUs) ranging in size from
talapoin monkeys to patas monkeys are included in the analyses (Fig. 2). Due to
significant sexual dimorphism in cranial size in many species, sex-specific means
of 16 linear measurements are used to describe aspects of cranial size and shape in
this sample of cercopithecines (also see Martin and MacLarnon, 1988). Taxa, sam-
ple sizes, and variables are listed in Table 1.
Our intraspecific sample is taken from the extensive Franz Boas data base on
Native North Americans curated a t the Univeristy of Tennessee-Knoxville (Jantz
et al., 1992). Males from 20 different populations from the Pacific Northwest and
Western Plateau regions of North America are examined here. Mean values for 12
different anthropometric variables (six body, six head) are included in all analyses.
The 20 OTUs or groups (with their “cultural area”), sample sizes and variables are
summarized in Table 2 (also see Falsetti, 1989). Figure 3 is a photograph of an
Inuit male and female taken from the archives of the Department Library Ser-
vices, American Museum of Natural History.
140 I‘EARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY [Vol. 38, 1995

lsometrv in Raw Date Space Isometry in Logarithmic Space

V
X LOG X

Allornetrv in Raw Date SDace Allometry in Logarithmic Space

I I

logY=k, logX+logm,

logy=k210gX+logm2
(k,cl .O)

U
/ LOG X
I d
X

Fig. 1. Graphical display of isometric and allometric functions in raw and logarithmic data spaces.
Isometry or geometric similarity (ie., equal ratios of YIX) is indicated in raw space by positively directed
rays emanating from the origin (0,O).In logarithmic data models, these rays are translated into parallel
linear relationships with slopes equal to 1.0. Many linear and nonlinear equations describe allometry
(i.e., ratios of YIX change as a function of X) in both raw and logarithmic plots. See text for descriptions
of a-d.

CRITERIA FOR A SUCCESSFUL SIZE-ADJUSTMENT

In order to evaluate objectively the efficacy of the 11methods of size-adjustment
(described below) in recovering shape information, we have adopted Lemen’s
(1983) strategy of creating hypothetical OTUs known to be different in size but
identical in shape to one of the OTUs included in each sample (also see Corruccini,
1987, 1995). The male vervet (Cercopzthecus aethiops) was selected for the inter-
specific craniometric analyses, and the Inuit male was designated for the intraspe-
cific anthropometric study. Geometrically similar or isometric versions of each
reference OTU were created by scalar multiplication of all variables in the sample:
0.67 (small) and 1.33 (large) for “iso-vervets”; 0.98 (small) and 1.04 (large) for
“iso-Inuits.”
The objective criterion adopted here for s a n e shape between any pair of OTUs is
a zero average taxonomic (Euclidean) distance (or ATD; Sneath and Sokal, 1973).
Only those size-adjustments that produce zero ATDs among the male vervet and
Jungers et al.] SHAPE AND RELATIVE SIZE 141

Miopithecus talupoin 0

Cercopithecus aethiops B

Erythrocebus patas 0
Fig. 2. Frontal and lateral views of crania of a male talapoin monkey (top), a male vervet (middle) and
a male patas monkey (bottom). Images are modified from plates in Verheyen (19621, and reduced to
approximately similar size. Note that many aspects of cranial shape change as a function of size differ-
ences (from the small talapoin monkey to the large patas monkey).
142 YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY [Vol. 38, 1995

TABLE 1 , Interspecific sample of cercopithecine (guenon) craniometrics

SpecieslSex Sample size Measurements (mm)
Allenopithecus nigrooirdis F 7 Postorbital constriction
A . nigrovirdis M 6 Foramen magnum length
Cercopithecus aethiops F 9 Lambda to Opisthion
C. aethiops M 10 Bizygomatic breadth
Cercopithecus ascanius F 10 Interorbital breadth
C. ascanius M 10 Orbit height
Cercopithecus cephus F 9 Nasal aperture width
C. cephus M 10 Palate breadth
Cercopithecus diana F 5 Symphyseal height
C. diana M 7 Ascending ramus height
Cercopithecus l’hoesti F 8 Mandible length
C. l’hoesti M 11 Bieuryal breadth
Cercopithecus mitis F 10 Prosthion to Inion
C. mitis M 11 Basion to Nasion
Cercopithecus neglectus F 10 Staphylion to Basion
C. neglectus M 15 Basion to Prosthion
Cercopithecus nictitans F 5
C. nictitans M 9
Cercopithecus mona F 10
C. mona M 10
Cercopithecus hamlyni F 4
C. hamlyni M 2
Erythrocebus patas F 7
E. patas M 9
Miopithecus talapoin F 7
M . talapoin M 10
From Verheyen (1962).

TABLE 2. Intraspecific sample of male Native American anthropometrics

Group Cultural area N Measurements (mm)
Inuit Arctic (A) 51 Standing height
Carrier Subarctic (S) 29 Shoulder height
Chilcotin Subarctic (S) 34 Finger height
Tahltan Subarctic (S) 18 Finger reach
Kwakiutl NW Coast (N) 56 Sitting height
Makah NW Coast (N) 46 Shoulder width
Stalo NW Coast (N) 31 Head length
Tsimshian NW Coast (N) 97 Head width
Bannock Great Basin (G) 26 Facial height
Cayuse Great Basin (G) 15 Facial width
Ute Great Basin (G) 115 Nose height
Paiute Great Basin (G) 82 Nose breadth
Coahuilla California (C) 46
Conca California (C) 34
Hoopa California (C) 44
San Luis California (C) 75
Lillooet Plateau (PI 83
Shushwap Plateau (P) 152
Thompson Plateau (PI 132
Wasco Plateau (P) 23
From the Franz Boas database at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville

two iso-vervets and among the male Inuit and two iso-Inuits are considered to be
successful, appropriate methods for shape analysis. In other words, OTUs of the
same shape or relative size should have no measurable dissimilarity following
size-adjustment.
We note that this criterion departs from that advocated by some workers who
believe that a size-adjustment is successful if and only if the adjusted variables are
uncorrelated with the size variable (e.g., Atchley et al., 1976; Hartman, 1983;
Reist, 1986; Albrecht et al., 1993, 1995). We will demonstrate that such “size-free”
variables usually fail our test of shape similarity (also see Wood, 1978; Bookstein,
1989). We also see no biological rationale that validates the general use of the
Jungers et al.] SHAPE AND RELATIVE SIZE 143

Fig. 3. Photograph of male and female Inuits from the photographic collection of the American Museum
of Natural History (negative no. 1672; courtesy Department Library Services).

zero-correlation rule in morphometric studies (also see Sprent, 1972; Hills, 1978;
Corruccini, 1987; 19951, but defer that discussion to later.
SIZE-RELATEDTRENDS IN THE GUENON AND HUMAN SAMPLES
Size of each OTU in both samples is defined here as the geometric mean of all
variables (16 measurements on guenon crania, 12 on the humans). The geometric
mean is a member of the Mosimann family of size variables (Mosimann, 1970,
144 YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY [Vol. 38, 1995

1975a, 197513, 1987; Mosimann and James, 1979; Mosimann and Malley, 1979)
that also includes “sum size” (the sum of all variables), the “norm” (the square root
of the sum of squared variables), “max X (the largest variable in a suite), and
others. The geometric mean (GM) is computed as the nth root of the product of all
n variables (also see Falsetti et al., 1993);using logged data, the log(GM) is simply
the average of the logged variables. The GM is also the implicit size variable used
both in the multivariate generalization of Huxley’s simple allometry equation
(Jolicoeur, 1963; Mosimann and James, 1979; Jungers and German, 1981) and in
Penrose’s shape distance if logged data are used (Mosimann and Malley, 1979).
Using the GM as the X ( = size) variable, each Y variable in the sample was
regressed on X, both in raw and logarithmic data spaces. Isometry in raw data
space is indicated by the intercept value not significantly different from zero; for
log-log regressions, isometry is indicated by an estimated slope value not signifi-
cantly different from 1.0. Allometry is the best description of a linear relationship
when the intercept is not zero (raw data) or when the slope is greater or less than
1.0 (logged data). The same results (isometric or allometric) obtained for both raw
and logged versions of the test. In the interspecific case, 11of the 16 guenon skull
variables were found to be significantly allometric; the five isometric variables
were bi-zygomatic breadth, nasal aperture width, palate breadth, ascending ramus
height, and the distance between basion and nasion. Dramatic differences in shape
among guenon crania can be appreciated qualitatively in Figure 2, which com-
pares a male talapoin monkey, a male vervet, and a male patas monkey. The
overall situation was very different in the human sample. Only two variables were
best described as allometric, shoulder width and finger reach. Three variables
(head length, head width, and nose breadth) were not significantly correlated with
the size variable; the remaining seven variables can be characterized as isometric
with respect to the GM. In other words, shape differences among the male humans
tended to be few and largely uncorrelated with overall size. The fundamental
differences between the two samples in their scaling patterns impacts strongly on
the various methods of size-adjustment (see below).

SHAPE, RELATIVE SIZE, AND SIZE-ADJUSTMENT

Eleven size-adjustments were applied to all variables in both samples. Size was
again taken as the geometric mean of all variables for each OTU, but the same
general pattern of results will obtain for many other size variables. A brief de-
scription of the calculations follows (virtually all calculations can be made using a
combination of SAS/STATS (SAS Institute, 1989) and NTSYS-pc (Rohlf, 1992;
version 1.7 or higher):
1. RAW-RES refers to vertical residuals from the linear least squares regres-
sion in raw data space (Y = mX + b where X is the GM).
2. LOG-RES are residuals from the linear least squares log-log regression (logy
= klogX + logm); i.e., departures from the logarithmic version of the simple
allometry formula (Y = mXk). The residuals are kept in log values rather
than converted back into linear scale (Hartman, 1983; Smith, 1984).
3 . FULL-EQ variables are calculated as residuals in raw data space from the
least squares “full” equation, an exponential model that permits a nonzero
intercept (Y = mXk + b). The best solution to this nonlinear model appears
to be indeterminate; many full equations produce approximately equal resid-
ual sums of squares (see Albrecht et al., 1993, for additional details of this
model). We used the “best” of the “best lo” option in proc nonlin of the
mainframe version of SATiSTATS (SAS Institutes, 1985) using a wide range
of starting values for the various coefficients.
4. C-SCORES are a type of double-centered size-adjustment formalized re-
cently by Howells (1989). They are calculated for each variable as (zscore -
pensize), where variables are first adjusted to standard form or zscores by
Jungers et al.] SHAPE AND RELATNE SIZE 145

mean-centering and division by the standard deviation over all OTUs, fol-
lowed by subtracting the average of an OTU’s zscores ( = pensize).
5 . DM-RAW are ratios formed by dividing each variable by the geometric mean
(GM) of all variables for that OTU (i.e., Y/GM). DM refers to Darroch and
Mosimann (1985). See Mosimann (1970, 1975a, 1975b, 1987) for additional
details.
6. DM-LOG are simply the logged version of DM-RAW, also calculated as logy
- logGM. The ratios are hopefully transformed to lognormal distributions by
this procedure (Darroch and Mosimann, 19851, but the tests of shape simi-
larity used here are nonparametric in any case. It was discovered by chance
(Jungers and Cole, 1992) that identically adjusted variables are produced by
an “isometric vector” version of the Burnaby method discussed below (see
Rohlf and Bookstein, 1987).
7. K-LOG are size-adjusted variables in the Mosimann shape family developed
by Kazmierczak (1985, 1986; Berge and Kazmierczak, 1986). The “analyse
logarithmique” proceeds in logarithmic space by double mean-centering fol-
lowed by addition of the logged grand mean (also see Chamberlain and Wood,
1987).
8. SIZEOUT refers to a procedure wherein the first principal component (PC1)
of the logged variance-covariance matrix is discarded in the belief that this
axis represents general “size” (Rohlf, 1967; Lemen, 1983; Reist, 1985; Hart-
man, 1988). The scores on the remaining principal components are taken as
size-adjusted data for further analysis. Components 2 through 5 are used here
because the first five principal components account for over 98% (guenons)
and 92% (humans) of the total variance, respectively.
9. BURNABY is a is a size-adjustment inspired by the “growth-invariant” dis-
criminant functions of Burnaby (1966). Assuming again that the first prin-
cipal component of the variance-covariance matrix is a size vector, “size” can
be swept from the data matrix by projecting the logged data onto a plane
orthogonal to that defined by PC1 (Rohlf and Bookstein, 1987). We keep the
adjusted data on logarithmic form here, although they could be antilogged
back into linear scale if desired.
These nine procedures generate size-adjusted data that are then used to
calculate the average taxonomic (Euclidean) distances (ATDs) among all
OTUs in each sample. Recall that our criterion of shape identity is a zero ATD
between any pair of OTUs. We also use Penrose’s (1954) partition of the
squared distances (ATDs) of two data vectors into a “size distance” and a
residual “shape distance” (also see Corruccini, 1973; Sneath and Sokal, 1973:
170). This generates our last two size-adjusted distance matrices (Mosimann
and Malley, 1979):
10. PEN-RAW is the shape distance matrix based on raw data.
11. PEN-LOG is the shape distance matrix based on log-transformed data. Mo-
simann and Malley (1979) demonstrate that this adjustment in logarithmic
space is related closely to the Mosimann family of shape variables in that
the log geometric mean is selected implicitly as the size variable.
For comparative purposes, average taxonomic distances were also computed for
each sample from unadjusted data (RAW) and log-transformed raw data
(LOG-RAW).
Each of the 11“adjusted” ATD matrices for each sample is examined to evaluate
if the iso-vervets and iso-Inuits have been correctly characterized as being identi-
cal in shape; i.e., to see if there are zero ATDs among the geometrically similar
OTUs. The mean and standard deviation of the distances in the minimum span-
ning tree are provided as reference values for each type of distance matrix.
In order to compare the various methods, we also compute pair-wise matrix
correlations among all 11 ATD adjusted matrices and the two unadjusted ATD
matrices for each sample. The resulting 13-by-13 matrix of matrix correlations is
146 YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY [Vol. 38, 1995

TABLE 3. Average taxonomic distances among Cercopithecus aethiops (male) and “iso-ueruets”using
various methods of size adjustment
Distance matrix format
Small iso-vervet Male vervet Large iso-vervet
Small is0 0
Male * 0
Large is0 * * 0
[ j r , sd of minimum spanning tree]’

RAW-RES FULL-EQ LOG-RES

0 0 n
2.86 0 2.59 0 0.10 0
5.70 2.84 0 5.84 3.37 0 0.17 0.07 0
L1.28, 0.481 i1.31, 0.501 10.04, 0.021
DM-RAW DM-LOG K-LOG
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r0.04, 0.021 r0.05, 0.02) r0.05, 0.021
PEN-RAW PEN-LOG C-SCORE
0 0 0
87.7 0 0 0 0.46 0
347 86.2 0 0 0 0 0.92 0.46 0
L5.97, 11.971 10.002, 0.002l 10.05, 0.021
SIZEOUT BURNABY
0 0
0.05 0 0.10 0
0.08 0.03 0.17 0.07 0
10.02, 0.011 10.04, 0.021
‘The mean ( 9 ) and standard deviation (sd) of the distances in the minimum spanning tree are provided as reference
values. For example, the distances for iso-vervets implied by LOG-RES and SIZEOUT appear to be absolutely small, but
they are really relatively very large (i.e., two to four times the average distance).

then summarized in graphical form using the “unweighted pair-group method,

arithmetic average” or UPGMA clustering algorithm (also see Sneath and Sokal,
1973; Lemen, 1983; Reist, 1985). Differences in results and possible inferences
drawn from them about similarity are also highlighted by comparing selected
distance matrices via OTU phenograms (also UPGMA) and their strict consensus
clustering.

RESULTS OF ALTERNATIVE SIZE-ADJUSTMENTS

Tests of “same shape”
Using the criterion developed above that organisms of identical shape should
have no measureable distance between them after differences in scale are elimi-
nated, Tables 3 and 4 summarize the observed differences among OTUs known to
be geometrically similar, or isometric versions of each other.
Of the 11 size-adjustments applied to the guenon craniometric database, only
four are successful by this criterion: DM-RAW, DM-LOG, K-LOG, and
PEN-LOG. All pair-wise distances between the male vervet and the two iso-
vervets are zero using these methods. Note that all four are based on adjusted
data from the Mosimann family of shape variables, and by design and definition
must fit our criterion of “same shape” (see below). All three forms of residuals
failed the test based on this criterion, as did C-SCORES, PENRAW, SIZEOUT and
BURNABY. In comparison to other non-zero distance matrices, the distances be-
tween iso-vervets using the LOG-RES, SIZEOUT and BURNABY adjustments
appear to be relatively small, but this is because they are computed using logged
data. In fact, the average of the minimum spanning tree values for the LOG-RES
distance matrix is only 0.04, so values of 0.07 to 0.17 are really quite large. Sim-
ilarly, the 0.08 distance between small and large iso-vervets using the SIZEOUT
Jungers et al.] SHAPE A N D RELATIVE SIZE 147

TABLE 4 . Average taxonomic distances among Inuit males and “iso-Inuits” using various methods of
size adjustment
Distance matrix format
Small iso-Inuit Male Inuit Large iso-Inuit
Small is0 0
Male * 0
Large is0 * * 0
[ic, sd of minimum spanning tree]
RAW-RES FULL-EQ LOG-RES
0 0 0
4.12 0 4.11 0 0.01 0
12.3 8.21 0 12.3 8.22 0 0.02 0.01 0
18.16, 3.011 L8.15, 3.001 L0.03, 0.011
DM-RAW DM-LOG K LOG
0 0 0-
00 00 00
000 000 000
L0.03, 0.011 L0.02, 0.011 10.02, 0.011
PEN-RAW PEN-LOG C SCORE
0 0 0-
142 0 00 0.22 0
1560 568 0 000 0.66 0.44 0
t95,551 t0.005, 0.0031 10.64, 0.191
SIZEOUT BURNABY
0 0
0.02 0 0.04 0
0.03 0.01 0 0.06 0.02 0
10.01. 0.0051 r0.02.0.0ii
2. sd as in Table 3

method is relatively very large, inasmuch as it is the largest distance observed

between any pair of OTUs in the sample.
A similar result obtains in the Native American sample. Of the 11adjustments,
again only the four Mosimann-like techniques correctly (and necessarily) disclose
zero distances among the iso-Inuits and the male Inuit. The apparently small
distances reported for LOG-RES, SIZEOUT, and BURNABY are again largely a n
artifact of the logarithmic space in which they were computed (e.g., the average
value of the minimum spanning tree for the Native Americans based on LOG-RES
is only 0.03).

Similarity among methods

Comparisons of the 11methods are presented as matrix correlations in Tables 5
and 6. Inspection of these correlation coefficients discloses the fact that several
methods are remarkably similar in both the interspecific (guenon) and intraspe-
cific (human) samples. For example, despite differences in variable standardiza-
tion between DM-LOG (no standardization) and K-LOG (standardized by the
grand mean), their respective distance matrices are perfectly correlated. Distances
computed from residuals in raw data space are also very similar for both the linear
(RAW-RES) and curvilinear (FULL-EQ) models in both data sets. The BURN-
ABY and SIZEOUT strategies yield very similary results; if all of the principal
component scores are used except those associated with the first axis (rather than
only two to five used here) in SIZEOUT, the two methods converge upon the same
values.
Recognition of patterns in the correlations between methods is greatly facili-
tated by examining how they cluster (UPGMA of the 13-by-13 matrix of distance
matrix correlations). Figure 4 is a phenogram of methods for the guenon data set.
Two distinct clusters are apparent. The three residual based methods are very
similar overall to the BURNABY, SIZEOUT, and C-SCORES techniques. The
148 YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY [Vol. 38, 1995

TABLE 5. Matrix of distance matrix correlations between methods for size-adjustment

in guenon craniometrics
RAW- FULL- LOG- DM- DM- K- PEN- PEN- C- BURN- SIZE- LOG-
RES EQ RES RAW LOG __ LOG RAW LOG SCORES ABY OUT RAW RAW
RAW-RES 1.00
FULL-EQ 0.99 1.00
LOG-RES 0.76 0.74 1.00
DM-RAW 0.36 0.37 0.23 1.00
DM-LOG 0.37 0.38 0.45 0.90 1.00
K-LOG 0.37 0.38 0.45 0.90 1.00 1.00
PEN-RAW 0.42 0.45 0.19 0.60 0.51 0.50 1.00
PEN-LOG 0.35 0.37 0.41 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.57 1.00
C-SCORES 0.88 0.87 0.91 0.41 0.54 0.54 0.33 0.50 1.00
BURNABY 0.77 0.74 0.99 0.20 0.42 0.42 0.18 0.38 0.90 1.00
SIZEOUT 0.76 0.74 0.98 0.19 0.41 0.41 0.20 0.38 0.88 0.98 1.00
RAW 0.46 0.27 0.39 0.51 0.59 0.94 0.54 0.48 0.51 0.26 0.27 1.00
LOG-RAW 0.39 0.35 0.39 0.58 0.62 -
0.88 0.62 0.41 0.58 0.34 0.34 0.96 1.00

TABLE 6. Matrix of distance matrix correlations between methods for size-adjustment

in human anthropometrics
RAW- FULL- LOG- DM- DM- K- PEN- PEN- C- BURN- SIZE- LOG-
RES EQ RES RAW LOG LOG RAW LOG SCORES ABY OUT RAW RAW
RAW-RES 1.00
FULL-EQ 1.00 1.00
LOG-RES 0.51 0.51 1.00
DM-RAW 0.90 0.90 0.49 1.00
DM-LOG 0.48 0.48 0.97 0.54 1.00
K-LOG 0.48 0.48 0.97 0.54 1.00 1.00
PEN-RAW 0.50 0.50 0.31 0.41 0.30 0.30 1.00
PEN-LOG 0.42 0.42 0.96 0.46 0.97 0.97 0.30 1.00
C-SCORE 0.68 0.68 0.89 0.69 0.90 0.90 0.51 0.85 1.00
BURNABY 0.48 0.48 0.32 0.61 0.38 0.38 0.65 0.34 0.53 1.00
SIZEOUT 0.47 0.47 0.29 0.60 0.35 0.35 0.64 0.31 0.50 0.99 1.00
RAW 0.40 0.26 0.44 0.96 0.27 0.33 0.27 0.27 0.40 0.68 0.67 1.00
LOG-RAW 0.43 0.83 0.81 0.56 0.85 0.50 0.85 0.85 0.43 0.70 0.68 0.59 1.00

other cluster includes a tight grouping of DM-LOG, K-LOG, DM-RAW jointed

more distantly by PEN-RAW, RAW and LOG-RAW. With respect to the human
data set (Figure 5), the methods tend to cluster more on the basis of raw versus
logarithmic data models. RAW-RES, FULL-EQ and DM-RAW are quite similar.
A second cluster consists of LOG-RES, DM-LOG, K-LOG, and PEN-LOG;
C-SCORES and LOG-RAW link with this log-based grouping. BURNABY and
SIZEOUT are linked weakly to PEN-RAW and RAW, and this last cluster is quite
dissimilar overall to the other nine analytical stategies. The basis of these differ-
ences between the guenon and human data sets will be considered shortly, but it
has a great deal to do with the prevalence of allometry in one set (guenonsf and
little size-correlated shape differences in the other (human).
Inferences about shape similarity among OTUs in each sample also vary as a
function of the method of size-adjustment. For example, Figure 6a-c compares the
UPGMA phenograms of the FULL-EQ and DM-RAW distance matrices and their
strict consensus (or lack thereof?) phenogram for guenons. Note again that the
FULL-EQ method (Fig. 6a) fails to identify the identically shaped vervet male and
iso-vervets. The small iso-vervet is depicted as most similar to male Allenopithecus
whereas the large iso-vervet is grouped with nothing. Using DM-RAW the vervet
male and iso-vervets are correctly linked with zero distances among them (Fig. 6b);
skull shape of this group is shown to be most similar overall to male C. rnitis and
male C . nictitans. The male and female talapoin monkeys link together but are
depicted as quite dissimilar from all other guenons. As a general rule, males of
different species tend to group together as do females on the basis of skull shape.
Jungers et al.] SHAPE AND RELATIVE SIZE 149

I I

L
UPGMA of A1 1 Met hods: Guenons
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
RAU-RES
FULL-EQ
LOG-RfS
BURNABY
SIZEOUT
C_SCORf S
DM-LOG
FEN-LOG
DM-RAW

Fig. 4. UPGMA phenogram that summarizes the correlations among the 11size-adjustment techniques
and raw data applied to guenon craniometrics (Table 5). See text for the abbreviations and discussion of
each method.
I

I 0.2
UPGMA of A1 1 Met hods: Humans
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

ES

I rDTI\I D

Fig. 5. UPGMA phenogram that summarizes the correlations among the I1 methods of size-adjustment
and raw data applied to Native American anthropometrics. (Table 6).

The only point of consensus between these two methods of size-adjustment is in

their linkages of male and female talapoins and male and female C . ascanius.
The situation is similar in some ways for the human sample if the UPGMA
phenogram from FULL-EQ is compared to that for DM-LOG. The small iso-Inuit
(a 98% scalar version of the male Inuit) is shown as similar but not identical to the
male Inuit (Fig. 7a), whereas the large (104%)iso-Inuit is linked to the Lillooet and
Kwakiutl groups in another adjacent cluster. The Hoopas show little afinity to
any of the other groups. In contrast, the DM-LOG solution places the Tahltans as
the outgroup to all other OTUs (Fig. 7b); the Inuit male and its isometric versions
are correctly clustered with zero distances among them. The only element of con-
sensus (Fig. 7c) between the two methods is the clustering of the male Inuit with
the slightly smaller iso-Inuit. Clearly, one's inferences about phenetic resemblance
and its potential biological significance would be impacted greatly by the choice of
size-adjustment.
4
i
UPGMA of
3
Residuals fr-om Full Equation: Guenons
2 1 -0
1
LouUer v
A.niqr o v i r d15-m
C.neqlect us-m
C. pat as-m
A.nigrovirdis_f
C.aet h i ops-f
C.mona-f
C.mona_m
C.ascanius-f
C.ascanius_m
M.t alapoin-f
I M.t alapoin-m
C. aet hiops-m
C.di aria-f
C.neglectus_f
C. cephus- f
C. m i t I5- f
C . n i c t i f ans-f
r ~

- 4 C.cephus-m
C.nict i tans-m
C.d i aria-m
C.I’hoesr i - f
i C.l’hoest i -m
C.ham1yni-f
C.hamlyni_m

Hiqhver v

UPGMA of D&M Shape Uauiables: Guenons

0.16 0.12 0.08 0.04 -0.00
I LouUer v
HI qhver v
F _ C.aethiops-m
C.mi t 1s-m

-
C.l’hoest i _ m
C.hamlyni-m
A.nigrovirdis_m

b C.ascanius_f
- C.ascanius-m
- C.l’hoest i _ f
 Jungers et al.] SHAPE AND R E L A T N E SIZE 151

0.7
C o n s e n s u s bet ween R e s i d u a l s and Rat 10s: Guenons
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3
A
I LouUer v
IILLJIIVCI Y

A.nigr o v i r d i s - f
A. n i qr ovi r di 5-m
C. aer h i op5-f
C.aerhiops-m
C. ascani us-f
C.ascani us-m
C.ceohus f
C.cephus:m
C.diana_f
C.diana_m
C.l’hoesii-f
C.l’hoesf i - m
C--c C.mitis_f
C.mitis_m
C.neglect us-i
C.neglectus-m
C.nict it am-f
C.nictitans-m
[.paras-f
[.pat a5-m
n. i a l a p o i n - f
kralaooin m
c.mond_f
C.mona_m
C. haml y n i _ f
C. haml qni _ m

Fig. 6 . a: UPGMA phenogram that summarizes the average taxonomic distances among guenon taxa
(and sexes) using residuals from the “full equation,” Y = mXk + b. b: UPGMA phenogram based on
Mosimann (D&M) shape variables. c: Strict consensus phenogram of a and b. The isometric version of the
male vervet are denoted by LOVERV (the 67% scalar version) and HIVERV (the 133% version).

DISCUSSION AND SOME RECOMMENDATIONS

As Preuschoft (1989: 89) noted in his review of quantitative approaches to pri-
mate morphology: “Most methods of size-correction fall into one of two categories:
(1)ratios between variables, or (2) deviations from allometric regression lines,
based on some variable selected to represent ‘size.”’

Residuals
Residuals have a variety of important statistical functions in regression analysis
(Mosteller and Tukey, 1977; Draper and Smith, 1981; Sokal and Rohlf, 1981).They
are frequently examined to see if the assumptions of a linear model have been met
(e.g., randomly scattered above and below the line as opposed to patterned behav-
ior or residual autocorrelations), and they help to identify outliers or especially
influential observations. Residuals are also widely employed as size-adjusted or
“corrected” data in many contexts, including their application to the study of life
history variables (Pagel and Harvey, 1988; Harvey and Pagel, 1991; Steams, 1992;
Allman et al., 1993). Allometric relationships are assumed to be meaningful “cri-
teria of subtraction” (Pilbeam and Gould, 1974; Gould, 1975; Sweet, 1980; Smith,
1984), and residuals “are of interest because they represent variation in a charac-
ter away from a n expected or detected trend” (Pagel and Harvey, 1988). These
critical assumptions are examined in greater detail below. Many morphometric
studies also use residuals as adjusted, “corrected’ or “size-free’’ data (e.g., Kay,
152 YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY [Vol. 38, 1995

a-- fl

Fig. 7. a: UPGMA phenogram that summarizes the average taxonomic distances among Native Amer-
ican groups using residuals from the full equation. b UPGMA phenogram based on logged Darroch and
Mosimann (1985)shape variables. c: Strict consensus phenogram of a and b. Group and cultural area
abbreviations follow Table 2 very closely. LOINUIT and HIINUIT refer to the isometric versions of the
male Inuit (98% and 1049'0, respectively).
Jungers et al.1 SHAPE AND RELATIVE SIZE 153

1975, 1978; Atchley, 1978; Manaster, 1979; Susman and Creel, 1979; Healey and
Tanner, 1981; Feldesman, 1982; Hartman, 1983; Creel, 1986; Godfrey, 1988;
Jungers, 1988; Martin and MacLarnon, 1988; Wilson and Loesch, 1989; Losos,
1990; Ravosa, 1991a, 1991b; Takahashi, 1990; Ruliang et al., 1991; Moore and
Cheverud, 1992; Albrecht et al., 1993; Anthony and Kay, 1993). Note that partial
correlations applied to morphometric data are “residuals in disguise” inasmuch as
a partial correlation between two variables with size held constant or removed
(e.g., Harvey and Zammuto, 1985; Losos, 1990; Steudel, 1994) is equivalent to
computing a correlation between the residuals of each variable regressed on the
size variable (Kerlinger and Pedhazur, 1973237). Residuals are usually defended
on the basis of their zero-correlation with the X (size) variable; size is said to be
removed or controlled for by this analytical strategy.
The results of this study are consistent with earlier critiques of residuals. Re-
siduals are by definition size-free, but they are also frequently shape-free, espe-
cially when allometry is present in the data set. Residuals usually do not recognize
OTUs of the same shape or relative size (Lemen, 1983; Corruccini, 1987,1995); i.e.,
OTUs of identical shape can and usually do have different residual values. This
undesirable error is evident in Albrecht et al.’s Table 1 (1995: 196); by a residual
definition, two squares are characterized as different! A simple “thought experi-
ment” makes this point in a slightly different way: two points of an allometric
vector differ in their respective ratios of YIX (after all, that is why the relationship
is described as allometric), yet because they both fall on the line they have zero
residuals and are “equal” in shape or relative size by the residual definition (also
see Figure 1in Corruccini, 1987).The critical and perhaps unconscious assumption
being made by some advocates of residuals is that virtually any observed relation-
ship is not merely a description of how things are; they necessarily assume that the
relationship is how things must be. Contrary to this Panglossian assumption
(Gould and Lewontin, 19791,the many lines we draw through data, whether linear
or curvilinear, in raw or logarithmic data space, are merely empirical, quantitative
descriptions that require explanation themselves (Giles, 1956; Jungers, 1984); to
automatically reify them all into valid “criteria of subtraction” is overly optimistic
at best (e.g., Pilbeam and Gould, 1974; Gould, 1975; Page1 and Harvey, 1988;
Steams, 1992) and potentially very misleading. The problem is even more vexing
in the analysis of life history variables, for which there are usually no explicit
similarity criteria.
The statistical requirement of independence between size and shape (i.e., the
zero-correlation criterion of residuals) has no biological justification (Sprent, 1972;
Hills, 1978; Corruccini, 1987, 1995). Within this size-free framework, shape infor-
mation is discarded simply because it is correlated with size. The use of such
regression residuals therefore “nearly destroys the possibility of size-shape anal-
ysis at all” (Bookstein, 1989: 178). As Oxnard (1978: 233) astutely observed some
time ago, the “fact that some aspects of shape are correlated with size does not
mean they are size.” Without explicit similarity criteria derived from first princi-
ples, it is not obvious how shape can be meaningfully partitioned into “allometric”
and “nonallometric” components. Residual definitions of shape or relative size also
necessarily change as a function of the comparative set or sample used to construct
the criterion of subtraction (Corruccini, 1987, 1995); i.e., shape becomes sample-
specific rather than an intrinsic property of the organism.
Regression residuals are also strongly influenced by the statistical leverages
associated with the smallest and largest individuals in a given sample (Susman
and Creel, 1979; Sokal and Rohlf, 1981; Corruccini, 1987, 1995; Hartman, 1988).
This also tends to make the smallest and largest individuals unrealistically sim-
ilar in residual terms, especially when allometry prevails; e.g., gibbons and goril-
las become “inappropriately similar” (Hartman, 1988: 13). This problem is dem-
onstrated dramatically in the study by Corruccini et al. (1983, wherein residual-
based cranial shape in squirrel monkeys is more similar to that of goats and cows
than to chimpanzees! Contrary to the conclusions reached by Reist (1985),Albrecht
154 YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY [Vol. 38, 1995

et al. (1993) and others, we agree with Wood (1978), Lemen (1983), Corruccini
(1987, 1995) and Hartman (1988) that residuals have no necesary or very useful
connection to shape analysis, especially when it can be demonstrated that signif-
icant shape changes accompany differences in size.
For many of the same reasons, we question the utility of “encephalization quo-
tients” in broad-scale comparisons of relative brain size because they are merely
residuals expressed in percentage form (Smith, 1984; also see Cartmill, 1990),and
will change as a function of the comparative set (Holloway and Post, 1982).Again,
without explicit similarity criteria for “equivalence’’in brain size-body size com-
parisons, the various competing regressions are merely sample-specific, empirical
descriptions of strongly allometric trends. Very small and very large animals will
exert the most statistical leverage on each regression, and will appear to be unduly
“similar” in degree of encephalization despite enormous differences in their ratios
of brain mass to body mass; the primary allometric signal is discarded because it
is assumed that the way the brain size scales is the way it must scale. We acknowl-
edge the frequent need to compare relative brain size, and submit that “narrow
allometric” (sensu Smith, 1980) contrasts of brain mass-body mass ratios in size-
matched taxa can be useful in this regard.
Multivariate residuals
Discarding the first principal component (SIZEOUT)or using a Burnaby (1966)
projection onto a plane orthogonal to the first axis (BURNABY) is almost equiv-
alent to using residuals in a multivariate fashion if the first axis explains the
overwhelming majority of the variance (Bookstein, 1989). As Jolicoeur (1963) rec-
ognized in his multivariate generalization of the “allometry equation,’’ the first
principal component of the logged variance-covariance matrix describes “relative
growth” or size-related shape changes (also see Shea, 1985; James and McCulloch,
1990). It is not a simple size vector or latent measure of size. Discarding it (e.g.,
Flessa and Bray, 1977; Froehlich et al., 1991) or using it as “standard measure” of
size (e.g., Creighton and Strauss, 1986) appears to be a bad idea and subject to the
same caveats discussed above for residuals (Healey and Tanner, 1981; Lemen,
1983; Hartman, 1988). In those data sets where the first component does not
explain most of the variance (e.g., Cheverud, 1982; more generally, in static adult,
intraspecific data sets such as the Native American sample used here where PC1
accounts for only 36% of the total variance), it is inappropriate to characterize it as
either an allometric or size vector. This difference helps to explain why SIZEOUT
and BURNABY techniques cluster with the residual-based methods of adjustment
in the guenon sample but not in the intraspecific human sample.
Cscores
Although they have been used recently as size-adjusted data (e.g., Howells, 1989;
Brace and Hunt, 1990; Brace and Tracer, 19921,cscores cannot be recommended for
some of the same reasons that lead us to discourage the use of residuals. OTUs of
the same shape are not recognized as such by the Howells’ (1989)simple procedure.
Because the data set is first mean-centered and standardized by variable over all
OTUs, zscores, pensize and the resulting cscores will also be sample-specific and
change as a function of their comparative set (also see Corruccini, 1973).
Penrose size and shape
Our results also support Mosimann and Malley’s (1979) conclusion that Pen-
rose’s (1954)partition of squared Euclidean distance in raw space into size-distance
and shape-distance is ill-advised. Using this method, nonzero shape distances
among geometrically similar OTUs were computed for both data sets examined
here. Mosimann and Malley also noted, however, that when logged data are used,
Penrose’s partition of distance falls into the Mosimann family of size and shape
variables (e.g., size is taken as the geometric mean). Our results verify this obser-
vation; PEN-LOW clustered with DM-LOG and K-LOG, and ordinations of taxa
Jungers et al.] SHAPE AND RELATIVE SIZE 155

using the Penrose logged shape distance are quite similar to those based on dis-
tance matrices constructed directly from logged Mosimann shape variables when
the geometric mean is selected as size.
Mosimann shape ratios
By design and simple algebra, the ratio approaches to size-adjustment and shape
analysis (DM-RAW, DM-LOG, and K-LOG) necessarily satisfy our criterion of
faithfully recognizing isometric versions of OTUs. Shape variables in the Mosi-
mann framework have been applied productively to a variety of problems (e.g.,
Darroch and Mosimann, 1985; Berge and Kazmierczak, 1986; Chamberlain and
Wood, 1987; Jungers et al., 1988, 1991; Berge, 1991; Jungers and Cole, 1992;
Kidder et al., 1992; Simmons et al., 1991; Falsetti et al., 1993; Grine et al., 1993;
Richmond and Jungers, 1995). Shape or relative size remains a function of the
individual OTU rather than an OTUs comparative set.
Albrecht et al. (1993) argue that ratio adjustments are to be recommended only
when their correlations with size are zero (i.e., when they behave like residuals).
They also believe that the goal of “most workers” who use ratios do so to “control”
or “eliminate” all size effects in data sets comprising OTUs of different sizes. We
reject the first stipulation as a statistical straw man (see above), and question the
accuracy and generality of the second claim (also see Corruccini, 1995:189).Shape
ratios are scale-free in the sense that they are dimensionless variables. Such ratios
may or may not be correlated with size, but that is ultimately an empirical deter-
mination (Mosimann and James, 1979; Corruccini, 1995).For example, most of the
shape variables (whether DM-RAW, DM-LOG, or K-LOG) in the guenon data set
are correlated with the geometric mean; significant shape differences are obvious
between small (usually female) and large (usually male) crania (Fig. 2). It makes
no biological or logical sense to discard this important information about size- and
sex-related differences simply because there is a non-zero correlation between
craniometric size and shape. Shape ratios created the same way in the human
anthropometric data set tend not to be correlated with size (geometric mean), but
this result is not very surprising in view of the lack of allometry in the data set. As
Mosimann (1987) reminds us, “there is certainly no guarantee that division by a
size variable produces shape measurements uncorrelated with size, because, in
fact, shape and size often are correlated.”
When the total variances associated with raw versus shape data are compared,
the reduction associated with shape variables can range from modest (Darroch and
Mosimann, 1985)to dramatic (e.g., Jungers et al., 1988).The reduction in variance
is in some ways a measure of how much “size” has been removed from the data set
(Darroch and Mosimann, 1985). Size extracted by Mosimann’s ratio methods can
be called “isometric size” (Oxnard, 1978) or “geometric size” (Bookstein, 1989).
Isometric size can be swept from the data set by creating shape variables of the
form Y/GM or by projecting the data onto a plane orthogonal to an isometric vector
(Rohlf and Bookstein, 1987; Jungers and Cole, 1992); these are equivalent opera-
tions when logged data are used. Obviously, one needs to exercise judgment and
care in selecting a relevant size variable for ratio adjustments because definitions
of allometry and geometric similarity will be specific to this choice (Mosimann,
1970). This recommendation extends to all studies of size and shape, however,
including the choice of size in geometric morphometrics (e.g., centroid size, area,
median chord length, etc.). Depending on the goals of the study, one might wish to
use the cube root of mass as the size variable (e.g., Sneath and Sokal, 1973;
Jungers, 1985b;Vogel, 1988).It is also possible to create a Mosimann-like measure
of size that is independent of shape for multivariate lognormal samples (Sampson
and Siegel, 1985).
Alternative expressions of Mosimann shape
Variables created as residuals to isometric base lines are also part of the Mosi-
mann-family of shape variables (Lemen, 1983; Chamberlain, 1987; Jungers, 1988).
156 YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY [Vol. 38, 1995

(where 1is a constant)

b
1 I I I
1 2 3 4 5
LOG X
Fig. 8. Residuals from a n isometric line in logarithmic space k e . , slope = l.O), whether forced or
empirically determined, are equivalent to the ratios of YIX standarized by a constant equal to the
intercept of the line.

In forced isometric (log-log)plots with slopes of 1.0, it is apparent that residuals are
equivalent to ratios of YIX standardized by a constant equivalent to the intercept
(Fig. 8). K-LOG variables are similar in some ways because they also differ from
DM-LOG ratios by scalar constants. Zscore standardization of DM-LOG variables,
K-LOG variables, log residuals from bivariate isometry, and logged variables
created by the isometric version of BURNABY will result in identical shape data
matrices. When empirical relationships are essentially isometric (e.g., Kay, 1975,
1978; Covert, 19861, residuals are again conveying information about relative size
that is more or less equivalent to Mosimann measures of shape.

Putative problems with ratios

Ratios are not infrequently criticized for their supposedly inferior distributional
properties (Atchley et al., 1976; Albrecht, 1978; Sokal and Rohlf, 1981; Atchley,
1983; Hartman, 1983; Deacon, 1990; Albrecht et al., 1993). Suitable transforma-
tions (e.g., to lognormality) can often overcome these problems (Mosimann, 1970;
1975a, 1975b, 1987; Dodson, 1978; Hills, 1978; Oxnard, 1978; Mosimann and Mal-
ley, 1979; Darroch and Mosimann, 1985; Frampton and Ward, 19901, and standard
parametric statistics can then be used for further analysis. Our experience sug-
gests that ratio data are frequently no worse than raw data in this regard; all data
need to be examined to see if they meet the assumptions of the statistics chosen to
characterize them. Distribution-free, nonparametric alternatives are also avail-
Jungers et al.] SHAPE AND RELATIVE SIZE 157

able (Singer, 19791, including the use of multivariate distance statistics (e.g.,
Grine et al., 1993; Richmond and Jungers, 1995). Rank transformations in shape
ratios can also serve as a “bridge” between parametric and nonparametric statis-
tics (Conover and Iman, 1981).
It has also been claimed that Mosimann-like shape variables lead to spurious
correlation between the shape and size variables because the size variable is in the
denominator of the ratio (Atchley et al., 1976; Prothero, 1986; Page1 and Harvey,
1988). This criticism is valid only when the Y and X (size) variables are indepen-
dent (Pearson, 18971, as in randomly generated data sets (Atchley et al., 1976;
Prothero, 1986); in such cases, the ratio of Y/X should be negatively correlated
with X. As Mosimann (1975a), Dodson (19781, and Falsetti et al. (1993) note,
however, in many comparative biological situations Y increases as does X, and X
and Y are therefore positively correlated. In these circumstances, observed nega-
tive correlations between a Mosimann shape variable and size are not spurious at
all, but instead reflect a iiegatively allometric relationship (Mosimann and James,
1979). Most importantly in the context of shape analysis, “ratios may be the only
meaningful way to interpret and understand certain types of biological problems”
(Sokal and Rohlf, 1981: 17).
To log or not to log
Should shape variables be expressed in logarithmic or antilogged form (Hart-
man, 1983; Smith, 1984)? Logging data is often done to achieve or approximate a
lognormal distribution (see above), but such a result cannot be guaranteed. Dis-
tance matrices computed in this study differed slightly (guenons) to considerably
(humans), depending in part on whether the adjusted variables were logged or not,
Not surprisingly, logged distances were absolutely lower than raw distances in
both samples (see above). Reyment (1971) pointed out that log transformations
remove the investigator one more step from the biological relationships in the
data; in fact, such transformations can even “obscure the relationships the inves-
tigator wishes to probe” (Reyment, 1971: 367). Corruccini (1987: 301) also noted
that log transformations do not necessarily “improve multivariate distributions,
results, or interpretability.” Given the viability of alternative, nonparametric sta-
tistics in the face of less than optimal distributions, there is probably no compelling
need to work exclusively with logged shape variables. At the very least, it seems
prudent to see if and how one’s results and inferences about shape are impacted by
log transformations.
CODA
We concur with the opinion of James and McCulloch (1990: 158) that “authors
who have objected to the direct use of ratios in morphometric studies . . . have been
overlooking some powerful techniques for the direct study of shape and its cova-
riation with size.” Sprent (1972: 35) anticipated this conclusion and correctly rec-
ognized the great promise of this approach over 20 years ago when he concluded
that “this [Mosimann] line of research may prove more fruitful than concentrating
on conditions for independence between size and shape.” Finally, Corruccini (1987:
301) suggested that “bio-anthropologists may need to give closer attention to the
methods and rationale exemplified by J. Mosimann.” We could not agree more and
hope our findings encourage others to question the assumptions and utility of
residuals as size-adjusted data, and t o explore shape and relative size within Mo-
simann’s explicitly geometric framework.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge fruitful conversations and correspondence with
many of our colleagues about the issues discussed in this review; special thanks go
to Richard Smith, Tim Cole, Laurie Godfrey, Jim Cheverud, Steve Leigh, Steve
Hartman, Maria Cole, Brian Shea, Susan Ford and Bob Corruccini. We thank Ted
Steegmann for inviting us to present our findings here in the Yearbook of Physical
158 YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Anthropology, and for his patience with deadlines! We also thank Luci Betti-Nash
for her assistance in preparing the artwork.
LITERATURE CITED
Albrecht GH (1978)Some comments on the use of
ratios. Syst. Zool. 27:67-71.
Albrecht GH, Gelvin BR, and Hartman SE (1993)
Ratios as a size adjustment in morphometrics.
Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 91:441-468.
Albrecht GH, Gelvin BR, and Hartman SE (1995)
Ratio adjustments in morphometrics: A reply to
Dr. Corruccini. Am. J . Phys. Anthropol. 96:193-
197.
Allman J, McLaughlin T, and Hakeem A (1993)
Brain weight and life span in primate species.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90:118-122.
Anthony MRL and Kay RF (1993)Tooth form and
diet in ateline and alouattine primates: Reflec-
tions on the comparative method. Am. J. Sci. 293-
A:356-382.
Atchley WR (1978)Ratios, regressions, intercepts,
and the scaling of data. Syst. Zool. 27r78-82.
Atchley WR (1983) Some genetic aspects of mor-
phometric variation. In J Felsenstein (ed.): Nu-
merical Taxonomy. New York: Springer Verlag,
pp. 346-363.
Atchley WR, Gaskins CT, and Anderson D (1976)
Statistical properties of ratios. Empirical results.
Syst. ZOO^. 25.137-148.
B~~~~ c (1991) size- and ~ocomot~on~re~ated as-
pects of horninid and anthropoid pelves: An osteo-
metrical multivariate analysis, Hum, Evol.
6.365-376.
B~~~~C, and Kazmierczak J-B (1986) Effects of
size and locomotor adaptations on the horninid
pelvis: Evaluation of australopithecine bipedality
with a new multivariate method. Folia Primatol.
46.185-204.
Bookstein FL (1978) The Measurement of Biolog-
ical Shape and Shape Change, Lecture Notes in
Biomathematics, volume 24. N~~ York: springer
Verlag.
Bookstein FL (1989)“Size and shape”: A comment
on semantics. Syst. Zool. 38:173-180.
Bookstein FL (1991)Morphometric Tools for Land-
mark Data: Geometry and Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bookstein FL, Chernoff BC, Elder RL, Humphries
JM, Smith GR, and Strauss RE (1985) Morpho-
metrics in Evolutionary Biology. Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Special Publi-
cation 15.
Brace CL and Hunt KD (1990)A nonracial cranio-
facial perspective on human variation A(ustra-
lian) to Z(uni). Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 82.341-
360.
Brace CL and Tracer DP (1992) Craniofacial con-
tinuity and change: A comparison Of Late Pleis-
tocene and recent Europe and Asia. In T Aka-
zawa, K Aoki, and T Kimura (eds.1: The
Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in
Asia. Japan: Hokusen-Sha, pp. 439-472.
Burnahy TP (1966) Growth-invariant discrimi-
nant functions and generalized distances. Bio-
metrics 22t96-110.
Calder WA (1984) Size, Function, and Life His-
tory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Cartmill M (1990) Human uniqueness and tbeo-
[Vol. 38, 1995
retical content in paleoanthropology. Int. J . Pri-
matol. 11 :173-192.
Chamberlain AT (1987) A taxonomic review and
phylogenetic analysis of Homo habilis. PhD dis-
sertation. University of Liverpool.
Chamberlain AT and Wood BA (1987)Early hom-
inid phylogeny. J. Hum. Evol. 16.119-133.
Chappell R (1989) Fitting bent lines to data, with
applications to allometry. J . Theor. Biol. 138:
235-256.
Cheverud JM (1982) Relationships among ontoge-
netic, static, and evolutionary allometry. Am. J.
Phys. Anthropol. 59t139-149.
Conover WJ and Iman RL (1981) Rank transfor-
mations as a bridge between parametric and non-
parametric statistics. Am. Stat. 35r124-133.
Corruccini RS (1973)Size and shape similarity co-
efficients based on metric characters. Am. J .
PhYs. AnthroPol. 38:743-754.
Corruccini RS (1987) Shape in morphometrics:
Comparative analyses. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.
73:289-303.
Corruccini RS (1995) Of ratios and rationality.
Am. J. PhYs. AnthroPol. 96:189-191.
Corruccini RS, Macchiarelli R, and Bondioli L
(1987) Le componenti di “forma” e “dimensione”
in morfometria: Un’analisi metodologica compar-
ativa. AntroP”l. Contemp. 10:141-149.
Covert HH (1986) Biology of early Cenozoic pri-
mates. In D Swindler and J E m i n (eds): Compar-
ative Primate Biology. Vol. 1, Systematics, Evo-
lution, and Anatomy. New R. Liss, PP.
335-359.
Creel N (1986) Size and phylogeny in hominoid
primates‘ Syst‘ 35r81-99’
Creighton GK and Strauss RE (1986)Comparative
patterns of growth and development in cricetine
rodents and the evolution of ontogeney. Evolu-
tion 40:94-106.
Damuth and MacFadden (1990) Body Size in
Mammalian Paleobiology. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge university Press,
Darroch JN and Mosimann JE (1985) Canonical
and principal components of shape. Biometrika
72:241-252,
Deacon TW (1990) Fallacies of progression in the-
ories ofbrain-size evolution, Int. J, Primatol, 1 1 ;
193-236,
Dodson P (1978) On the use of ratios in growth
studies, Syst, zool, 27,5247.
D~~~~~N and Smith H (1981)Applied ~~~~~~i~~
Analysis, 2nd ed. N~~ york: Wiley-Interscience.
Falsetti AB (1989) Anthropometry of Native
Americans from the Arctic, Subarctic, Northwest
Coast, Great Basin, and California: An Examina-
tion of Scaling Phenomena. PhD dissertation,
University of Tennessee at Knoxville.
Falsetti AB, Jungers WL, and Cole TM 111 (1993)
Morphometrics of the callitrichid forelimb: A case
study in size and shape. Int, J. Primatol, 14:551-
572.
Feldesman MR (1982) Morphometric analysis of
the distal humerus of some Cenozoic catarrhines:
The late divergence hypothesis revisited. Am. J .
Phys. Anthropol. 59:73-95.
Flessa KW and Bray RG (1977) On the measure-
Jungers et al.] SHAPE AND RELATIVE SIZE
ment of size-independent morphological variabil-
ity: An example using successive populations of a
Devonian spiriferid brachiopod. Paleobiology
3.350-359.
Frampton CM and Ward JM (1990) The use of ra-
tio variables in systematics. Taxon 39:586-592.
Froehlich JW, Supriatna J, and Froehlich PH
(1991) Morphometric analyses of Ateles: System-
atic and biogeographic implications. Am. J . Pri-
matol. 25:1-22.
Giles E (1956) Cranial allometry in the great
- apes.
Hum. Biol. 28:43-58.
Godfrey LR (1988) Adaptive diversification of Mal-
agasy strepsirrhines. 3. Hum. Evol. 17:93-134.
Gould SJ (1966) Allometry and size in ontogeny
and phylogeny. Biol. Rev. 41.587-640.
Gould SJ (1975) On the scaling of tooth size mam-
mals. Am. Zool. 15:351-362.
Gould SJ (1977) Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Gould SJ and Lewontin R (1979) The spandrels of
San Marcos and the Panglossian paradigm: A cri-
tique of the adatationist programme. Proc. R. SOC.
Lond. [Biol.] 205581498.
Grine FE, Demes B, Jungers WL, and Cole TM 111
(1993) Taxonomic affinity of the early Homo cra-
nium from Swartkrans, South Africa. Am. J .
Phys. Anthropol. 92t411-426.
Hartman SE (1983) A critique of some regression
adjustments used in allometric size “correction”
in numerical taxonomy. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.
62t305-309.
Hartman SE (1988) Evaluation of some alterna-
tive procedures used in numerical systematics.
Syst.-Zool. 37:l-18.
Harvey PH and Pagel MD (1991)The Comparative
Method in Evolutionary Biolom. -_ New York: Ox-
ford University Press.
Harvey PH and Zammuto RM (1985) Patterns of
mortality and age a t first reproduction in natural
populations of mammals. Nature 315:319-320.
Healy MJR and Tanner JM (1981) Size and shape
in relation to growth and form. Symp. Zool. SOC.
Lond. 46:19-35.
Hills M (1978) On ratios-a reply to Atchley,
Gaskins, and Anderson. Syst. Zool. 27:61-62.
Holloway RL and Post DG (1982) The relativity of
relative brain measures and hominid mosaic ev-
olution. In E Armstrong and D Falk (eds.): Pri-
mate Brain Evolution. New York: Plenum, pp.
57-76.
Howells WW (1989) Skull shapes and the map:
Craniometric analysis in the dispersion of mod-
ern Homo. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Ar-
cheology and Ethnology. Harvard University 79:
1-189.
Humphries JM, Bookstein FL, Chernoff B, Smith
GR, Elder RL, and Poss SG (1981) Multivariate
discrimination by shape in relation to size. Syst.
Zool. 30:291-308.
Huxley J (1932) Problems in Relative Growth.
London: Methuen.
James FC and McCulloch CE (1990) Multivariate
statistical methods in ecology and systematics:
Panacea or Pandora’s box. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.
1990.21:129-166.
Jantz RL, Hunt DR, Falsetti AB, and Key PJ
(1992) Variation among North Americans: Anal-
ysis of Boas’s Anthropometric Data. Hum. Biol.
64t435 -461.
Jolicoeur P (1963) The multivariate generaliza-
159
tion of the allometry equation. Biometrics 19:
497-499.
Jungers WL (1984) Aspects of size and scaling in
primate biology with special reference to the lo-
comotor skeleton. Yearbook Phys. Anthropol. 27:
73-97.
Jungers WL (1985a) Size and Scaling in Primate
Biology. New York: Plenum.
Jungers WL (1985b)Body size and scaling of limb
proportions in primates. In WL Jungers (ed.):
Size and Scaling in Primate Biology. New York:
Plenum, pp. 345-381.
Jungers WL (1988) Relative joint size and homi-
noid locomotor adaptations with implications for
the evolution of hominid bipedalism. J Hum.
Evol. 17.247-265.
Jungers WL and Cole MS (1992) Relative growth
and shape of the locomotor skeleton in lesser
apes. J . Hum. Evol. 23.93-105.
Jungers WL and German RZ (1981) Ontogenetic
and interspecific allometry in nonhuman pri-
mates: Bivariate versus multivariate analysis.
Am. J . Phys. Anthropol. 55:195-202.
Jungers WL, Cole TM 111, and Owsley DW (1988)
Multivariate analysis of relative growth in the
limb bones of Arikara Indians. Growth Dev. Ag-
ing 52:103-107.
Jungers WL, Godfrey LR, Simons EL, Chatrath
PS, and Rakotosamimanana B (1991) Phyloge-
netic and functional affinities of Babakotia (Pri-
mates), a fossil lemur from northern Madagascar.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88:9082-9086.
Kay RF (1975) The functional adaptations of pri-
mate molar teeth. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 43:
195-216.
Kay RF (1978) On the use of anatomical features
to infer foraging behavior in extinct primates. In
PS Rodman and JGH Cant (eds.):Adaptations for
Foraging in Nonhuman Primates. New York: Co-
lumbia University Press, pp. 21-53.
Kazmierczak J-B (1985) Analyse logarithmique:
Deux exemples d’application. Rev. Stat. Appl. 33:
13-24.
Kazmierczak J-B (1986) Une application du princ-
iple de Yule: l‘Analyse logarithmique. In E Diday
(ed.): Data Analysis and Informatics, IV. North
Holland: Elsevier Science, pp. 393-403.
Kerlinger FN and Pedhazur E J (1973) Multiple
Regression in Behavioral Research. New York:
Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
Kidder JH, Jantz RL, and Smith FH (1992) Defin-
ing modern humans: A multivariate approach. In
G Brauer and FH Smith (eds.): Continuity or Re-
placement Controversies in Homo sapiens Evo-
lution. Rotterdam: AA Balkema, pp. 157-177.
Koops WJ and Grossman M (1993)Multiphasic al-
lometry. Growth Dev. Aging 57t183-192.
Lele S (1991) Some comments on coordinate-free
and scale-invariant methods in morphometrics.
Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 85:407-417.
Lele S (1993) Euclidean distance matrix analysis
(EDMA): Estimation of mean form and mean
form differences. Math. Geol. 25573-602.
Lemen CA (1983) The effectiveness of methods of
shape analysis. Fieldiana Zool. NS 13:l-17.
Losos J B (1990) The evolution of form and func-
tion: Morphology and locomotor performance in
West Indian Anolis lizards. Evolution 44.1189-
1203.
McGowan C (1994) Diatoms to Dinosaurs. The Size
160 YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
and Scale of Living Things. Washington, D.C.:
Island Press.
McMahon TA and Bonner J T (1983) On Size and
Life. New York: Scientific American Library.
Manaster BJM (1979) Locomotor adaptations
within the Cercopzthecus genus: A multivariate
approach. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 50:169-182.
Martin RD and MacLarnon AM (1988) Quantita-
tive comparisons of the skull and teeth in gue-
nons. In A Gauthier-Hion, F Bourliere, J-P Gau-
tier, and J Kingdon (eds.): A Primate Radiation:
Evolutionary Biology of the African Guenons.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.
160-183.
Moore AJ and Cheverud JM (1992) Systematics of
the Saguinus oedipus group of the bare-face tam-
arins: Evidence from facial morphology. Am. J .
Phys. Anthropol. 89:73-84.
Mosimann J E (1970) Size allometry: Size and
shape variables with characterizations of the log-
normal and gamma distributions. J. Am. Stat.
Assoc. 56t930-945.
Mosimann J E (1975a) Statistical problems of size
and shape. I. Biological applications and basic
theorems. In GP Patil, S Kotz, and K Ord (eds.):
Statistical Distributions in Scientific Work 2.
Dordrecht-Holland: D Reidel, pp. 187-217.
Mosimann J E (197513) Statistical problems of size
and shape. 11. Characterizations of the lognormal,
gamma, and Dirichlet distributions. In GP Patil,
SKotz, and K Ord (eds.): Statistical Distributions
in Scientific Work 2. Dordrecht-Holland: D Rei-
del, pp. 219-239.
Mosimann J E (1987) Multivariate analysis of size
and shape: Modelling with the Dirichlet distribu-
tion. In Computer Science and Statistics: Proc.
19th Symp. on the Interface, Philadelphia, pp.
1-9.
Mosimann J E and James FC (1979) New statisti-
cal methods for allometry with applications to
Florida red-winged blackbirds. Evolution 23:
444-459.
Mosimann J E and Malley J D (1979) Size and
shape variables. In L Orloci, CR Rao, and WM
Stiteler (eds.): Multivariate Methods in Ecologi-
cal Work. Fairland, Maryland: International Co-
operative, pp. 175-189.
Mosteller F and Tukey JW (1977) Data Analysis
and Regression. London: Addison-Wesley.
Oxnard CE (1978) One biologist’s view of morpho-
metrics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1978. 9:219-241.
Page1 MD and Harvey PH (1988) Recent develop-
ments in the analysis of comparative data. Quart.
Rev. Biol. 63r413-440.
Pearson K (1897) Mathematical contributions to
the theory of evolution on a form of spurious cor-
relation which may arise when indices are used
in the measurement of organs. Proc. Roy. SOC.
60t489-498.
Penrose LS (1954) Distance, size and shape. Ann.
Eugenics 18:337-343.
Peters RH (1983) The Ecological Implications of
Body Size. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pilbeam D and Gould SJ (1974) Size and scaling in
human evolution. Science 186t892-901.
Preuschoft H (1989) Quantitative approaches to
primate morphology. Folia Primatol. 53:82-100.
Prothero J (1986) Methodological aspects of scal-
ing in biology. J . Theor. Biol. 118r259-286.
Ravosa MJ (1991a) Ontogenetic perspective on
[Vol. 38, 1995
mechanical and nonmechanical models of pri-
mate circumorbital morphology. Am. J . Phys.
Anthropol. 85:95-112.
Ravosa MJ (1991b) Interspecific perspective on
mechanical and nonmechanical models of pri-
mate circumorbital morphology. Am. J. Phys.
Anthropol. 86:369-396.
Reist J D (1985) An empirical evaluation of several
univariate methods that adjust for size variation
in morphometric data. Can. J. Zool. 63:1429-
1439.
Relethford J H (1984)Morphological size and shape
variation among local human populations. J
Hum. Evol. 13:191-194.
Reyment RA (1971) Multivariate normality in
morphometric analysis. Math. Geol. 3r357-368.
Richmond B and Jungers WL (1995) Size variation
and sexual dimorphism in Anstralopithecus affiu-
rensis. J . Hum. Evol. 29:229-245.
Richtsmeier J T and Lele S (1993) A coordinate-
free approach to the analysis of growth patterns:
models and theoretical considerations. Biol. Rev.
68t381-411.
Richtsmeier JT, Cheverud JM, and Lele S (1992)
Advances in anthropological morphometrics.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 21283-305.
Rohlf FJ (1967) Correlated characters in numeri-
cal taxonomv. Svst. Zool. 16t109-126.
Rohlf FJ (1950) Morphometrics. Annu. Rev. Ecol.
System. 21999-316.
Rohlf FJ (1992) NTSYS-pc. Numerical Taxonomy
and Multivariate Analysis System (version 1.70).
Setauket, N.Y.: Exeter Software.
Rohlf FJ and Bookstein FL (1987) A comment on
shearing as a method for “size correction.” Syst.
Zool. 36:356-367.
Rohlf FJ and Marcus LF (1993) A revolution in
morphometrics. TREE 8t129-132.
Ruliang P, Yanzhang P, and Zhizhang Y (1991)
Multivariate comparison of the forelimb between
stump-tailed and rhesus macaques. Folia Prima-
tol. 57t147-155.
Sampson PD and Siege1 AF (1985) The measure of
“size” independent of “shape” for multivariate
lognormal populations. J . Am. Stat. Assoc. 80:
910-914.
SAS Institute Inc. (1985) SAS User’s Guide: Sta-
tistics, Version 5 Edition. Cary, NC: SAS Insti-
tute, Inc.
Schmidt-Nielsen K (1984)Scaling: Why Is Animal
Size So Important? Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Shea BT (1985)Bivariate and multivariate growth
allometry: Statistical and biological consider-
ations. J . 2001. [Lond.] 206t367-390.
Simmons T, Falsetti AB, and Smith FH (1991)
Frontal bone morphometrics of southwest Asian
Pleistocene hominids. J . Hum. Evol. 2 0 2 4 9 4 6 9 .
Singer B (1979) Distribution-free methods for non-
parametric problems: A classified and selected
bibliography. Br. J . Math. Stat. Psychol. 32t1-60.
Smith FLJ (1980) Rethinking allometry. J . Theor.
Biol. 87t97-111.
Smith RJ (1984) Determination of relative size:
The “criterion of subtraction” problem in allom-
etry. J. Theor. Biol. 108:131-142.
Sneath PHA and Sokal RR (1973) Numerical Tax-
onomy. San Francisco: WH Freeman.
Sokal RR and RohlfFJ (1981)Biometry. San Fran-
cisco: WH Freeman.
Somers KM (1986) Multivariate allometry and re-
Jungers et al.1 SHAPE AND RELATIVE SIZE
moval of size with principal components analysis.
Syst. Zool. 35t359-368.
Somers KM (1989) Allometry, isometry and shape
in principal components analysis. Syst. Zool. 38:
169-173.
Spielman RS (1973) Do the natives all look alike?
Size and shape components of anthropometric dif-
ferences among Yanomama Indian villages. Am.
Nat. 107:694-708.
Sprent P (1972) The mathematics of size and
shape. Biometrics 28:23-37.
Stearns SC (1992) The Evolution of Life Histories.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steudel KL (1994) Locomotor energetics and hom-
inid evolution. Evol. Anthropol. 3:42-48.
Susman RL and Creel N (1979) Functional and
morphological affinities of the subadult hand
(O.H.7) from Olduvai gorge. Am. J. Phys. Anthro-
pol. 51:311-331.
Sweet SS (1980) Allometric inference in morphol-
ogy. Am. Zool. 20:643-652.
161
Takahashi LK (1990) Morphological basis of arm-
swinging: Multivariate analyses of the forelimbs
of Hylobates and Ateles. Folia Primatol. 54:70-
85.
Vasulu TS and Pal M (1989) Size and shape com-
ponents of anthropometric differences among the
Yanadis. Ann. Hum. Biol. 16:449-462.
Verheyen WN (1962) Contribution a la craniologie
comparee des primates. Ann. Sci. Zool. Mus. Roy.
Afr. Centr. 105:l-247.
Vogel SV (1988) Life’s Devices. Princeton: Prince-
ton University Press.
Wilson SR and Loesch DZ (1989) Principal compo-
nent analysis of shape variables in adult individ-
uals. Ann. Hum. Biol. I6:361-368.
Wood BA (1978) Allometry and hominid studies.
In WW Bishop (ed.): Geological Background to
Fossil Man. Edinburgh: Scottish Academy Press,
pp. 125-138.