+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Ontogenetic and interspecific skeletal allometry in nonhuman primates bi variate vs. multi variate analysis



Ontogenetic and interspecific skeletal allometry in nonhuman primates bi variate vs. multi variate analysis



American Journal of Physical Anthropology 55(2): 195-202



The critical problem confronting all allometric studies is the choice of an appropriate size variable, especially when body mass or some other measure of total size is unavailable. A method proposed by Jolicoeur (1963a,b) claims to generate an internal size variable by a principal components analysis of the covariance matrix of logarithmically transformed data, from which allometric coefficients can be computed. Despite the current popularity of this method, the precise relationship and degree of compatibility between such multivariate coefficients and the exponent of the bivariate power function (Y = .beta.X.alpha.) is unknown. The comparability and interpretability of allometric values computed by Jolicoeur's procedure and by standard bivariate regressions (least squares and major axis) are evaluated. Two primate data sets with known measures of size were utilized for these purposes: longitudinal growth data from radiographs of 2 spp. of capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella and C. albifrons; and interspecific osteometric data from a series of adult lemurs [Varecia variegata, Lemur catta, L. fulvus, L. mongoz, L. macaco, L. rubriventer, Hapalemur simus and H. griseus], species of prosimians from Madagascar. Consistent differences exist between multivariate and bivariate allometric coefficients for ontogenetic and static data sets. Multivariate analysis underestimated the coefficients in the former and overestimated them in the latter. The internal size variable generated by prinicpal components analysis is clearly not equivalent to, and hence not a suitable substitute for, known measures of size. Multivariate coefficients are very sensitive to the composition of variables in a given data set; .alpha. values of a variable changed appreciably depending on the other variables included in the analysis. The multivariate coefficients are also sample-specific, and provide misleading biological information when compared between samples (e.g., between species of capuchin monkey). For allometric investigations designed to evaluate scaling parameters relative to total size, alternative analytical solutions to the Jolicoeur method should be considered.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 006033803

Download citation: RISBibTeXText


Related references

Ontogenetic and interspecific skeletal allometry in nonhuman Primates: bivariate versus multivariate analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 552: 195-202, 1981

Evaluation of multi variate dates multi variate analysis of variance applied to pharmacological screening analysis. Biometrische Zeitschrift: 99-104, 1975

Relative use of uni variate and multi variate analysis of variance in developmental psychology. Psychological Reports 49(3): 779-782, 1981

Bi variate and multi variate analysis of electro encephalogram data in clinical psycho pharmacology. Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology 43(4): 478, 1977

Superiority of multi variate vs. uni variate analysis in predicting cardiac events after myo cardial infarction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 1(2 Part 2): 655, 1983

The effect of sample sizes on the descriptive use of canonical variate analysis in multi variate morphometrics. The University Of British Columbia Second International Congress Of Systematic And Evolutionary Biology, Vancouver, B C , Canada, July 17-24, I+441p University Of British Columbia: Vancouver, B C , Canada Paper : p126, 1980

Uni variate and multi variate analysis of the laboratory data reflecting the clinical severity of ulcerative colitis. Fukuoka Acta Medica 75(2): 35-46, 1984

Multi variate analysis of allometry using point coordinates. Journal of Paleontology 52(5): 1037-1053, 1978

Quantitative genetic analysis of multi variate evolution applied to brain body size allometry. Evolution 33(1 Part 2): 402-416, 1979

Behavioral components of assertion comparison of uni variate and multi variate assessment strategies. Behavioral Assessment 6(1): 61-78, 1984

Psycho physiological effects of physical exercise using multi variate and uni variate approaches. American Association for the Advancement of Science Abstracts of Papers of the National Meeting 148: 157, 1982

Measurement of electro encephalic evoked response comparison of uni variate and multi variate. Psychophysiology 13(3): 261-268, 1976

Multi-variate analysis of product markets. A contribution to the principles and implementing of a multi-variate product market analysis - illustrated by the example of the beer market. Multivariate Analyse von Produktmarkten Ein Beitrag zur Konzeption und Durchfuhrung einer multivariaten Produktmarkt analyse dargestellt am Beispiel des Biermarktes: 272, 1979

Multi variate allometry and australopithecine variation. Evolution 30(3): 558-563, 1976

Computer assisted drug design uni variate and multi variate structure activity relationship models. Zentralblatt Fuer Pharmazie Pharmakotherapie Und Laboratoriumsdiagnostik: 23-37, 1982