Abstract
Morphometric comparisons among specimens continue being an important tool for biological and taxonomical studies and are indispensable for the description of new species. However, there are few works that have been done to compare the precision of the measurements that different investigators take in live or preserved animals with different body sizes and time of preservation. Herein we evaluate statistically this information. The results indicate that there are significant differences among the measurements taken by different people (inter-individual comparisons), but not within each of them (intra-individual comparisons). Also, there are temporal differences in the morphometric measurements among living animals, freshly preserved specimens and specimens after five months of preservation. These results demonstrate that morphometric measurements must be made by just one person and that for any morphometric analysis it is important to keep in mind the preservation time differences of the animals in the museums.References
Arnqvist, Q. & Martensson, T. (1998) Measurement error in geometric morphometrics: empirical strategies to asses and reduce its impact on measures of shape. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 41, 73–96.
Blackwell, G.L., Bassett, S.M. & Dickman, C.R. (2006) Measurement error associated with external measurements commonly used in small-mammal studies. Journal of Mammology, 87, 216–223.
Dallas, J. (2000) Métodos multivariados aplicados al análisis de datos. International Thomson Editores, México.
Heming, T.A. & Preston R.P. (1981) Differential effect of formalin preservation on yolk and tissue of young chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Walbaun). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 59, 1608–1611.
Hayek, L.A., Heyer, W.R. & Gascon, C. (2001) Frog morphometrics: a cautionary tale. Alytes, 18 (3–4), 153–177.
Johnston, R.F. (1976) Estimating variation in body characters and a comment on the Kluge-Kerfoot effect. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural History, The University of Kansas, 53, 1–8.
Jones, B.C. & Geen, G.H. (1977) Morphometrics changes in an elasmobranch (Squalus acanthias) after preservation. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 55, 1060–1062.
Kerfoot, C.W. (1969) Selection of an appropriate index for the study of the variability of lizard and snake body scale counts. Systematic Zoology, 18, 53–62.
Lee, J.C. (1982) Accuracy and precision in anuran morphometrics: artifacts of preservation. Systematic Zoology, 31, 266–281.
Lougheed, S.C., Arnold, T.W. & Bailey, R.C. (1991) Measurement error of external and skeletal variables in birds and its effect on principal components. Auk, 108, 432–436.
Measey, G.J., Silva J.B. & Di-Bernardo, M. (2003) Testing for repeatability in measurements of length and mass in Chthonerpeton indistinctum (Amphibia: Gymnophiona), including a novel method of calculating total length of live caecilians. Herpetological Review, 34, 35–39.
Myers, C. & Böhme, W. (1996) On the type specimens of two Colombian poison frogs described by A. A. Bertthold (1845), and their bearing on the locality “Provinz Popayán”. American Museum Novitates, 3185, 1–20.
Nieto, M.J. (1999) Estudio preliminar de las especies del género Scinax (Amphibia: anura: Hylidae) en Colombia. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales, 23, 339–346.
Palmeirin, J.M. (1998) Analysis of skull measurements and measurers: Can we use data obtained by various observers? Journal of Mammalogy, 79, 1021–1028.
Parker, R.R. (1963) Effects of formalin on length and weight of fishes. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 20, 1441–1455.
Rohlf, F.J. (1990) Morphometrics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 21, 299–316.
Sokal, R.R. (1976) The Kluge-Kerfoot phenomenon reexamined. The American Naturalist, 110, 1077–1091.
Zar, J.H. (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall International, London.