Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T23:21:42.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recognizing morphospecies in colonial reef corals: I. Landmark-based methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Ann F. Budd ,
Kenneth G. Johnson  and
Donald C. Potts
Ann F. Budd
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242
Kenneth G. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom
Donald C. Potts
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Morphologic discrimination of species of scleractinian reef corals has long been plagued by a shortage of independent characters and by high ecophenotypic plasticity. Because of these two factors, many species appear to intergrade morphologically. We outline a newly developed protocol for the morphometric recognition of species, which uses size and shape coordinates derived from landmark data. The landmarks consist of spatially homologous points digitized in three dimensions on upper calical surfaces. The approach is more powerful than linear measurements at detecting subtle distinctions among species; and the distinctions are easy to visualize and interpret biologically, which increases the accuracy and resolution of subsequent phylogenetic and large-scale faunal analyses.

As an example, we distinguish morphospecies in collections of Porites made at three Caribbean locations. Size and shape coordinates are analyzed using principal component analysis, average linkage cluster analysis, and a series of iterative discriminant analyses. Positions of different corallites from the same colonies are examined on cluster dendrograms to determine cutoffs for group recognition, and discriminant classifications for different corallites from the same colonies are compared to maximize group assignments. The results yield seven morphospecies, which are generally in 90% agreement with classification of the same animals using allozyme electrophoresis. Measures of corallite size and the relative heights and locations of the pali and septal denticles all reveal unique patterns of variation among morphospecies.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , Fall 1994 , pp. 484 - 505
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Abe, K., Reyment, R. A., Bookstein, F. L., Honigstein, A., Almogi-Labin, A., Rosenfeld, A., and Hermelin, O. 1988. Microevolution in two species of ostracods from the Santonian (Cretaceous) of Israel. Historical Biology 1:303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, H. M. 1905. The family Poritidae. II. The genus Porites. Part 1. Catalogue of the Madreporarian Corals of the British Museum (Natural History) 5:1–303.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, U.K.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L., and Reyment, R. A. 1989. Microevolution in Miocene Brizalina (Foraminifera) studied by canonical variate analysis and analysis of landmarks. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 51:657–679.Google ScholarPubMed
Brakel, W. H. 1977. Corallite variation in Porites and the species problem in corals. Proceedings of the Third International Coral Reef Symposium 1:457–462.Google Scholar
Budd, A. F. 1990. Longterm patterns of morphological variation within and among species of reef-corals and their relationship to sexual reproduction. Systematic Botany 15:150–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budd, A. F. 1993. Variation within and among morphospecies of Montastraea. Courier Forschungs-institut Senckenberg 164:241–254.Google Scholar
Budd, A. F., and Coates, A. G. 1992. Nonprogressive evolution in a clade of Cretaceous Montastraea-like corals. Paleobiology 18:425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budd, A. F., Johnson, K. G., and Edwards, J. C. 1989. Miocene coral assemblages in Anguilla, BWI, and their implications for the interpretation of vertical succession on fossil reefs. Palaios 4:264–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budd, A. F., Stemann, T. A., and Stewart, R. H. 1992. Eocene Caribbean reef corals: a unique fauna from the Gatuncillo Formation of Panama. Journal of Paleontology 66:570–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budd, A. F., Johnson, K. G., and Stemann, T. A. 1994. Plio-Pleistocene extinctions and the origin of the modern Caribbean reef coral fauna. Pp. 7–13in Ginsburg, R. N., Compiler. Proceedings of the Colloquium on Global Aspects of Coral Reefs: Health, Hazards, and History, 1993. Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Fla.Google Scholar
Budd, A. F., Stemann, T. A., and Johnson, K. G. 1994. Stratigraphic distributions of genera and species of Neogene to Recent Caribbean reef corals. Journal of Paleontology 68:951–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheetham, A. H. 1987. Tempo of evolution in a Neogene bryozoan: are trends in single morphologic characters misleading? Paleobiology 13:286–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunteman, G. H. 1989. Principal component analysis. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, Calif.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, A. B. 1979. Phenotypic plasticity in the reef corals Montastraea annularis (Ellis & Solander) and Siderastrea siderea (Ellis & Solander). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 39:25–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, A. B. 1980. Environmental variation in skeletal morphology within the Caribbean reef corals Montastraea annularis and Siderastrea siderea. Bulletin of Marine Science 30:678–709.Google Scholar
Foster, A. B. 1984. The species concept in fossil hermatypic corals: a statistical approach. Palaeontographica Americana 54:58–69.Google Scholar
Foster, A. B. 1985. Variation within coral colonies and its importance for interpreting fossil species. Journal of Paleontology 59:1359–1383.Google Scholar
Foster, A. B. 1986. Neogene Paleontology in the Northern Dominican Republic. 3. The family Poritidae (Anthozoa: Scleractinia). Bulletins of American Paleontology 90:45–123.Google Scholar
Frost, S. H. 1977. Miocene to Holocene evolution of Caribbean province reef-building corals. Proceedings of the Third International Coral Reef Symposium 2:353–360.Google Scholar
Graus, R. R., and Macintyre, I. G. 1982. Variation in growth forms of the reef coral Montastrea annularis (Ellis and Solander): a quantitative evaluation of growth response to light distribution using computer simulation. Pp. 441–464in Ruetzler, K. and Macintyre, I. G., eds. The Atlantic Barrier reef ecosystem at Carrie Bow Cay, Belize, I. Smithsonian Contributions to Marine Science 12, Washington, D.C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzman, H. M., Jackson, J. B. C., and Weil, E. 1991. Short-term ecological consequences of a major oil spill on Panamanian subtidal reef corals. Coral Reefs 10:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., and Cheetham, A. H. 1990. Evolutionary significance of morphospecies: a test with cheilostome Bryozoa. Science 248:579–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnston, M. R., Tabachnick, R. E., and Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Landmark-based morphometrics of spiral accretionary growth. Paleobiology 17:19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klecka, W. R. 1980. Discriminant analysis. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, Calif.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowlton, N., Weil, E., Weigt, L. A., and Guzman, H. M. 1992. Sibling species in Montastraea annularis, coral bleaching, and the coral climate record. Science 255:330–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potts, D. C., Done, T. J., Isdale, P. J., and Fisk, D. D. 1985. Dominance of a coral community by the genus Porites (Scleractinia). Marine Ecology Progress Series 23:79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, D. C., Budd, A. F., and Garthwaite, R. L. 1993. Soft tissue vs. skeletal approaches to species recognition and phylogeny reconstruction in corals. Courier Forschungs-institut Senckenberg 164:221–231.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F. J. 1990. Rotational fit methods. Pp. 227–236in Rohlf, F. J. and Bookstein, F. L., eds. Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Special Publication 2, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F. J., and Marcus, L. F. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlf, F. J., and Slice, D. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology 39:40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roos, P. J. 1967. Growth and occurrence of the reef coral Porites astreoides Lamarck in relation to submarine radiance distribution. Academisch proefschrift, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Elinkwijk, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Strauss, R. E., and Bookstein, F. L. 1982. The truss: body form reconstructions in morphometrics. Systematic Zoology 31:113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabachnick, R. E., and Bookstein, F. L. 1990. The structure of individual variation in Miocene Globorotalia. Evolution 44:416–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veron, J. E. N. 1986. Corals of Australia and the Indo-Pacific. Angus and Robertson Publishers, North Ryde, Australia.Google Scholar
Veron, J. E. N., and Pichon, M. 1976. Scleractinia of eastern Australia. Part I. Families Thamnasteriidae, Astrocoeniidae, Pocilloporidae. Australian Institute of Marine Science Monograph Series 1:1–86.Google Scholar
Veron, J. E. N., and Pichon, M. 1982. Scleractinia of eastern Australia. Part IV. Family Poritidae. Australian Institute of Marine Science Monograph Series 5:1–159.Google Scholar
Weil, E. 1992. Genetic and morphological variation in Porites (Cnidaria, Anthozoa) across the isthmus of Panama. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Weil, E.In press. Genetic and morphological variation in Caribbean and eastern Pacific Porites (Anthozoa, Scleractinia). Preliminary results. Proceedings of the Seventh International Coral Reef Symposium, Guam.Google Scholar
Weil, E., and Knowlton, N.In press. A multi-character analysis of the Caribbean coral Montastraea annularis (Ellis and Solander, 1786) and its two sibling species M. faveolata (Ellis and Solander, 1786) and M. franksi (Gregory, 1895). Bulletin of Marine Science.Google Scholar