Abstract
Canonical variate analysis and generalized distances are commonly used multivariate statistical techniques for assessing the comparative morphology of living and fossil primates. Some common pitfalls of these methods when used to analyze fossil specimens are: (1) ignoring the possibility that a fossil belongs to a group other than one of the predefined reference samples (i.e., restricted versus unrestricted approaches to classification), (2) misinterpreting probabilities of group membership (i.e., posterior versus typicality probabilities), and (3) failing to understand how sample sizes influence multivariate ordinations in trying to effectively illustrate the morphometric affinities of a fossil (i.e., weighted versus unweighted analyses with fossils entered indirectly or directly into the analysis). To better understand canonincal variate analysis and generalized distances, the workings of these methods are portrayed graphically as a series of rotations and rescaling of data plotted in a multivariate data space. The influence of sample sizes and the importance of higher-numberer canonical variates are emphasized. Simple examples taken from the literature illustrate how the different approaches to including a fosil in canonical variate analysis may affect the multivariate results upon which physical anthropologists base their interpretations of the fossil's morphology.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aitchison J., Habbema J.D.F., and Kay J.W. 1977. A critical comparison of two methods of statistical discrimination.Appl. Statist., 26, pp. 15–25.
Albrecht G.H., 1977. Methodological approaches to morphological variation in primate populations: the Celebesian macaques.Yearbk. Phys. Anthrop.: 1976, 20, pp. 290–308.
Albrecht G.H., 1978. The craniofacial morphology of the Sulawesi macaques: multivariate approaches to biological problems.Contrib. Primatol., 13, pp. 1–151.
Albrecht G.H., 1979. The study of biological versus statistical variation in multivariate morphometrics: the descriptive use of multiple regression analysis.Syst. Zool., 28, pp. 338–344.
Albrecht G.H., 1980a. Multivariate analysis and the study of form, with special reference to canonical variate analysis.Amer. Zool., 20, pp. 679–693.
Albrecht G.H., 1980b. The effect of sample sizes on the descriptive use of canonical variate analysis in multivariate morphometrics.Proc. 2nd Inter. Congr. Syst. Evol. Biol., Vancouver, British Columbia, July, 1980.
Albrecht G.H., 1980c. Weighted versus unweighted canonical variate analyses in morphometrics.Amer. Zool., 20, pp. 820.
Albrecht G.H., and Miller J.M.A., 1993. Geographic variation in primates: a review with implications for interpreting fossils. In:Species, Species Concepts, and Primate Evolution (W.H. Kimbel and L.B. Martin, eds.), Plenum Press, New York (in press).
Ambergen A.W. and Schaafsma W., 1984. Interval estimates for posterior probabilities, applications to Border Cave. In:Multivariate Statistical Methods in Physical Anthropology (G.N. van Vark and W.W. Howells, eds.), D. Reidel Publishing, Boston, pp. 115–134.
Atchley W.R., and Bryant E.H. (eds.), 1975.Multivariate Statistical Methods: Among-groups Covariation. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.
Brace C.L., Mahler P.E., and Rosen R.B., 1973. Tooth measurements and the rejection of the taxon “Homo habilis.”Yearbk. Phys. Anthrop.: 1972 16, pp. 50–68.
Cacoullos T. (ed.), 1973.Discriminant Analysis and Applications. Academic Press, New York.
Campbell N.A., 1978a. Multivariate analysis in biological anthropology: some further considerations.J. Hum. Evol., 7, pp. 197–203.
Campbell N.A., 1978b. The influence function as an aid in outlier detection in discrimant analysis.Appl. Statist., 27, pp. 251–258.
Campbell N.A., 1980a. On the study of the Border Cave remains: statistical comments.Curr. Anthrop., 21:532–535.
Campbell N.A., 1980b. Robust multivariate procedures applied to the interpretation of atypical individuals of a Cretaceous foraminifer.Cret. Res., 1, pp. 207–221.
Campbell N.A., 1984. Some aspects of allocation and discrimination. In:Multivariate Statistical Methods in Physical Anthropology (G.N. van Vark and W.W. Howells, eds.), D. Reidel Publishing, Boston, pp. 177–192.
Campbell N.A. and Atchley W.R., 1981. The geometry of canonical variate analysis.Syst. Zool., 30, pp. 268–280.
Cooley, W.W. and Lohnes, P.R.: 1971.Multivariate Data Analysis, Wiley and Sons, New York.
Dixon W.J. (ed.): 1988,BMDP Statistical Software Manual. University of California Press, Los Angeles.
Gelvin B.R. and Albrecht G.H., 1984. Assessing the affinities of fossil specimens using canonical variate analysis and Mahalanobis D2.Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop., 63, pp. 161–162.
Gnanadesikan R., 1977.Methods for Statistical Data Analysis of Multivariate Observations. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Gower J.C., 1966a. A Q-technique for the calculation of canonical variates.Biometrika, 53, pp. 588–590.
Gower J.C., 1966b. Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis.Biometrika, 53, pp. 325–338.
Hand, D.J.: 1981.Discrimination and Classification. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Kendall M.G. and Stuart A., 1966.The Advanced theory of Statistics. Vol. 3. Design and Analysis, and Time-Series. Hafner Publishing, New York.
Marcus L.F., 1990. Traditional Morphometrics. In:Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop (F.J. Rohlf and F.L. Bookstein, eds.). University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, pp. 77–122.
Neff N.A. and Marcus L.F., 1980.A Survey of Multivariate Methods for Systematics. New York: privately published.
Pimentel R.A., 1979.Morphometrics: The Multivariate Analysis of Biological Data. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa.
Rao C.R., 1952.Advanced Statistical Methods in Biometric Research, Wiley and Sons; New York.
Rao C.R., 1960. Multivariate analysis: an indispensable statistical aid in applied research.Sankhya, 22, pp. 317–338.
Rao C.R., 1961. Some observations on multivariate statistical methods in anthropological research.Bull. Inter. Stat. Inst., 38, pp. 99–108.
Rao C.R., 1962a.Linear Statistical Inference and Its Applications. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Rao C.R., 1962b. Use of discriminant and allied functions in multivariate analysis.Sankhya, 24, pp. 149–154.
Reyment R.A., Blackith R.E. and Campbell N.A., 1984.Multivariate Morphometrics. Academic Press, New York, 2nd edition.
SAS Institute Inc., 1989.SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, Fourth Edition. Volume 1. SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, North Carolina.
SPSS, Inc., 1983.User's Guide: SPSS x McGraw-Hill, New York., Wiley.
Statistical Graphics Corporation: 1989.STATGRAPHICS: Statistical Graphics System. Statistical Graphics Corporation, Rockville, Maryland.
Tatsuoka M.M., 1971.Multivariate Analysis: Techniques for Educational and Psychological Research. Wiley and Sons. New York.
Thorne A.G., and Wilson, S.R., 1977. Pleistocene and recent Australians: A multivariate comparison.J. Hum. Evol., 6, pp. 393–402.
Vark G.N., van, Bilsborough A., and Dijkema J., 1989. A further study of the morphological affinities of the Border Cave 1 cranium, with special reference to the origin of modern man.Anthrop. Prehist., 100, pp. 43–56.
Wilkinson L., 1989.SYSTAT: The System for Statistics for the PC. SYSTAT, Inc., Evanston, Illinois.
Wilson S.R., 1981. On comparing fossil specimens with populations samples.J. Hum. Evol., 10, pp. 207–214.
Wilson S.R., 1984. Towards an understanding of data in physical anthropology. In:Multivariate Statistical Methods in Physical Anthropology (G.N. van Vark and W.W. Howells, eds.), D. Reidel Publishing, Boston, pp. 261–282.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Albrecht, G.H. Assessing the affinities of fossils using canonical variates and generalized distances. Hum. Evol. 7, 49–69 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02436412
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02436412