Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Elek Rasoamanana Nicole eeldn infiatgue ffc nseisiett R 06,p05) u nig hwta opoercstudies will and morphometric transferable, that widely show are findings test findings taxonomy. PERMANOVA Our morphometric alpha A for hence, p=0.58). between source protocol; conclusion. varied =0.69, data standard reproducibility, two-species valuable (R2 the the a same identity follow remain the i.e. observers species at agreement, when on arrived inter-gauger reproducible effect The gaugers are gauger all ants. significant but small magnification no R=0.690), the rather revealed with (mean these between association significant found of R=0.471 no was case and was correlation There significant the R=0.872 a intraclass 0.016). in and = of equipment 0.9897 (p measure = the gaugers R average of of to skills calculated morphometric 0.784 Variance The the = and of R iterations. repeatability from Analysis the 9999 ranged with values Multivariate gaugers with facility Permutational different reproducibility dissimilarity multivariate their of gaugers and coefficients of a in The correlation repeatability index differed performed calculate Morosita we and protocol. the to and groups, same of using (ICC) agreements), insect (PERMANOVA) the mode coefficients inter-gauger who among to and correlation the expertise collaborators, according intra-, Intraclass varying where (i.e., i.e. individuals used had ants We gaugers, of skills, of independent morphometric pool studies equipment. eleven of same measuring morphometric by range the of generated wide such on reproducibility datasets a but traits compared the research, possessed morphometric We focused assess continuous of we routine. 21 subject shared paper, measured a a this been is never In collection has data systematics character needed. discrete insect sorely of morphometric in interpretation via are workflows idiosyncratic achieved morphometric and studies Discoveries tacit of the organisms. reliability to of The contrast variety in and states. transferable, number highly growing considered a often are to approaches applied being is research Morphometric Abstract 2020 28, August Fisher Brian Csosz Sandor Investigation Average Under Standards Reproducible is Morphometry Insect enyvnaSaeUiest nvriyPark University University State Pennsylvania Center Biodiversity Madagascar Singapore of University National Sciences of Academy Nematology California and Entomology Idaho of of Department University Sciences Davis Biological California of of Department University Hampshire New G¨orlitz of History University Natural of Museum Senckenberg MTA T-LEMM clg eerhGroup Research Ecology MTA-ELTE-MTM, Stuttgart f¨ur Naturkunde Museum Staatliches 11 6 1 ate Prebus Matthew , enadSeifert Bernhard , 8 oadSchultz Roland , 5 2 aatiPuniamoorthy Jayanthi , svnMik´o Istvan , 2 aoy Trietsch Carolyn , 1 3 rno Boudinot Brendon , 9 7 oa Ulmer Jonah , enCad Rakotonirina Claude Jean , 4 ae Borowiec Marek , 10 n Zolt´an and , 5 8 , , Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. hxl ta. 09,sca cec eg,Slai ta.22) oeua hlgn n eei clustering genetic and 2008; phylogeny al., molecular et 2020), Ridgway al. 1986; et Staszny, Altman, Salganik & & (e.g., Ferincz Bland science Vital, (e.g., social Takacs research 2019), 2000; clinical al., Albrecht, Corruccini, 2020), et and few 1983, Blois, Phexell last Helm Oxnard, & the 1992; (e.g., Veneracion During Fox, systematics Handford, needed. vertebrate 2016; & urgently in variation Lougheed is measurement studied Yezerinac, findings of been is 1988; of source have to transferability input every issues degree above the control reproducibility human the mentioned to affect of decades, (if may factors impossible Understanding errors uncertainty 2012). is observer Paulsen, measurement it the the & which that of Fairbairn (Wolak, of fact All research the understanding skills parameters. morphometry-based and appropriate challenges other the practice, and and in interpretation as common protocol, clear such are equipment, recording sources, the character of of the it. accuracy of number reproduce and observer’s to precision a to single able the a believed by be within required), are and should affected observers findings else different is anyone protocol, among trait, Agreement measurements same error. a the with measure come to can measurements However, according one traits If transferable. measuring observers and by into If reliable conclusion elements 2018). be Seifert, Mik´o same anatomical 2015; & Cs˝osz numeric the Heinze 2006; provide of at Moder, and in- & arrive arrangement data Schlick-Steiner an morphometric Today, (Steiner and use species knowledge. converts number to alpha-taxonomists phenotype-based keys It insect reproducible, and morphology-based transferable. of of traits, dissemination number considered the creasing anatomical is for of morphometry allowing values, size approach, numerical & idiosyncratic shape, Bertone relatively of logically-structured this Mik´o, Seltmann, variation requires to (Yoder, and contrast Ontology mechanisms, In Anatomy sharing Hymenoptera knowledge the one-to-one 2010). as on transfer, Deans, information based such Therefore, is uses hierarchies articulate. to commonly reliable, linguistic difficult that approach all or meaning qualitative subjective at 2006), The often Beamer, if are (mis-)interpretation. & training that (Bond individual descriptions specific arbitrariness from species requires by of verbal only come plagued means not simply be key phenotype scoring also may of a of can variation perception reproducibility become but qualitative The have experience as 1966). considerable however, and comparative (1950, issue, and 1758), basic Hennig 350; an (Linnaeus after the is (Artistotle, particularly states formalization as analysis, discrete traits its established phylogenetic from were discrete for taxonomy data states and scoring alpha Discrete continuous animal 1952). both in Remane, units comprise 1947; Rensch, to 1917; considered Thompson, histories traditionally evolutionary research. crucial biodiversity is modeling and in for fundamental Morphology phenotypes valuable, a of also constitutes study approach (Fodor are the morphometric organisms data for the Continuous other practice Thus, Cohen and 2018). 2020). In¨abnit, Chuanromanee, 2019), al., 2017, by 2007; 2018; Parins-Fukuchi, et and Kenis, (Savriama, (e.g., McMullin 1963) & plants 2015; the Sneath, Simbolotti for al., by & practice (Villemant, as Sokal et exemplified animals clinical such 1957; is 2019), taxonomy, frameworks, human Sokal, This Ryan, alpha other & in & taxa. for in (Michener and higher century key studies twentieth 2019), and also modern the species numerous al., are in describing data et phenetics and morphometric Anderson of differentiating (Ma- applications, development formally 2018; ecomorphism (Palmer, other of 2007), Meachen, asymmetry Among discipline al., & fluctuating the 2008). Tomiya et assess Frost, Shingleton 2018; to & of used 2009; (Bartlett novel practice al. yielded been Majoros, the has et (Cs˝osz has & Morphometry via ontogeny hendiran and forms. sciences 2015), 2020) anatomical life Klingenberg, al., of the (Esquerr´e1993; shape et evolution in and Con- size in purposes time. the findings numerous of evolutionary for measurement through the captured and development morphometry: is during variation continuously morphological varies tinuous organisms of phenotype The Introduction delimitation species taxonomy, entomology, morphology, repeatability, error, measurement Keywords 2 Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ne hnigcniin,sc scagn rnil,mto fmaueet bevr ntuet etc. measurand instrument, same observer, the measurement, on of made method measurements principle, 2001). between changing Kuyatt, agreement as & of (Taylor such correlation degree conditions, intra-class the changing same via to under the assessed refers following be Reproducibility microscope, can same * 1987). the Repeatability Boag, using & observer, 2001). Lessells same Kuyatt, see the measurand (ICC, & same by (Taylor the made on protocol made 2008). i.e. measurements measurement Frost, conditions, repeat & com- between same agreement (Bartlett measurements the of measurands observed degree under error. between the between random to occurs occurs refers by that Repeatability that variability affected * error of is measurement amount Precision inherent of 1). neces- the same amount (Fig. not to the the measurand are pared to on the but refers made of clustered, the Reliability measurements value tightly of * the of are to instead pairs measurements close Precise between follow measurand” i.e. measurements We protocol. the accurate, the same sarily 2001). of error. of the Kuyatt, value closeness applying random & and the ”the (Taylor and value”) measurand to phrase systematic true refers by the ”a Precision (or affected using * measurand” is in subject the Accuracy (= NIST of measurand value the the 1). ”true by of often-applied value (Fig. proposed the measured) terminology to measurement(s) be the the to of 2008) quantity Frost, closeness & average or (Bartlett the by describes proposed Standards Accuracy terms for * and Institute USA National the the fluency of systematics: of the 2001) biological terminology increase Kuyatt, standard in To & the literature. Taylor adopt the (NIST, Technology to in differently and propose defined we commonly are discourse, “reproducibility”) studies scientific and repeatability of “repeatability”, with “reliability”, association “precision”, in “accuracy”, morphometric used (e.g. of terms reproducibility of number the A exploring in step first 1.] same [Textbox a Terminology the are interpretation to findings morphometric of Our of according quality entomology. reproducibility practice. the specimens, of across daily and level ant data countries, in skills the of of six works morphometric overview of it set and an range as with continents same wide us three the The provided equipment. used over on own levels microscopes routines measurements their diverse with taxonomic repeated of protocol, different participants perform measurement as Eleven with to 1949), variation. working the asked Ward, Brian, their as expertise, were (e.g., 2017) and & and al., studies forms Brian et skill myrmecological anatomical Wagner Mik´o, 1943; 2015; of recent interpreting & Cs˝osz Brown, Heinze 2019; in of which 2003, (e.g., widely method in 1992, employed tradition primary Seifert, group 1998; been long a Urbani, has ants, a Baroni broad used Morphometry 1999; has We a organism. compiled data analyses. model we statistical morphometric reproducible?”, a robust morphometry of performed insect application is and extent the data generally what entomology morphometric “to data in of 2013). question morphometric the database al., data address et and morphometric to Johnson of 2019), order 2007; assessments In Ryan, Pretorius, reproducibility & & date, (Mutanen DeBiasse to limited 1998; However, extremely are 2015). al., al., et et Jones (Andrew 1998; Huelsenbeck, (e.g., 3 Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. vrapn ags(efr 09;tu,teeseiscnb lsie nmliait aho ny Today, only. fashion multivariate in classified be can species these thus, 2009); (Seifert pair, ranges species overlapping cryptic research, a systematic of insect in each hirtellus studies specimens morphometric of ten repeatability selected evaluating for we basis stress-test ideal an As – objects research The error Methods of and type scatterplot This matrix Materials pairwise recording. a or in or measurements reading reading repeated careful (e.g., the by observer comparing eliminated 2011). via an Leuenberger, be hoc precision by & both can post data affects (Baur recognized error seriously recording error be of of in also type source can This mistakes This magnification. readings, set accuracy. mistakenly false or and 38), from of arising instead 88 errors, recording measurement’s the Gross on a conditions influence external 3. primarily the predictable. of errors are effects sources Systematic the individ- cal- these to imperfect etc. but an ascribed as accuracy, illumination, such data be from factors false can temperature, arises by or that e.g., caused equipment, which error error measurements, environmental the instrumental error, c) of b) and observational setting 2002); etc., proper a) (Seifert, ibration, of errors into lack parallax procedures, to subdivided due measuring be recording of description can the unclear which of bias, detected ual’s errors, be changes can Systematic which positional precision. outcomes, affects minor dissimilar 2. different primarily in and three results error in error Random vibrations, of arise observations. type mechanical errors replicated This Such apparatus, by measurement. single unpredictable. the every are of at hence subject oscillations and errors: observational irregularly random of occur ways: classes which broad errors, three Random include 1. morphometry in error of sources Recognized 2.] [Textbox errors of Sources accuracy. versus Precision 1. Fig. C˝ s ihr 06,frattlo wnyatseies vr ri ne bevto shows observation under trait Every specimens. ant twenty of total a for 2016), Fisher, (Cs˝osz & 4 eoymxdevius Nesomyrmex C˝ s ihr 06 and 2016) Fisher, (Cs˝osz & N. Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. L edcpuelnt aiu ehlclnt nmda ie h edms ecrflytle otepsto ihtetu maximum. true the with position the to tilted carefully eyes. the be must of head posterior The capsule head line. of median width in Maximum length cephalic Maximum eyes. compound including head the of width Maximum definition Character capsule head of eyes Width including CWb: head of Width CW: length capsule Head CL: set description erroneously abbreviation: Trait recording. or character mistyping morphometric for misreading, definitions to trait observations. Verbatim random eliminate due repeated extent 1. to the Table an what (occurring encouraged of to on were values error of gaugers the based question gross all comparing the assembled by Therefore, to addressed magnification) was reproducibility. we due work, of protocol current differences rate Schlick-Steiner The the the extraordinary 2016; In affect 1). Fisher, Cs˝osz errors 2017). & Table 2018; systematic al., 2006, and et and (Seifert, Wagner 2 papers visual 2006; published rate, (Fig. al., including in order error et used follow protocol, inter-gauger characters in measurement to of and twice same set repeatability, definitions existing the specimen to trait provided each equivalent was verbatim error, in gauger and intra-gauger characters Every both reproducibility. morphometric testing to continuous equivalent for 21 data measure collect to to asked were – Gaugers by protocol separated recording study character present morphometric the in The used microscope the measured specimens of of quality, magnification number equipment’s total maximum MYRM_9000_100x). paper, their estimated (e.g. the this and field, underscores in and skills in expertise their career, anonymously follows: regarding morphometric their as appear information format of in gaugers triad important overview to in laboratory most coded a an belonging of the are provided Data provide is levels gaugers to practice. used, different one the order daily microscopes the in of and in of and but Eight works specialists types to skills equipment. it wasp own the asked morphometric as their are observers’ were reproducibility especially with the (two equipment, skill, specimens of and non-myrmecologists and ant range facilities are training of wide taxonomic three set The same of and dipterologist). the three levels myrmecologists on from different are measurements volunteers have volunteers Eleven of all gaugers pair thresholds. eleven who a statistical by countries, perform on performed six based measurements morphometric repeatable and the continents considered not be or could whether of (“measurers”) question the addressed We – Gaugers Resources. Natural the between Parks N were N National collaboration ants Madagascar Numbers: N ongoing export Forest, (Approval MINENVEF/SG/DGEF/DPB/SCBLF, an Tsimbazaza and and de of Environment collect, Zoologique of part N research, EV10/MG04, et Ministry as to Botanique Fauna the Forest this Parc permits and Wild and in and Sciences of Madagascar, Environment used of Species of in specimens Convention Academy Endangered Ministry conducted ant the California in in work the The Trade outlined from field un- International samples For individuals. obtained on research gaugers 18 Convention of subsequent Flora. exchange the only the and and and on making export Diversity done (avail- for shipments, Biological were S1 regulations postal on the Table analyses consecutive with Supplementary final The to comply in them, study U.S.A. due listed measure California, projects is to Francisco, the work able San during this Sciences, damage in of of examined at Academy morphometrically Dryad California on material able the of in list systematic deposited to full challenges is extraordinary material pose The and cases difficult most the considered biology. are pairs species cryptic ° 39/A1M0,N 0379N/EA11/MG02, ° https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.q83bk3jfq 9d 70/6 N 07/04/06, du 69 ° 0NE0/G2.Atoiainfrepr a rvddb h ietrof Director the by provided was export for Authorization 200N/EA05/MG02). ° 6NE0/G1 N 065N-EA05/MG11, ° 34/A2M0,N 0324N/EA12/MG03, 5 .Bcuetoseiessffrdacrandegree certain a suffered specimens two Because ). ° 4NE0/G1 N 047N-EA05/MG11, ° 0 l\fEF/SG/DGEF/DADF/SCBF, 100 ° 12/A3M0,N 0142N/EA03/MG02, ° 8NA3M0,N 083N-A03/MG05, ° 340N- ° 206 i.2a Fig. 2a Fig. 2a Fig. 2 Fig. to Reference Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. PA pn aewdhTesals itneo h aea agn ftesie tterbs.Ti hudb esrdi osfotlve,snetewdrprso h eta rpdu ontitreewt h esrmn nti oiin fteltrlmriso pnsdvrecniuul rmtetpt h ae mletdsac tbs sntdfie.I hscs,SB smaue ttelvlo h otmo h nesia meniscus. interspinal the of bottom the of level the at measured is SPBA case, this In defined. not is base at distance smallest a base, the to tip the from continuously diverge spines 2d of Fig. margins lateral the adjustment. excentrically. If correct adjustment. positioned for position. correct be adjustment. bases this for may correct setae in bases that for of measurement setae opening bases position the of stigma setae also with position real of use interfere also of position and not centre use also do superimposing the and use are propodeum to superimposing adjustment. and ventral node not are correct superimposing the of but node for are of face ring of bases sternites parts frontal cuticular points setae capsule. of wider face. of outer highest of joint part the pronotal part the right position right scape anterior right since by and also and of steep and view, defined left use left lamellae dorsofrontal of left midpoint that and of dorsal in point the the care point the distant measured that superimposing to take lowest of most care be are refers section), Take the the posterior should centre node visible. frotal points. that to immediately 4). This stigma of sometimes in reference care lobe The lobes convexity points is (Fig. base. Take condyle. as frontal no which highest propodeal margin their tip. 1F). articulatory tips lateral right (i.e., helcium, of at spine of postpetiolar spine (Fig. the and the point node neck spines and anterior of sclerite in left of caudalmost of the the stigma the centers petiolar shadow that corner from plane excluding of and the propodeal ventral triangular care dorso-caudal length dorsal margins scape margin take of and dark take the a lateral thick the centre gynes: postpetiolar dorsal a section), point is the or of the In between posterior frontal produce reference there of rounded between length border the point). in and as If Maximum distance are Distance segment between convexity reference caudad adjustment. take smallest tips excluded. the is no anterior switched correct erroneously The spine are of and (i.e., as fully for not if present, section node shield postpetiole considered. is bases Do view; if linear of pronotal the not scape setae margin. dorsal cylinder. spines, view. the plane and of are the of eye in caudal by dorsal Nodal dorsal margin slope - when position posterior tips of defined in a any pronotal posterior visible. base also the spine corner line postpetiole is between if the sometimes scape use of dorso-caudal a propodeal of there - borderline to is of and level to to of width If which spines dark-shaded perpendicular corner the superimposing process Distance Maximum perpendicularly helcium, the Nodal is inner at process. are subpetiolar Measured the of width. that the head subpetiolar view. node of centre of Postpetiole view. line up median the dorsal of tip the corner lateral take anatomical of in slope point: the take dorso-caudal in pits longest end petiole caudal measuring from and the These The postpetiole caudal of frontal of measured view point the the width line. margin; profiles view; dorsal reference of and Maximum reference right occipital lateral use as height profile as and median in defined, take Maximum taken petiole left length well erroneously point: ventral be that not petiolar not measuring of may care is Diagonal Do Caudal Take corner pits point 1D). CL. caudal corner spiracle. transition of (Fig. between scape petiolar the distance position spanning petiole of of if tip measuring chord the point centre view; spine the the of the deepest lateral to Propodeal cylinder follows: to the in head SPTI: caudal as cylinder carinae, measured width the of defined frontal caudal (preferentially base adjust profile line the of shield Spine and dorsal reference surpass margin pronotal spines. SPBA: micrometer ventral and laterally the anterior included. pronotal ocular a slope length not to and are the cross-scaled to dorso-caudal Spine do fitted not, slope excluding a between SPST: perpendicular lamellae line or pronotal pronotum Use transition Measured dorsal pigmented reference anterior the length the ommatidiae, these between the width Scape of If point visible from maximum SL: midpoint transition structurally orthogonally lamellae. workers: imaginary to All measured width torular In the is lobe Postpetiole e 6 i.2g Fig. 2g Fig. 2d Fig. 2a Fig. 2g Fig. 2d Fig. 2f Fig. 2g Fig. 2f Fig. 2f Fig. 2a Fig. 2d Fig. 2e Fig. 2d Fig. 2c Fig. 2b Fig. illustrated) (Not 2 Fig. to Reference Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. saqartctr ftemaue ausdvddb h u fteqartctr ftemaue plus measured the as of (2008) term Frost quadratic and the Bartlett of by sum described the formally defined by is is between Reliability divided It variability values (SDs). inherent deviation. measured deviations the standard the standard square to of as the measurements expressed term the be quadratic in can a variability error as of the measures of These magnitude subjects. the on dissimilarity Permutational depends of A Reliability index 2001). Morosita 2001). Gallagher, the (Anderson, & using iterations (Legendre 2002) performed Ripley, 9999 unit was variance & with (PERMANOVA) Venables the Variance (PCA; and of Analysis mean Analysis different Component zero Multivariate eleven Principal to the via standardization by measured a scatterplot characters using a 21 in by displayed represented were specimens gaugers) (i.e. objects of patterns Distribution – analysis Data characters. morphometric for Illustrations 2. Fig. 7 Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. eesont aen infiateeto h pce dniybsdo h esrdmrhlgcltraits morphological measured the on based gaugers identity 2nd the species the the where the by for iteration, on revealed variance effect 9999 also the based significant with were were while no (R dissimilarity patterns results 62.59%, have of These was PCA to index 72.91%. shown axis The based Morosita was were 1st differences variance the 3b). the explained the using by (Fig. overall for performed explained the effect PERMANOVA respec- responsible variance thus, gauger gaugers was 10.32%; the different to identity was and two ascribed axis species in 5489, not the inertia appeared was the that misclassification and (less single revealed on observations traits, a PCA misidentified morphological 3a); same for the two the the of only (Fig. successful on in 198 results with was observations total The hypothesis gaugers’ gaugers the two-species all tively. eleven of involved the by out that at 1%) made analysis arrived than PCA observations gauger cumulative independent Each the of to analysis. pairs according taxa 18 two the the of classification – The gaugers between classification in Agreement the whether assess Results to consistency. & package order Fox measurement “Vegan” in 3.0-7, in the roles (version respectively using major package” gauger played by “car each quality 2019) and for equipment PERMANOVA Team, or calculated and Core skills rank was PCA (R gauger’s Spearman’s Repeatability for 3.6.2 using 2019) R gaugers’ by 2019). al., the in estimation Weisberg et of out ICC Oksanen effect carried of data the 2.5-6, were accuracy the tested (version analyses the also model we on The to (ANOVA) addition, performance variance In correlation. equipment’s of relatively their subjects. analysis be and on one-way made expertise a can measurements measurements applied error-prone repeat subjects we the the that SD, of containing measuring within-subject so basis high, the the subjects, estimate is on To between reliability measured) differences being If 2008). quantity true (ICC). Frost, the the & correlation of (Bartlett to intraclass terms (in as comparison distinguished known in well also small is is reliability error of measure This values) true subject’s of (SD 2 06,p=0.58). =0.69, 2 S ujcs revalues) true subjects’ (SD 8 2 S esrmn error) measurement (SD + 2 . Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. al .Rpaaiiysoe R acltdfrec character. each p for 0.3617, calculated = (R) (R scores correlation scores. Repeatability significant to ICC 2. no and belong Table returned size scores character trait model These absolute the linear extent were between what general 2). to 21 0.1071) The (Table examined = total we reproducibility. 0.526 reproducible, hence the the slightly to pool, of affects be character 0.471 observed size to out between the found characters in scores were traits 16 (R) PPL) smaller of physically PoOC, coefficient Reproducibility NOL, correlation FRS, intraclass agreement 2). (EL, inter-gauger with (Table traits the morphometric gaugers when Five 11 R=0.690) acceptable. the (mean morpho- 21 across R=0.471 examined and considered the R=0.872 was of between reproducibility the varied that characters indicated metric (ICCs) Coefficients Correlation Intraclass The the (B) – and identity agreement) species (inter-gauger (A) Reproducibility on based Analysis Component Principal measurement. for the biplot of accuracy Ordination 3a,b. Fig. E .91044 .681 330.85 762.78 18 18 265.74 18 223.93 300.48 0.7658 18 0.8847 264.86 18 407.84 18 155.03 0.9032 18 387.69 18 0.4244 0.9494 0.6275 18 0.5951 0.9016 243.82 0.7561 0.9349 0.6695 18 540.93 0.9095 0.7864 0.6907 565.60 0.7955 PEL 18 0.8346 18 0.6655 0.8724 ML 648.45 250.95 0.7519 0.7836 SPTI 0.7043 18 0.6846 18 0.8434 0.3324 SPBA 0.7970 0.7927 0.5306 0.5116 0.9154 PPW 0.6826 PEW 0.3476 0.9176 0.7074 MW ( 0.5259 size trait 0.4629 average EL 0.6993 0.6278 SL 0.8073 n 0.7050 0.3511 FRS bound upper 0.8113 0.5292 CWb bound lower CW PoOC CL R character 9 μ m) Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. aaeesadtemxmmmgicto ftemcocp n=1,R=05,t=20,p=0.073) = p 2.03, = t repeatability 0.56, gaugers. the = for between calculated R association (R) 11, non-significant scores = a Repeatability and (n 3. 0.016) Table 4). microscope = the (Fig. 3). p gauger of (Table 2.94, the magnification 0.9897 by t= maximum personal applied = 0.70, their the = R in of and measured R and to measure individuals parameters 11, scores of 0.7840 average ICC = number between = estimated calculated (n the correlation R career by The significant represented from a skills, revealed quality. ranged morphometric correlation gaugers’ equipment gaugers Rank Spearman’s different and non-parametric personal of skills their The evaluate coefficients their to order correlation with in gauger intraclass association every for in calculated were coefficients performance intraclass of mean geometric A – agreement) (intra-gauger Repeatability AP020 .576020prstcwasps myrmecologist parasitic myrmecologist myrmecologist wasps parasitic myrmecologist 100 230 myrmecologist 100 dipterologist 300 myrmecologist 230 50 0 300 0.87304 50 0.856756 myrmecologist 0.784024 50 myrmecologist 1000 MYRM_300_100x 500 100 0.884679 MYRM_300_100x 11 450 0.816274 WASP_0_230x 288 10 500 0.903117 WASP_1000_230x 9 0.831945 360 MYRM_500_50x 5000 100 0 8 MYRM_450_50x 0.971863 0.817519 7 60000 MYRM_500_50x ( 6 ICC 0.989691 MYRM_5000_288x 9000 5 MYRM_60000_360x 0.93645 4 DIPT_0_100x 3 MYRM_9000_100x 2 code gauger 1 no. hrce oe on pe on vrg ri ie( size trait average n bound upper bound lower R character P .79020 .581 185.64 18 217.51 228.55 18 18 154.87 249.68 18 0.6508 18 243.49 0.9120 180.08 0.9207 18 18 0.2909 0.7815 0.8666 0.4709 0.6907 0.7131 0.7831 0.8013 0.6880 0.8169 0.4465 PPL 0.5900 0.6140 SPST 0.7283 0.4487 PPH 0.3294 0.6159 NOH 0.5087 PEH STPL NOL R xets anfiainfield magnification expertise ) 10 μ m) Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. h ie ieecsi eouinadmgicto fteotclssesddntpa ao oe The role. major a play not did systems optical the of non-significance magnification model This and (155 linear score. resolution size generalized Traits ICC trait in a minimum trait. and with differences large size a this given rather trait of tested the average the between we size by low correlation when physical explained significant rather but absolute be no This scores, may the was ICC be character. there lower may have analysis 0.471 reproducible these to (GLM) between most tended of varied the sizes One (R) smaller in causes. with scores 0.872 different ICC and have character mean may measurement reproducibility the reproducible reduces least character-wise, microscopes agreement the in intra-gauger in resolution mean 4). optical analyzing Fig. better In indicate 3, and results (Table 4) These repeatability increases correlated. (Fig. significantly and not experience error parame- revealed were repeatability observer gauger correlation whereas the both Rank correlated, by that significantly Spearman’s used were non-parametric magnification skills maximum The morphometric and and determinations. ters scores 198 mi- ICC of gauger and the total that on skills a effect morphometric within gauger of 1.0% significant variety no only revealed great suc- (R test PERMANOVA a gaugers identity The despite eleven species quality. conclusion The differing two-species of agreement. equipment same inter-gauger croscopic the of at terms arrived in cessfully reproducible proved characters Morphometric correlation rank Discussion Spearman the by repeatability testing for variables studied the of correlogram test. The 4. Fig. 2 06,p05) h ai fmsdnictoso pcmnlvloe l agr was gaugers all over level specimen on misidentifications of ratio The p=0.58). =0.69, 11 μ )i the in m) Nesomyrmex etognsswhere organisms test Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. erh olc,adepr nswr bandfo h iityo niomn n oeta atof Environment part of Num- as (Approval Ministry Tsimbazaza Forest re- the de and to and Zoologique Environment permits et Sciences of Botanique Madagascar, of Parc Ministry in Academy and research the Parks conducted California of National from work the Madagascar exchange in obtained Forest, field between Trade and and were For International collaboration export ants on ongoing for Flora. Convention export an regulations and the and Fauna and the collect, Diversity Wild with search, Biological of comply on Species study Convention Endangered the this in in outlined used samples Academy specimens California the ant at Fellowship The Schlinger the by supported DEB-0344731, DEB-0072713, partly Sciences. permission was of No. her Grant SC under Finally, for Foundation Davies Science DEB-0842395. National Bethan and the by Dr. supported the the thank was study and 1. to provided This Tsimbazaza, Figure wish that de in authors Zoologique fieldwork graphics The Environment databasing, et of the The people. Ministry Botanique use with Malagasy the Parc to of support the the lab. help of and enduring the the Parks, support without her National completed gracious in been Madagascar for have support the not CASC, Forest, could overall and from study her this Esposito, in and used Michele specimens proofreading, thank to processing, like imaging would we First, Acknowledgements with results our will to equipment comparable prove for conclusions requirements basic The the classes, crickets. if size or know different to grasshoppers of keen observers’ taxa ants. larger with are of and arthropods, study we wasps range this of but parasitic replicate same groups developmentalchange, to tiny comparable the other teams with a research for traits, to as encourage reproducibility et belong measured we such same specimens Keklikoglou this, of that from the 2019; range and Apart expect Boudinot, stability size exoskeleton stage. we 2019; similar same equipment, al., a the of have et these Given range Hita-Garcia provided same 2019; 2019). the al., al., meth- and et morphometric et skill, Sarnat and Braga believe, microscopic 2018; we 2019; multiple al., morphology, combining al., best et as taxo- The Richter such insect (e.g., means, setting. in multi-modal test ods practice through our regular done in in be reproducible common proven may are has that observer). morphometry advanced uncertainties research, above-mentioned nomic most the the besides of conclude, protocol the To measuring highlight the procedures factors measurement SI4, important These one accurate file fifth (by proposing definitions. A supplementary and readings character (see definitions etc.). their character of systems, unambiguous made read-out translation presenting observers of digital ambiguous by by the importance used observer-specific, marks, how is microscopes graduation unknown entire source zoom is by error the optical it mark, Fourthly, the graduation of of a unknown. error) magnification of are ratchet-step the tenth are higher same study (e.g., had the the this reliability or in stage in measurement and focus this a of gaugers performance stability of depth the endpoints the position two lower for Thirdly, which the the X-Y-Z-stage place accurate system. and to more an 2002) important is used which Seifert, is plane, it observers all in visual positioning, whether all 1 All spatial Firstly, whether In Fig. study. Secondly, given errors. unknown. (see this were also measuring specimens unknown. in but stereomicroscopic of is disturbances 1) minimize positioning Table error major to spatial and parallax how caused 2 the on these avoided Fig. protocols of stereomicroscopy observers (see or are which for definitions data advice specified analyze character these further were study, to picture-assisted no they present and impossible as the verbal is in sources received scores error It observers ICC ten low (2002). of rather combination Seifert the a the by to by in much explained given contribute were not better they probably does as size conditions trait measurement mean requires If task a such of solution MYRM The 25- gaugers measured. instance, be for to if, were dramatically change might situation 60000 6xadMYRM and 360x 5000 288x. 12 μ ogatna emnso tiny of segments antennal long m Plagiolepis Nesomyrmex ants Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. rg,J,Zme,V,Dmne,J,Smr . eBe,F,Znli . it,D,Rhf .J,Grine, J., 21–35. F. taxonomic 130, Rohlf, Evolution, for D., Human morphometrics Pinto, of geometric C., Journal 3D Zanolli, molars. and F., mandibular matching hominin Beer, surface doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.01.009. Pleistocene de diffeomorphic Early C., of of Samir, Efficacy discrimination J., (2019). Dumoncel, E. V., F. Zimmer, J., morphology. doi:10.1093/isd/ixz019. evolutionary Braga, and 1–4. systematic 3(6), Diversity, Current its entomology: and and in Systematics doi::10.1071/IS05041. shape phylomics Insect Toward 1–7. carapace (2019). 20, spider E. mygalomorph Systematics, B. Invertebrate of Boudinot, analysis (Araneae). morphometric character phylogenetic A (2006). a A. as D. efficacy Beamer, clinical E., of J. methods two Bond, between agreement doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)15270-1. assessing 307–310. for 327, methods 60, Statistical Lancet, Biology, (1986). measurement. D. Systematic Altman, morphometry. M., multivariate J. Bland, in ratios of Analysis doi:10.1093/sysbio/syr061. (2011). doi:10.1002/uog.5256. 813–825. C. 466–475. Leuenberger, 31, Gynecology, H., & Baur, errors measurement Obstetrics of in wear analysis Ultrasound reproducibility: queens variables. and and continuous repeatability minor Reliability, doi:10.1007/s000400050091. in (2008). than C. 315–333. smaller Frost, 45, is W., J. Sociaux, major Bartlett, where Insectes W.D. ants, soldiers. in Ross, the castes of J.A., of shield number Smith, the The by (1998). C. the edited Urbani, Assessing D.W., Baroni (2015). Thompson, T. by Vines, Press. University G., translated Oxford D. Animalium, London, Bock, Historia J., D. 350. Rennison, Artistotle, S., analyses. Renaut, function K., discriminant Y. of A. reproducibility Albert, L., Ecology, R. Austral variance. Andrew, of analysis multivariate non-parametric doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2001.01070.pp.x. for method 32–46. environmental new 26, to A (2001). response Consistent J. morphometric (2019). M. E. rapid Anderson, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0213930. Nol, a & e0213930. suggest A., 14(4), P. sandpipers One, Smith, Calidridine PloS G., of change. R. lengths Morrison, wing L., in C. Gratto-Trevor, declines C., Friis, M., A. Anderson, References Repository Digital Dryad the from available Data the of writing the availability publication. led for ZE Data approval and JMU final CT and gave BLF, RS and BEB, NR, drafts BS, JCR, the IM, JP, to SC, MP, critically data; MB, contributed the methodology; authors analysed designed SC All and and manuscript. ideas ZE the data; conceived the IM collected and BLF BS, SC, contribution: Author Resources. Natural of Director the by provided was export N A5M1,N EA05/MG11, es N bers: ° 0 l 100 ° \ E/GDE/AFSB,N fEF/SG/DGEF/DADF/SCBF, 12/A3M0,N 0142N/EA03/MG02, ° 8NA3M0,N 083N-A03/MG05, ° 4NE1/G4 N 340N-EV10/MG04, ° 0 IEVFS/GFDBSBF N MINENVEF/SG/DGEF/DPB/SCBLF, 206 ° 39/A1M0,N 0379N/EA11/MG02, PeerJ, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.q83bk3jfq 13 ° :13.doi:10.7717/peerj.1137 3:e1137. 9d 70/6 N 07/04/06, du 69 ° 0NE0/G2.Atoiainfor Authorization 200N/EA05/MG02). ° 6NE0/G1 N 065N-EA05/MG11, ° 0324N/EA12/MG03, . ° 047N- Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. iaGri,F,Leemn . uii,T . i,C,Eooo .P 21) eiino h highly- the of Revision (2019). geology/ P. 1–84. E. 3, Diversity, http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacial-geology/dating-glacial-sediments-2/precision-and-accuracy-glacial- Economo, and C., Systematics Insect Liu, solved? cybertaxonomy. L., problem 3D and T. Strepsiptera Audisio, the genus ant Z., is specialized Lieberman, analysis: F., phylogenetic Hita-Garcia, in bias of 519–537. University Systematic 47, Biology, Urbana, (1998). Systematic R. P. Zangerl, J. D., Huelsenbeck Davis, by translated Systematics, Press. Phylogenetic Illinois (1966). W. winglength. Hennig, avian in asymmetry Grundz directional verlag. causes (1950). handedness W. Hennig, Human One, (2000). PLoS H. approaches Behaviour, States. multiple Animal United Albrecht, using the of in B., ant importance Helm, crazy The rasberry (2012). the of S. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045314. case J. e45314. the LaPolla, 7(9), J., species: invasive R. emerging Kallal, Evalu- identifying G., for replicable? S. Brady, analyses D., fossil morphometric Gotzek, and geometric extant Are doi:10.1002/ece3.6063. on impact (2020). 3260–3275. its L. 10, and J. Evolution, error Blois, measurement J., landmark J. ating Veneracion, S., N. Fox, https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/. CA. (2019). S. Weisberg, J., Fox, of doi:10.15287/afr.2015.411. morphometry 275–294. Geometric Kostov, S., Diamandis, (2015). S., K. Slavov, G., Keˇca, in N., G., G. evolution doi:10.1093/sysbio/syaa024. Tziros, Hˆarut¸a, Grazziotin, phenotypic syaa024. A., E., H., Biology, Milenkovi´c, Lyubenova, rapid Fodor, O., I., Systematic Zaher, reveal line. M., morphometrics Wallace’s E. and crossing Lemmon, biogeography after Phylogenomics, R, pythons A. (2020). phyloge- Lemmon, S. in G., J. bias I. Keogh, overcoming Brennan, and S., transparency Donnellan, doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.26585v4. Esquerr´e, Promoting D., 672–678. Phylotocol: 68, (2019). Biology, F. Systematic J. netics. Ryan, B., mermithogenic M. doi:10.1007/s00040-008-1040-3. DeBiasse, of 70–76. origin 56, Ontogenetic Sociaux, Insectes (2009). Formicidae). G. Majoros, same of Cs˝osz, S., the ants Ponto-Mediterranean of the coordinates of synopsis cartesian Taxonomic nylanderi (2015). Science, and Mik´o, I. J., chords Plant Heinze, doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1988.tb02847.x. Cs˝osz, using S., 389–394. in 215, replicability Zoology, Applications Morphometric of leaves. Journal (1988). landmarks. of (MASS): S. Shape R. analyses and Corrucini, Size morphometric of Analysis for Morphological (2019). program doi:10.1002/aps3.11288. 54, L. 7(9):e11288. News, software G. Entomological Ryan, Jersey. integrative I., New J. An of Cohen, barrens S., pine T. the Chuanromanee, from ant metallic new A (1943). 243–248. Jr. L. W. Brown, ants the of taxonomy 393–409. the on Observations (1949). D. nodis A. Brian, V., M. Brian, yadr(yeotr:Friia) rnatoso h noooia oit fLno,100(14), London, of Society Entomological the of Transactions Formicidae). (Hymenoptera: Nylander cesd2020-03-05. accessed pce-ru.Po n,1(1,e100.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140000. e0140000. 10(11), One, PLoS species-group. 0 9–0.doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1534c. 899–902. 60, Discothyrea g ie hoi e hlgntshnSseai.Bri,DushrZentral- Deutscher Berlin, Systematil. phylogenetischen der Theorie einer uge ¨ nRCmaint ple ersin hr edition. Third Regression, Applied to Companion R An Hmnpea omcde nteArtoiswt -a microtomography x-ray with Afrotropics the in Formicidae) (Hymenoptera: htptoapuioasporangia plurivora Phytophthora 14 Myrmica Microtus naso oetRsac,58, Research, Forest of Annals . ymc rubra Myrmica hntps(Hymenoptera, phenotypes lsicto.Eooyand Ecology classification. ae huadOaks Thousand Sage, .and L. Temnothorax .laevi- M. Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. aaaa . cileh .(00.RpaaiiyfrGusa n o-asindt:apatclguide practical a data: non-Gaussian and Gaussian 85:935–956. for Reviews, Biological Repeatability biologists. 32:371–386. (2010). Entomology, for H. Systematic Schielzeth, genitalia. Colla- S., morphometrics moth (2009). Nakagawa, geometric of L. and comparison traditional R. a vs. Buckner evaluation delimitation: visual species . Subjective . in metric . (2007). E. diffeomorphic T., Pretorius, via Brown, M., brain Mutanen, A., human Kolasny, the 30:2132–2141. B., Evolution, of Mapping, Fischl, study Brain classification. morphometry A., Human in MRI mapping. Qiu, an problem E., anatomy: a C. computational to borative Priebe, approach I., quantitative M. A Miller, (1957). R. R. Sokal, 11:130–162. D., of C. synopsis Michener, A Ontario, (2018). G. southern S. from Newmaster, species 96:547–553. B., Botany, mor- new S. animal a Selva, of R., including 9:613–623. measurements J. America, Evolution, Maloles, situ and T., In Ecology R. (2018). in McMullin, R. Methods Nagarajan, method. non-invasive A., A P. 10.1117/12.2216202. features: doi: Azeez, phological 9784:1–11, M., Photonics, Parthiban, and M., Optics Mahendiran, for Society International Stockholm], of [= Proceedings mation. Holmiae reformata. decima, L Editio cum species, I. genera, Tomus ordines, Salvii. classes, secundum locis. Laurentii naturae, synonymis, tria character regna differentiis, morphological per characteribus, naturae discrete Systema from (1758). phylogeny C. estimating Linnaeus, 104:116–121. to Auk, approach 50:913–925. Biology, mistake. likelihood Systematic common A a data. (2001). repeatabilities, species O. Unrepeatable P. of (1987). Lewis, ordination T. P. for Boag, transformations M., meaningful C. Lessells, Ecologically concepts, (2001). 129:271–280. D. morphometrics: Oecologia, E. geometric data. Gallagher, with P., asymmetry Legendre, fluctuating 7:843–934. Symmetry, Analyzing applications. and (2015). methods, P. C. Molecular Klingenberg, morphometrics. geometric for package 11:353–357. software Euro- integrated Resources, an Ecology protocols. MorphoJ: practice (2011). P. best C. for Klingenberg, (2019). handbook C. 522:1–55. a Arvanitidis, Taxonomy, of specimens: . Kvaˇcek, Journal . history . J., pean natural Brecko, P., for Wils, Madras, tomography E., Micro-computed Melbourne, Chatzinikolaou, (1998). York, S., A. Faulwetter, New Karp, K., London, Keklikoglou, P.G. biodiversity. . Isaac, . screening . A., C, for Karp Wiel, in Hall. tools 191–192 der & Molecular Van pp. Chapman F, laboratories. (Eds) Sala, European D.S. of O., Ingram network M. a and Winfield, by S., AFLPs 276:77–84. Castiglione, of ZooKeys, testing J., Reproducibility K. methods. Edwards, measurement J., detached C. and dragonfly Jones, scanned of pinned, measurements Morphometric of (2013). accuracy P.R.Y. Backwell, the J.L., wings: Gardner, B.L., Mantle, L., Evolution Diversit´ıJohnson, and Organisms Carychiinae). Ellobioidea, genus (Gastropoda, troglobitic Alps the of Dinaric 19:135–177. microsnails and carychiid Eastern reveals the study taxonomic in integrative An (2019). E. bert, In 05. https://www.nist.gov/pml/nist-technical-note-1297/nist-tn-1297-appendix-d1-terminology/ sl . evln,V 21) nacn iuinagrtmfr4 mg emnainuiglclinfor- local using segmentation image 4D for algorithm diffusion a Enhancing (2016). V. Heuveline, P., ¨ osel, bi,T,Jcu,A,Kmshle . atl,G,Rtesenr . lpi,R,Nsehu,C,Neu- C., Nesselhauf, R., Slapnik, B., Ruthensteiner, G., Martels, M., Kampschulte, A., Jochum, T., ¨ abnit, 15 .selvae C. upre ymrhmti analyses. morphometric by supported , Chaenotheca cesd2020-03- accessed Zospeum nNorth in Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. efr,B 19) aooi eiino h aaaci ebr fteatsubgenus ant the of members Palaearctic the of revision - Formicidae). 55:421–438. taxonomic Integrative Entomology, menoptera: A (2010). of H. (1992). Review R. B. Annual Crozier biodiversity. Seifert, E., exploring Christian, to C., approach Stauffer, B., multisource Seifert, a M., taxonomy: Palearctic F. Western Steiner, C., in B. 40:259–273. diversity Schlick-Steiner, Christian, Evolution, cryptic C., and Stauffer, reveals Phylogenetics E., Molecular Dyreson, approach Formicidae). M., multidisciplinary Sanetra, (Hymenoptera: B., A Without Seifert, (2007). K., (2006). Moder, M. E. M., F. TREE F. Steiner, discovery. Steiner, H., following C., B. R. crypsis Schlick-Steiner, Crozier, taxonomic E., in Christian, stay C., species Stauffer, cryptic B., morphology, Seifert, C., Plant B. in Schlick-Steiner, Frontiers symmetry. floral of doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01433 Fijian morphometrics 1433. geometric of 9, for revision guide Science, One: a step-by-step A Species with (2018). Ready biology Y. (2019). Savriama, systematic P. E. enhance Economo, to G., reality Fischer, Formicidae). augmented C., (Hymneoptera: of D. Liu use Datta, K., Dudley, the Proceedings . F., collaboration. exploring . . Hita-Garcia, mass A., M., scientific Almaatouq, E. a 117:8398–8403. Sarnat, K., with Sciences, Al-Ghoneim, outcomes of E., life Academy C. simple of National Ten predictability Ahearn, the (2008). the T., of C. Measuring A. N. (2020). Kindel, Fox, al. D., I., et J. Lundberg, Warren, J. I., 40:149–1435. M. R. NeuroImage, Salganik, Scahill, studies. D., morphometry J. voxel-based Rohrer, reporting D., for M. rules S. Henley, R., G. cephalic Ridgway, The 49:26–49. (2019). Development, G. & R. Beutel, species Structure F., Arthropod Garcia, ant Hita implications. P., the E. Economo, of B., F. anatomy Rosumet, A., R. Keller, A., Enke, Richter, Ferdinand Evolution. Transspezifische die 407. Abstammunglehre Pp. der Probleme Stuttgart. Neuere (1947). B. Rensch, Leipzig. Portig, und nat Geest des Verlagsgesellschaft Vermont, Akademische grundlagen Publishing, genetik. Die Green (1952). Chelsea Years. A. Forty Remane, Next the for Forecast Global pp. A Statistical – 416 for 2052 Foundation (2012). R J. computing. Randers, statistical for https://www.R-project.org/. environment URL and Austria. language Open, Vienna, A Radiologica Computing, R: Acta (2019). Team methods. Core pelvimetry R tomography computed spiral and 8:2058460119855187. cross-sectional of study Evo- ve apes. in E., evolvability Phexell, of evolution the and preadaptation, 74:297–310. Systematic evolution, lution, phylogenetics. Mosaic morphological (2020). improve C. Parins-Fukuchi, can traits continuous of 67:328–339. Biology, Use (2017). (2019). Zeitschrift C. interpretation. Parins-Fukuchi, H. and Wagner, testing anthropology: . . physical . in D., statistics f Multivariate McGlinn, (1983). P., E. Legendre, C. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan Oxnard, 2.5–6. R., version Kindt, package R M., Package. Friendly, Ecology G., Community vegan: F. Blanchet, J., Oksanen, rMrhlgeudAtrplge 73:237–278. Anthropologie, und Morphologie ur ¨ kso,A,S A., Akesson, ˚ b.Br aukneu.G Naturkundemus. Ber. Abh. dreg . oek,A 21) nr-n ne-ae eiblt nacomparati- a in reliability inter-rater Intra-and (2019). A. Bolejko, M., ¨ oderberg, amni affinis Wasmannia netSs.Diversity Syst. Insect rihnSses e egecednAaoi n e Phylo- der und Anatomie vergleichenden der Systems, urlichen ¨ Friia,Hmnpea net)adisevolutionary its and Insecta) Hymenoptera, (Formicidae, 3:1–43. 16 ¨ orlitz. 66:1–67. , 22:391–392. Tetramorium Lasius Strumigenys .t.(Hy- s.str. ants Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. fmrhmti hrcesaegvn hssadr rtclwsfloe yec gauger. each by followed was protocol standard descriptions This and given. definitions are Abbreviations, characters recording. morphometric character of morphometric for definitions trait Verbatim studies: morphometric and 1. Table error Measurement (1992). 41:471–482. P. legends Biology, Table Handford, Systematic experience. C., observer S. and data. power morphological Lougheed, statistical from M., phylogenies S. Bayesian Yezerinac, estimating to in guide Diversity Methods and systematist’s repeatability. Systemaics A estimating Insect (2019). for M. Guidelines A. (2012). Wright, R. Y. 3:129–137. Paulsen, Evolution, J., and D. viduus Ecology Fairbairn, Pseudomyrmex E., the M. of Wolak, associations Linnean plant the of host Journal 126:451–540. and Zoological Society, for ants. Tachigali-inhabiting biogeography ontology Triplaris-and Formicidae), anatomy Systematics, (Hymenoptera: gross group (1999). A (2010). S. R. P. A. Ward, Deans, A., M. 5:e15991. Bertone, ONE, C., PLoS 32:625–634. K. Hymenoptera. Entomology, Seltmann, Systematic Mik´o, I., venation. J., M. wing Yoder, of analysis morphometrics geometric of Discrimination using (2007). species M. Kenis, G., Simbolotti, C., North (2002). Villemant, of D. B. impoverishment Ripley, ecomorphic N., recent W. Venables, and 14:20170613. diversity Letter, Postcranial Biological (2018). wolves. gray A. American NIST J. Kuyatt, Meachen, S., E. Tomiya, Chris and (1917). Taylor W. N. D. NIST Thompson, Barry of Results, Edition). and Uncertainty Measurement Evaluating (1994 for 1297 the NIST Guidelines Note Expressing of as Technical published Uncertainty and Insti- Originally the Evaluating MD. National Gaithersburg, Expressing Technology, for 5]. and March Guidelines Standards [2020, of (2001). http://physics.nist.gov/TN1297 tute Available: E. [Online]. C. Results, Kuyatt, 11:e0157890. Measurement One, N, PLoS B. methods. Taylor, analysis morphometric fish different of Ferincz, subjectivity Z., Vital, to P., engine Takacs, identification cyber Morphology-based 8:175–180. Freeman. the Nachrichten, H. (2006). sche shape: W. the K. Francisco, and of San Taxonomy. Moder, ants Size Numerical B.,C., identify of (2007). Schlick-Steiner, Principles J. (1963). F.,M., D. A. Steiner, N. Emlen, H. F., P. Sneath, 29(6):536–548. H. R., BioEssays, Nijhout, R. the insects. Sokal, T., in in allometry Flatt, change static A., a of W. need regulation Frankino, developmental we W., revisited: A. Formicidae) Shingleton, (Hymenoptera: ants 12:149–166. News, in Myrmecological species approach. Cryptic alpha-taxonomic (2009). B. Seifert, emeryi and stereomicroscopic genus the ant the of The improving (2003). - B. 126:445– Entomology, Seifert, species Applied of insect Journal ants. similar of example most by 454. distinguish characters external to of evaluation How mathematical (2002). B. Seifert, .elegans C. and , .minutior C. , ermru caespitum Tetramorium .bulgarica C. pce groups. species nGot n Form. and Growth On . Staszny, A., ´ , , 3:1–14. Cardiocondyla .batesii C. oenApidSaitc ihS with Statistics Applied Modern n.Ntrit u.We,BBt Zool. Bot. B Wien, Mus. Naturhist. Ann. .(06.Rpaaiiy erdcblt,sprtv oe and power separative reproducibility, Repeatability, (2016). A. ´ / , impurum .nuda C. Isca yeotr:Friia)-atxnmcrevision taxonomic a - Formicidae) Hymenoptera: (Insecta: abig nvriyPes London. Press, University Cambridge 17 , ope Hmnpea omcde.Myrmecologi- Formicidae). (Hymenoptera: complex .shuckardi C. Eubazus , .stambuloffii C. Hmnpea rcnde sibling Braconidae) (Hymenoptera, Springer-Verlag. . 104:203–338. , .wroughtonii C. , C. Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. O:Mxmmhih fteptoa oe O:Lnt fteptoa oe E:Mxmmpetiole length, Maximum Spine SPST: PEH: width, node, base Spine petiolar SPBA: length, the PPL: Scape height; of SL: Postpetiole width, PPH: Length Postpetiole distance, Postocular PPW: NOL: PoOC: length, width, node, Postpetiole Petiole width; PEW: petiolar mesosoma including lenght, MW: Petiolar the head length; PEL: of Mesosoma height, of Width ML: height width CW: of carinae length, Maximum Frontal abbreviations FRS: capsule for NOH: capsule, Head head Descriptions CL: of gaugers. follows: Width as (b) CWb: eyes, are dots and of letters) black species (red while accuracy (a) characters objects, the represent morphometric same morphospace (b) the within and on observations identity observations of species repeated represent (a) dots on red represent based and Analysis Black measurement. Component the Principal for width. biplot Postpetiole Ordination PPW: 1. and Table in width, given Petiole 3a,b. are PEW: Fig. characters SPBA: distance, for for PPH: tip lines definitions and and measurement spine trait lenght, with petiole, verbatim Propodeal Petiolar (g) Detailed of SPTI: PEL: propodeum, postpetiole view height, and width, of petiole, dorsal petiole petiolar base view propodeum, Maximum length; Spine the lateral of PEH: Spine view width; of for SPST: dorsal mesosoma lines height; height and Postpetiole measurement MW: Maximum length, (d) with for Postpetiole Frontal NOH: (f) (c) postpetiole lines PPL: erection, FRS: postpetiole measurement and mesosoma node, tip with for petiole, of petiolar (e) spine propodeum, view the lines mesosoma of of lateral Propodeal measurement Length view lamella); STPL: with NOL: lateral torular for (b) node, length; the lines dorsum Mesosoma identify measurement ML: head arrows with Head for the and line CL: distance lines of measurement for Postocular accessory PoOC: region with lines capsule, (red frontal head measurement width of length; with Width carinae CWb: (a) Scape eyes, view including SL: head dorsal and of in Width CW: Head length, characters. capsule morphometric for Illustrations (antarcticglaciers.org). Davies by 2. Bethan produced indicated Fig. Graphics Dr. are bullseye. is from measurements the Accuracy permission in Precise clustered with accurate. measurand. tightly used more are the measurements are and precise bullseye of and the value Accurate to clustered. the tightly closer bullseye—measurements represents the bullseye to The closeness accuracy. versus Precision 1. Fig. captions Figure MYRM alphabet Gauger J: MYRM contribution. MYRM their A: of E: format: sequence repea- 360x, the the triad to from according in the calculated aligned of coefficient codes are magnification correlation maximum experi- gaugers intraclass career, The format: a ICC: measurements. this in underscores. ted follows measured by individuals table separated of the used, number in estimated microscope information group, insect Gauger an gaugers. in for ence calculated (R) scores Repeatability distance, tip spine Propodeal Postpetiole SPTI: 3. PPW: length, Table Spine length, erection. SPST: Postpetiole tip width, spine PPL: base Petiole Spine Propodeal PEW: height; SPBA: lenght, STPL: FRS: Postpetiole Petiolar length, capsule, PEL: Scape PPH: petiolar height, head SL: the petiole distance, of width, Maximum of Postocular Width PEH: height as Maximum node, CWb: PoOC: are NOH: petiolar eyes, width, the width; characters including of mesosoma morphometric Length head MW: sizes NOL: of length; of trait node, Mesosoma Width abbreviations average ML: CW: and for width (n) length, carinae Descriptions Frontal cases capsule characters. of Head observed number CL: each bounds, follows: lower for and given upper are (R), coefficients correlation Intraclass 2. Table eoymxdevius Nesomyrmex 300 0x :MYRM K: 100x, 500 0,F MYRM F: 50x, n e osrepresent dots red and , 300 9000 100x. 500 0x :DIPT B: 100x, 0,G MYRM G: 50x, 18 .hirtellus N. 0 0x :MYRM C: 100x, 450 0,H WASP H: 50x, ovxhlsfrsaildistribution spatial for hulls Convex . 5000 1000 8x :MYRM D: 288x, 3x :WASP I: 230x, 60000 0 230x, - Posted on Authorea 28 Aug 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159863462.22493410 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ieo ahbbl spootoa oteetmtdcreainvle() h etcato h ih shows right the on chart heat The (r). value correlation values. The test. estimated r correlation the for rank to correspondence Spearman proportional color the is by the repeatability bubble testing each for of variables size studied the of correlogram The text). the in details values, 4. p Fig. and F determination, of (coefficient PERMANOVA triad MYRM in K: (B) codes 100x, alphabet Gauger erection. tip 500 spine MYRM Propodeal A: STPL: distance, format: tip spine Propodeal SPTI: 0,F MYRM F: 50x, 300 9000 500 0x opstoa ieecsbtentetet xrse sterslso the of results the as expressed treatments between differences Compositional 100x. 0x :DIPT B: 100x, 0,G MYRM G: 50x, 0 450 0x :MYRM C: 100x, 0,H WASP H: 50x, 19 5000 1000 8x :MYRM D: 288x, 3x :WASP I: 230x, 60000 0 3x :MYRM J: 230x, 6x :MYRM E: 360x, 300 - -