Schaeffer, J. , Benton, M. J., Rayfield, E. J., & Stubbs, T. L. (2019). Morphological disparity in theropod jaws: comparing discrete characters and geometric morphometrics. Palaeontology. https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12455 Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record License (if available): CC BY Link to published version (if available): 10.1111/pala.12455 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Wiley at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12455 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms [Palaeontology, 2019, pp. 1–17] MORPHOLOGICAL DISPARITY IN THEROPOD JAWS: COMPARING DISCRETE CHARACTERS AND GEOMETRIC MORPHOMETRICS by JOEP SCHAEFFER ,MICHAELJ.BENTON* , EMILY J. RAYFIELD and THOMAS L. STUBBS School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Queens Road, Bristol, BS8 1RJ, UK; [email protected] *Corresponding author Typescript received 5 February 2019; accepted in revised form 29 July 2019 Abstract: Disparity, the diversity of form and function of of the taxa. The correlation is strongest between the two geo- organisms, can be assessed from cladistic or phenetic charac- metric morphometric methods, and weaker between the mor- ters, and from discrete characters or continuous characters phometric methods and the discrete characters. By using such as landmarks, outlines, or ratios. But do these different phylogenetic simulations of discrete character and geometric methods of assessing disparity provide comparable results? morphometric data sets, we show that the strength of these Here we provide evidence that all metrics correlate signifi- correlations is significantly greater than expected from the cantly with each other and capture similar patterns of mor- evolution of random data under Brownian motion. All dis- phological variation. We compare three methods of capturing parity metrics confirm that Maniraptoriformes had the high- morphological disparity (discrete characters, geometric mor- est disparity of all coelurosaurians, and omnivores and phometric outlines and geometric morphometric landmarks) herbivores had higher disparity than carnivores. in coelurosaurian dinosaurs. We standardize our study by focusing all our metrics on the mandible, so avoiding the risk Key words: dinosaur, coelurosaur, maniraptoriform, dis- of confounding disparity methods with anatomical coverage parity, morphometrics. S TUDIES of the amount of morphological variation, com- most common methods use discrete descriptive characters monly referred to as ‘disparity’, have become common in or geometric morphometrics. Describing morphological palaeontology. It might be argued that disparity (form) variation using discrete characters has usually focused on and diversity (species richness) should track each other in cladistic data sets as a ready source of rich data on trait a model of homogenous evolution, but they are fre- variation (Wills et al. 1994; Lloyd 2016; Gerber 2019). quently decoupled, with some clades showing high species This approach involves analysing character–taxon matri- richness but limited diversity of form, and smaller clades ces where morphologies are scored using character states, showing high disparity (Wills et al. 1994; Fortey et al. including the presence and absence of features, the num- 1996; Foote 1997; Ruta et al. 2013). Further, disparity is bers of certain elements (e.g. teeth or limbs), the relation- often high early in the evolution of a clade, suggesting ships between, or orientation of, elements and even some kind of ‘early burst’ model of evolution (Foote general features relating to size and shape. Geometric 1997; Erwin 2007). Disparity studies have provided morphometric methods, such as landmark coordinates insights into the evolution of novel body plans and eco- and outlines, measure the shape of a structure, with outli- logical innovations (Goswami & Polly 2010; Brusatte nes measuring the outer margin of a morphology and et al. 2014; Deline et al. 2018), the impact and selectivity landmarks measuring the location of homologous features of mass extinction events (Brusatte et al. 2008; Friedman in a Cartesian coordinate system (MacLeod 1999; Zelditch 2009; Bapst et al. 2012), and morphological expansion et al. 2012). during evolutionary radiations (Foote 1997; Erwin 2007; These methods can be used in different circumstances. Hughes et al. 2013; Stubbs et al. 2013; Close et al. 2015; For some studies, geometric morphometric analyses are Cooney et al. 2017). not possible due to a lack of homologous points, the Disparity should be considered in a comparative frame- complexity of the morphology, or a lack of completely work, and there are several analytical approaches. The preserved specimens, in which case discrete characters © 2019 The Authors. doi: 10.1111/pala.12455 1 Palaeontology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Palaeontological Association This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 2 PALAEONTOLOGY may represent a suitable alternative. In other studies, all three analytical approaches, so they had identical com- observing shape changes, and linking these to evolution- position in terms of phylogenetic and temporal coverage, ary hypotheses, is pivotal, and discrete characters are not and inter-taxon distances could be directly compared sta- appropriate. Because these methods are often used inter- tistically. The 40 coelurosaurian taxa used in these analy- changeably in the literature to describe disparity, it is ses had mandibles that were complete, without important to consider whether all methods give similar taphonomic distortion and had also been coded for jaw results or not, when discussing large-scale evolutionary and dental characters in the discrete character matrix of patterns. If not, then the methods must be applied and Brusatte et al. (2014) (see Schaeffer et al. 2019, tables S1, interpreted with extra care. Most comparisons of different S3). Most taxa are known from a single mandible fossil, disparity methods (Villier & Eble 2004; Anderson et al. but for species where multiple specimens exist, a single 2011; Anderson & Friedman 2012; Foth et al. 2012; representative was chosen for the geometric shape analy- Hetherington et al. 2015; Hopkins 2017; Maclaren et al. ses, but the discrete character analyses sampled all mat- 2017; Romano 2017) have shown similar results, but erial to maximize coding. In the second series of more or less strongly. On the other hand, Mongiardino extended analyses, we used the maximum possible sample Koch et al. (2017) found disagreements when comparing size available based on the restrictions of the methods. traditional morphometric data and discrete characters, For inclusion within the discrete character analyses, the and they strongly advocated incorporating a phylogenetic taxa had to be coded for mandibular characters in framework. the character matrix from Brusatte et al. (2014), even if Here we compare different methods of assessing the specimens were fragmentary or partially incomplete. disparity, including the two main methods in geometric We used the function TrimMorphDistMatrix from morphometrics (landmarks and outlines), as well as Claddis (Lloyd 2016) to remove highly incomplete taxa discrete cladistic characters. We use a case study focusing that generated non-applicable distances due to a lack of on a single anatomical region, to ensure that we com- shared characters, leaving a sample size of 89 taxa (see pare like with like. Our case study looks at coelurosaur- Schaeffer et al. 2019, tables S2, S4). For the extended geo- ian dinosaur mandibles, and we use these for several metric morphometric analyses, the jaw samples had to be reasons: they have a good fossil record, all clades and complete and undistorted, but they need not have been time intervals are sampled by multiple specimens, often included within the character matrix of Brusatte et al. with complete mandibles preserved. Further, they have a (2014), giving a sample size of 60 (see Schaeffer et al. wide range of morphologies, ranging from the elongated 2019, table S5). jaws in Mesozoic birds to the robust jaws in tyran- nosaurids, and the bizarre oviraptorids (Weishampel et al. 2004), often associated with different diets. Many Comparative groupings coelurosaurians were carnivores, while some clades, such as therizinosaurs, oviraptorids and birds show specializa- We examined morphospaces and calculated disparity tions for herbivory or omnivory (Zanno & Makovicky statistics for comparative groupings, aiming to replicate 2011). Mandibular disparity can also be effectively mea- the types of analyses common in the literature. We quan- sured using all analytical approaches. Finally, disparity in tified disparity in clades, firstly comparing the two major vertebrate jaws has been the subject of previous studies, coelurosaurian groups, Maniraptoriformes and Tyran- and it is accepted that characters of the mandible and nosauroidea, and then the following subgroups within mandible shape summarize