Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />chubs, morphological study might best be done with the inte~t of <br /> <br />finding natural groups, not by predesignating them (i .e., fishes <br /> <br />not ~ priori 2ssigned to species). <br /> <br />In this way, relationships <br /> <br />may be objectively discovered, for corroboration by other method- <br /> <br />ologies (e.g., mitochondrial DNA, cytogenetics, electrophoresis, <br /> <br />etc.). The choice of morphometric characters should entail an <br /> <br />even sampling of the body (= box truss; Bookstein et al., 1985) <br /> <br />and, perhaps, characters diagnostic for chub species elsewhere, <br /> <br />to maximize the liklihood of finding relevant differences. A <br /> <br />.~~ <br />large number of measurerrents can be rapidly taken with a digi- <br /> <br />tizer from photographs of live fish, allowing analyses without <br /> <br />sacrifice. <br /> <br />One multivariate comparison~l technique, principal components <br /> <br />analysis (PCA), is well suited for exploration of interpopula- <br /> <br />tional differences. <br /> <br />The method requires no prior categorization <br /> <br />(i .e., population, species, etc.) for a specimen, since the <br /> <br />algorithm sorts individuals. <br /> <br />peA ge~erates a set of 60mposite <br /> <br />characters arranged in order of decreasing variance <= diagnostic <br /> <br />power <br /> <br />Each composite character is made up from the origi~al <br /> <br />measurements (e.g., head length, snout length, standard length, <br /> <br />et c. ) . <br /> <br />Consequently, porulations will not only be better <br /> <br />compared by simultaneous consideration of numerous morphological <br /> <br />characters but also with the discernation of diagnostic ones. A <br /> <br />review of PCA can be found in Dunn and Everitt (1982). <br /> <br />3 <br />