Morphometrics highlights subspecies differentiation of continental (<i>Rangifer t. tarandus</i>) and insular (<i>Rangifer t. platyrhynchus</i>) Norwegian reindeer-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Morphometrics highlights subspecies differentiation of continental (Rangifer t. tarandus) and insular (Rangifer t. platyrhynchus) Norwegian reindeer

Published:2023-11-24 Issue:1 Volume:88 Page:19-32
ISSN:0025-1461
Container-title:Mammalia
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Yu Fangzhou¹,Bignon-Lau Olivier²^ORCID,Pedersen Åshild Ønvik³,Strand Olav⁴,Veiberg Vebjørn⁴,Wiig Øystein⁵,Evin Allowen⁶^ORCID

Affiliation:

1. University of Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonnes , Paris , France

2. Technologie et Ethnologie des Mondes PréhistoriqueS, UMR 8068-TEMPS , CNRS , Paris , France

3. Norwegian Polar Institute , Tromsø , Norway

4. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research , Trondheim , Norway

5. Natural History Museum , Oslo , Norway

6. Institut des Sciences de l’Evolution-Montpellier, UMR 5554-ISEM, CNRS , Université de Montpellier, IRD, EPHE , 34095 , Montpellier , France

Abstract

Abstract Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) is an emblematic species with several recognized subspecies. Two reindeer subspecies are present in Norway: the wild and semi-domestic European tundra reindeer (R. tarandus tarandus) in continental Norway, and Svalbard reindeer (R. tarandus platyrhynchus) endemic to this archipelago. The main aim of this paper is to give a descriptive and quantified analysis of the modern wild reindeer morphological diversity. The morphometric variation was quantified, based on 262 adult specimens of both sexes, by both linear measurements, analysed through log shape ratio computed from post-cranial bones and teeth measurements, and landmarks and sliding semi-landmarks based geometric morphometrics (GMM) to quantify molars size and shape. All anatomical parts (teeth, metatarsals, metacarpals) highlighted differences between the continental and insular subspecies. Our main results pointed out morphometrics characteristics of nowadays reindeer subspecies, like differences in proportions between the size of metapodials or lower cheek teeth with the body size, that could be of great interest for archaeozoological research.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Animal Science and Zoology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Link

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/mammalia-2023-0004/pdf

Reference46 articles.

1. Adams, D.C., Rohlf, F.J., and Slice, D.E. (2004). Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the ‘revolution. Ital. J. Zool. 71: 5–16, https://doi.org/10.1080/11250000409356545.

2. Adams, D.C., Rohlf, F.J., and Slice, D.E. (2013). A field comes of age: geometric morphometrics in the 21st century. Hystrix 24: 7–14, https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6283.

3. Adams, D.C., Collyer, M.L., and Kaliontzopoulou, A. (2019). Geomorph: software for geometric morphometric analyses, R package version 3.1.0, Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/package=geomorph.

4. Banfield, A.W.F. (1961). A revision of the reindeer and caribou, genus Rangifer, 177. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin, Canada, p. 137.

5. Baylac, M. and Friess, M. (2005). Fourier descriptors, Procrustes superimpositions and data dimensionality: an example of cranial shape analysis in modern human populations. In: Slice, D.E. (Ed.). Modern morphometrics in physical anthropology. Kluwer, Chicago, pp. 145–165.