Does the application of geometric morphometric methods on skull allow a differentiation of domestic sheep breeds?

Parés Casanova, Pere M


Geometric morphometric methods (GMM) make it possible to study shape and size independently. The skulls of 58 adult specimens of different domestic breeds of Ovis were analysed by means of GMM in order to know if shape and size would allow their racial grouping. For this purpose, breeds were grouped a priori in four groups according to the general area of the origin of each breed: “West Mediterranean” (Fardasca breed, n=21), “Central Europe” (German breeds, n=12, Friesland, n=3 and Ile de France, n=2), “East Mediterranean” (Karaguniko, n=5, Kephalonia, n=1, Khios, n=2, and one unknown breed but of Greek origin) and “Hebrides Islands” (Hebridean breed, n=7). A picture on the lateral aspect of each skull was taken and fourteen landmarks were placed on each. Skull variation was decomposed in both size (centroid size: CS) and shape components. No allometry appeared, and size differences between groups were significant only for Eastern group (Greek breeds), probably due to the influence of Asiatic breeds. Central Europe group presented the highest variation, probably because it encloses different morphological breeds, such Friesland and Ile de France. According to shape, significant differences appeared between groups except between West and East Mediterranean breeds for the discriminant function. Shape differences were mainly focused on basilar aspect of the skull. 63.8% of the specimens were properly classified a posteriori, increasing only to 70.6% of proper classification when size was used. The results suggest that a rather low discrimination among breeds appears and that size does not add much more information.

Keywords: ewe, Ovis, skull morphometrics, skull shape, skull size

Full Text:



Bookstein, F.L. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991

Driesch, Von den A. Peabody Museum Bulletin, 1976, 1, 1-135.

Marcus, L.F. Traditional morphometrics. In: Rohlf, F. J. and F. L. Bookstein (Eds.): Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop Special Publication, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, 1990, 2, 77-122.

Wehausen, J.D., Ramey, R.R. Journal of Mammalogy, 2000, 81, 145-161.

Rohlf, F.J., Marcus, L.F. A revolution in morphometrics. Tree, 1993, 8, 129-132.

Monteiro, L.R., Reis, S.F. Principios de morfometria geométrica. Ribeirão Preto, Brazil: Holos Editora, 1999.

Rohlf, F.J. TpsDig version 2.16. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY, 2010.

Rohlf, F.J. TpsSmall version 1.20. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY, 2003.

Dryden, I.L., Mardia, K.V. Statistical Shape Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1998.

Sheets, H.D. IMP-integrated morphometrics package. Department of Physics, Canisius College, Buffalo, New York, 2003.

Rohlf, F.J. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1990, 21, 299-316.

Rohlf, F.J., Slice, D. Systematic Zoology, 1990, 39, 40-59.

Rohlf, F.J. Journal of Classification, 1999, 16, 197-223.

Slice, D.E. Systematic Biology, 2001, 50, 141-149.

Hammer, Ø., Harper, D.A.T., Ryan, P.D. Paleontologia Electronica, 2001, 4, 1. [on line]. URL: http://palaeoelectronica. org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.html (accessed on April 23rd 2013).

Guintard, C., Fouché, S. Etude ostéométrique de têtes osseuses de mutons (Ovis aries, L.). Revue de Médicine Véterinarie, 2008, 159, 12, 603-617.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

<Journal of Zoological and Bioscience Research>