Back

Sorting the mob: using geometric morphometrics and machine learning to differentiate kangaroo postcrania for zooarchaeological applications

Mein, E.; Manne, T.; Veth, P.; Weisbecker, V.

2024-12-10 paleontology
10.1101/2024.12.06.627105 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Taxonomic identification of bone is one of the building blocks of zooarchaeological research into human foraging behaviour. However, it can prove difficult in regions, such as Australia, that have biodiverse taxa that are difficult to differentiate using bone morphology. One such case are the kangaroos and wallabies (macropods), one of the most speciose groups of marsupials whose remains are frequently recovered from Australian archaeological sites. Despite their clear importance to Indigenous economies, little research has been undertaken on how to reliably differentiate the postcranial remains of extant macropods. Here we address this gap by applying three-dimensional geometric morphometrics to describe how the astragalus and calcaneus differs between several large macropod genera. We describe taxonomically diagnostic anatomical attributes between genera and identify the size related (allometric) shape variation that could be mistaken for taxonomic differences. We then compare several machine learning models to demonstrate how these can be applied to geometric morphometric data to statistically classify unknown specimens from palaeozoological contexts with a high degree of accuracy. Our results show that non-linear methods of supervised machine learning outperform classical discriminant function analysis when used on our geometric morphometric data. Statistical classification of palaeozoological specimens has the potential to be a valuable tool, where differentiating skeletal remains of closely related taxa continues to prove challenging.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 9%
18.7%
2
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.6%
3
American Journal of Biological Anthropology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.5%
4
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 13%
6.4%
6
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.3%
7
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.4%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 34%
3.7%
9
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
10
Journal of Anatomy
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
11
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
12
Interface Focus
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
13
The Anatomical Record
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
14
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
15
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
16
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
17
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
18
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
19
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
21
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
22
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%