Evaluating the use of pairwise dissimilarity metrics in paleoanthropology.

Abstract: Questions of alpha taxonomy are best addressed by comparing unknown specimens to samples of the taxa to which they might belong. However, analysis of the hominin fossil record is riddled with methods that claim to evaluate whether pairs of individual fossils belong to the same species. Two such methods, log se m and the related STET method, have been introduced and used in studies of fossil hominins. Both methods attempt to quantify morphological dissimilarity for a pair of fossils and then evaluate a null hypothesis of conspecificity using the assumption that pairs of fossils that fall beneath a predefined dissimilarity threshold are likely to belong to the same species, whereas pairs of fossils above that threshold are likely to belong to different species. In this contribution, we address (1) whether these particular methods do what they claim to do, and (2) whether such approaches can ever reliably address the question of conspecificity. We show that log se m and STET do not reliably measure deviations from shape similarity, and that values of these measures for any pair of fossils are highly dependent upon the number of variables compared. To address these issues we develop a measure of shape dissimilarity, the Standard Deviation of Logged Ratios (s LR). We suggest that while pairwise dissimilarity metrics that accurately measure deviations from isometry (e.g., s LR) may be useful for addressing some questions that relate to morphological variation, no pairwise method can reliably answer the question of whether two fossils are conspecific. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]