SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 73 Issue: 4

Shape speaks loud: a geometric morphometric perspective on veterinary osteology

Caner Bakıcı(Ankara University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Anatomy)0000-0003-2413-3142
Tomasz Szara(Department of Morphological Sciences, Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Warsaw University of Life Sciences)0000-0001-8555-6435
İhsan Berat Kiliçli(ANKARA UNIVERSITY, ANKARA FACULTY OF VETERINARY MEDICINE)0009-0008-4328-4169
Barış Can Güzel(SIIRT UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, DEPARTMENT OF BASIC SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF ANATOMY)0000-0002-2504-120X
Nedžad Hadžiomerović(Department of Basic Sciences of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sarajevo – Veterinary Faculty)0000-0002-3155-1011
Barış Batur(ANKARA UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, DEPARTMENT OF BASIC SCIENCES VETERINARY MEDICINE, DEPARTMENT OF ANATOMY)0000-0001-9669-9917
Ozan Gündemir(ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY-CERRAHPASA, FACULTY OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, DEPARTMENT OF BASIC SCIENCES VETERINARY MEDICINE, DEPARTMENT OF ANATOMY)0000-0002-3637-8166
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These developments position geometric morphometrics as an indispensable method for integrating form, function, and health in veterinary research.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Geometric morphometrics has created a significant field in the study of skeletal variation in veterinary osteology by providing a robust framework for investigating shape variation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This review examines the extant literature, demonstrating how dietary consistency and biomechanical structure significantly shape and often lead to intergenerational morphological changes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These developments position geometric morphometrics as an indispensable method for integrating form, function, and health in veterinary research.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Geometric morphometrics · Morphological variation · Shape analysis

Abstract

Geometric morphometrics has created a significant field in the study of skeletal variation in veterinary osteology by providing a robust framework for investigating shape variation. This technique allows for the analysis of anatomical structures in a variety of biological contexts. This review examines the extant literature, demonstrating how dietary consistency and biomechanical structure significantly shape and often lead to intergenerational morphological changes. The investigation further explores the function of locomotion strategies, including habitat preference and diversity, in the context of the skeletal system. The merits of geometric morphometric analysis are evident in its capacity to facilitate species identification and close relative discrimination in scenarios where conventional methods encounter constraints. The utilisation of geometric morphometric analysis offers distinct advantages in ontogenetic studies, allometric scaling in morphology, and the consideration of developmental constraints. Additionally, it provides a framework for investigating sexual dimorphism and variations in shape across varied species and anatomical regions. From a clinical and welfare perspective, geometric morphometrics provides a powerful framework for orthopaedic surgical planning, detection of pathological changes, phenotyping in animal models, and translational research. Finally, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI)-powered automation and high-resolution imaging is also being reviewed in studies. These developments position geometric morphometrics as an indispensable method for integrating form, function, and health in veterinary research.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bakıcı, C., Szara, T., Kiliçli, İ. B., Güzel, B. C., Hadžiomerović, N., Batur, B., Gündemir, O. (2026). Shape speaks loud: a geometric morphometric perspective on veterinary osteology. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume: 73 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.33988/auvfd.1932198

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (98)

  1. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE (2004): Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the ‘revolution’. Ital J Zool, 71, 5-16. DOI: 10.1080/ 11250000409356545.
  2. Anderson SC, Kovarovic K, Barr WA (2024): A 3D geometric morphometric analysis of the bovid distal humerus, with special reference to Rusingoryx atopocranion (Pleistocene, Eastern Africa). J Anat, 245, 451–466. DOI: 10.1111/joa.14062.
  3. Bakici C, Kilicli IB, Yunus HA, et al (2025): Evaluating sexual dimorphism in Romanov sheep: A comparative 3D shape analysis of manual and automated landmarking. Ann Anat, 262, 152708. DOI: 10.1016/j.aanat.2025.152708.
  4. Bennett CV, Goswami A (2013): Statistical support for the hypothesis of developmental constraint in marsupial skull evolution. BMC Biol, 11, 52. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7007-11-52.
  5. Berdnikovs S, Bernstein M, Metzler A, et al (2007): Pelvic growth: Ontogeny of size and shape sexual dimorphism in rat pelves. J Morphol, 268, 12–22. DOI: 10.1002/jmor.10476.
  6. Bilgiç EB, Pasicka E, Korkmazcan A, et al (2025): Shape, size and bilateral asymmetry of the humerus and femur in the common swift (Apus apus). Animals, 15, 3401. DOI: 10.3390/ani15233401.
  7. Böhmer C (2017): Correlation between Hox code and vertebral morphology in the mouse: towards a universal model for Synapsida. Zool Lett, 3, 8. DOI: 10.1186/s40851-017-0069-4.
  8. Bookstein FL (1996): Combining the tools of geometric morphometrics. In Advances in morphometrics. Springer US, Boston.
  9. Boyer DM, Lipman Y, Clair E, et al (2011): Algorithms to automatically quantify the geometric similarity of anatomical surfaces. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 108, 18221–18226. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1112822108.
  10. Boyer DM, Puente J, Gladman JT, et al (2015): A new fully automated approach for aligning and comparing shapes. Anat Rec, 298, 249–276. DOI: 10.1002/ar.23084.
  11. Brassard C, Evin A, Ameen C, et al (2023): Wild or domestic? A 3D approach applied to crania to revisit the identification of mummified canids from ancient Egypt. Archaeol Anthropol Sci, 15, 59. DOI: 10.1007/s12520-023-01760-1.
  12. Bro R, Smilde AK (2014): Principal component analysis. Anal Methods, 6, 2812-2831. DOI: 10.1039/C3AY41907j.
  13. Cardini A, Thorington Jr RW (2006): Postnatal ontogeny of marmot (Rodentia, Sciuridae) crania: allometric trajectories and species divergence. J Mammal, 87, 201–215. DOI: 10.1644/05-MAMM-A-242R1.1.
  14. Catalano SA, Ercoli MD, Prevosti FJ (2015): The more, the better: the use of multiple landmark configurations to solve the phylogenetic relationships in musteloids. Syst Biol, 64, 294–306. DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syu107.
  15. Conry DS, Pistorius PA, Plön S, et al (2016): Sexual dimorphism in striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) crania from South Africa. Mar Mamm Sci, 32, 1254–1271. DOI: 10.1111/mms.12331.
  16. Contreras R, Salinas P (2025): Mandibular shape variation, allometry and modularity in adult mesocephalic dogs (canis lupus familiaris): insights into morphological integration and animal anatomy. Animals, 15, 3244. DOI: 10.3390/ani15223244.
  17. De Felice E, Pacioni C, Tardella FM, et al (2020): A novel method for increasing the numerousness of biometrical parameters useful for wildlife management: roe deer mandible as bone model. Animals, 10, 465. DOI: 10.3390/ ani10030465.
  18. Demircioğlu İ, Demiraslan Y, Koçyiğit A (2025): Rabbit skull shape: three‐dimensional geometric morphometric analysis. Vet Med Sci, 11: e70588. DOI: 10.1002/vms3. 70588.
  19. Diamond KM, Rolfe SM, Kwon RY, et al (2022): Computational anatomy and geometric shape analysis enables analysis of complex craniofacial phenotypes in zebrafish. Biol Open, 11, bio058948. DOI: 10.1242/bio. 058948.
  20. Durão AF, Ventura J, Muñoz-Muñoz F (2019): Comparative post-weaning ontogeny of the mandible in fossorial and semi-aquatic water voles. Mamm Biol, 97, 95–103. DOI: 10.1016/j.mambio.2019.05.004.
  21. Esteves‐Ponte MA, Aurioles‐Gamboa D, García‐Rodríguez FJ (2022): Skull morphometric variability related to offshore and inshore ecotypes of the common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) from northwestern Mexico. Mar Mamm Sci, 38, 1088–1103. DOI: 10.1111/ mms.12914.
  22. Etienne C, Filippo A, Cornette R, et al (2021): Effect of mass and habitat on the shape of limb long bones: A morpho‐functional investigation on Bovidae (Mammalia: Cetartiodactyla). J Anat, 238, 886–904. DOI: 10.1111/joa. 13359.
  23. Evin A, David L, Souron A, et al (2022): Size and shape of the semicircular canal of the inner ear: A new marker of pig domestication? J Exp Zool Pt B, 338, 552–560. DOI: 10.1002/jez.b.23127.
  24. Fabre AC, Cornette R, Slater G, et al (2013): Getting a grip on the evolution of grasping in musteloid carnivorans: a three-dimensional analysis of forelimb shape. J Evol Biol, 26, 1521–1535. DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12161.
  25. Ferreira-Cardoso S, Billet G, Gaubert P, et al (2020): Skull shape variation in extant pangolins (Pholidota: Manidae): allometric patterns and systematic implications. Zool J Linn Soc, 188, 255–275. DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/ zlz096.
  26. Figueirido B, Serrano‐Alarcón F J, Palmqvist P (2012): Geometric morphometrics shows differences and similarities in skull shape between the red and giant pandas. J Zool, 286, 293-302. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00879.x.
  27. Figueirido B, Soibelzon LH (2010): Inferring palaeoecology in extinct tremarctine bears (Carnivora, Ursidae) using geometric morphometrics. Lethaia, 43, 209–222. DOI: 10.1111/j.1502-3931.2009.00184.x.
  28. Fureix C, Hausberger M, Seneque E, et al (2011): Geometric morphometrics as a tool for improving the comparative study of behavioural postures. Naturwiss, 98, 583–592. DOI: 10.1007/s00114-011-0803-2.
  29. Gordon CR, Marchant TW, Lodzinska J, et al (2018): Morphological variation of the caudal fossa of domestic cat skulls assessed with CT and geometric morphometrics analysis. J Feline Med Surg, 20, 752–758. DOI: 10.1177/1098612X17730707.
  30. Goswami A, Milne N, Wroe S (2011): Biting through constraints: cranial morphology, disparity and convergence across living and fossil carnivorous mammals. Proc R Soc B, 278, 1831–1839. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2031.
  31. Gray JA, Sherratt E, Hutchinson MN, et al (2019): Changes in ontogenetic patterns facilitate diversification in skull shape of Australian agamid lizards. BMC Evol Biol, 19, 7. DOI: 10.1186/s12862-018-1335-6.
  32. Günay E, Topkaya ES, Temir MT, et al (2025): Pelvic Shape Variation in Domestic Rabbits: Influence of Sex, Breed and Reproductive Status. Vet Med Sci, 11, e70671. DOI: 10.1002/vms3.70671.
  33. Gündemir O, Szara T, Yalin EE, et al (2023): Examination of shape variation of the skull in British shorthair, Scottish fold, and Van cats. Animals, 13, 614. DOI: 10.3390/ani13040614.
  34. Gunz P, Kozakowski S, Neubauer S, et al (2020): Skull reconstruction of the late Miocene ape Rudapithecus hungaricus from Rudabánya, Hungary. J Hum Evol, 138, 102687. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102687.
  35. Gürbüz İ, Aytek Aİ, Demiraslan Y, et al (2020): Geometric morphometric analysis of cranium of wolf (Canis lupus) and German shepherd dog (Canis lupus familiaris). Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 26, 525-532. DOI: 10.9775/kvfd.2019.23841.
  36. Hadley C, Milne N, Schmitt LH (2009): A three-dimensional geometric morphometric analysis of variation in cranial size and shape in tammar wallaby (Macropus eugenii) populations. Aust J Zool, 57, 337–345. DOI: 10.1071/ZO08098.
  37. Haruda AF, Varfolomeev V, Goriachev A, et al (2019): A new zooarchaeological application for geometric morphometric methods: Distinguishing Ovis aries morphotypes to address connectivity and mobility of prehistoric Central Asian pastoralists. J Archaeol Sci, 107, 50-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2019.05.002.
  38. JeanJean M, McGrath K, Valenzuela-Lamas S, et al (2023): ZooMS confirms geometric morphometrics species identification of ancient sheep and goat. R Soc Open Sci, 10, 230672. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.230672.
  39. Jones KE (2016): Preliminary data on the effect of osseous anatomy on ex vivo joint mobility in the equine thoracolumbar region. Equine Vet J, 48, 502–508. DOI: 10.1111/evj.12461.
  40. Kassam D, Adams D, Yamaoka K (2004): Functional significance of variation in trophic morphology within feeding microhabitat-differentiated cichlid species in Lake Malawi. Anim Biol, 54, 77–90. DOI: 10.1163/ 157075604323010060.
  41. Kiliçli İB, Mavili ED, Aksoy E, et al (2026): 3D geometric morphometric analysis on sexual dimorphism in the sella turcica in romanov sheep using ct scan. Vet Med Sci, 12, 3. DOI: 10.1002/vms3.70915.
  42. Klingenberg CP (2016): Size, shape, and form: concepts of allometry in geometric morphometrics. Dev Genes Evol, 226, 113-137. DOI: 10.1007/s00427-016-0539-2.
  43. Koçak S, Özaydin İ, Gündemir O (2024): Shape analysis of the carpal joint in healthy and septic arthritis in newborn calves. Anat Histol Embryol, 53, e13080. DOI: 10.1111/ ahe.13080.
  44. Kubat J, Paterson R, Patramanis I, et al (2023): Geometric morphometrics and paleoproteomics enlighten the paleodiversity of Pongo. Plos One, 18, e0291308. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291308.
  45. Lanzetti A, Crouch N, Portela Miguez R, et al (2022): Developing echolocation: distinctive patterns in the ontogeny of the tympanoperiotic complex in baleen and toothed whales (Cetacea). Biol J Linn Soc, 135, 394–406. DOI: 10.1093/biolinnean/blab160.
  46. Lewton KL, Brankovic R, Byrd WA, et al (2020): The effects of phylogeny, body size, and locomotor behavior on the three-dimensional shape of the pelvis in extant carnivorans. PeerJ, 8, e8574. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.8574.
  47. Liuti T, Dixon PM (2020): The use of the geometric morphometric method to illustrate shape difference in the skulls of different-aged horses. Vet Res Commun, 44, 137–145. DOI: 10.1007/s11259-020-09779-8.
  48. Lloveras L, Rissech C, Davis S, et al (2022): Morphological differences between sheep and goat calcanea using two-dimensional geometric morphometrics. Animals, 12, 2945. DOI: 10.3390/ani12212945.
  49. MacLaren JA, Nauwelaerts S (2017): Interspecific variation in the tetradactyl manus of modern tapirs (Perissodactyla: Tapirus) exposed using geometric morphometrics. J Morphol, 278, 1517–1535. DOI: 10.1002/ jmor.20728.
  50. Manuta N, Çakar B, Gündemir O, et al (2024): Shape and size variations of distal phalanges in cattle. Animals, 14, 194. DOI: 10.3390/ani14020194.
  51. Marchesi MC, Boy CC, Dans SL, et al (2020): Morphology of the vertebral centra in dolphins from the southwestern South Atlantic: A 3D morphometric approach and functional implications. Mar Mamm Sci, 36, 548–564. DOI: 10.1111/mms.12660.
  52. Marchesi MC, Mora MS, Dans SL, et al (2021): Allometry and ontogeny in the vertebral column of southern hemisphere dolphins: a 3D morphofunctional approach. J Mammal Evol, 28, 125–134. DOI: 10.1007/s10914-020-09514-9.
  53. Martin ML, Travouillon KJ, Sherratt E, et al (2019): Covariation between forelimb muscle anatomy and bone shape in an Australian scratch‐digging marsupial: Comparison of morphometric methods. J Morphol, 280, 1900–1915. DOI: 10.1002/jmor.21074.
  54. Martín-Serra A, Figueirido B, Palmqvist P (2014): A three-dimensional analysis of morphological evolution and locomotor performance of the carnivoran forelimb. PLoS One, 9, e85574. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085574.
  55. Maté-González MÁ, Courtenay LA, Aramendi J, et al (2019): Application of geometric morphometrics to the analysis of cut mark morphology on different bones of differently sized animals. Does size really matter? Quat Int, 517, 33–44. DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2019.01.021.
  56. Mate-Gonzalez MÁ, Estaca-Gomez V, Aramendi J, et al (2023): Geometric morphometrics and machine learning models applied to the study of late iron age cut marks from Central Spain. Appl Sci, 13, 3967. DOI: 10.3390/ app13063967.
  57. Mennecart B, Costeur L (2016): Shape variation and ontogeny of the ruminant bony labyrinth, an example in Tragulidae. J Anat, 229, 422–435. DOI: 10.1111/joa.12487.
  58. Miller CA, Emanuel T, Menegaz RA (2025): Early life functional transitions impact craniofacial morphology in osteogenesis imperfecta. Anat Rec, 308, 3157–3174. DOI: 10.1002/ar.25640.
  59. Mitteroecker P, Gunz P (2009): Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evol Biol, 36, 235-247. DOI: 10.1007/s11692-009-9055-x.
  60. Molnar JL, Pierce SE, Clack JA, et al (2012): Idealized landmark-based geometric reconstructions of poorly preserved fossil material: a case study of an early tetrapod vertebra. Palaeontol Electron, 15, 1. DOI: 10.26879/274.
  61. Morgan CC, Álvarez A (2013): The humerus of South American caviomorph rodents: shape, function and size in a phylogenetic context. J Zool, 290, 107–116. DOI: 10.1111/jzo.12017.
  62. Muñoz NA, Cassini GH, Candela AM, et al (2015): Ulnar articular surface 3-D landmarks and ecomorphology of small mammals: a case study of two early Miocene typotheres (Notoungulata) from Patagonia. Earth Environ Sci Trans R Soc Edinb, 106, 315–323. DOI: 10.1017/S1755691016000141.
  63. Naidoo R, Iqbal S (2024): The relationship between locomotion and hindlimb morphology in the leopard (Panthera pardus) using a geometric morphometric approach. Biol Open, 13, bio061823. DOI: 10.1242/bio. 061823.
  64. Neaux D, Harbers H, Blanc B, et al (2022): The effect of captivity on craniomandibular and calcaneal ontogenetic trajectories in wild boar. J Exp Zool Pt B, 338, 575–585. DOI: 10.1002/jez.b.23130.
  65. Nozaki S, Amano H, Oishi M, et al (2021): Morphological differences in the calcaneus among extant great apes investigated by three-dimensional geometric morphometrics. Sci Rep, 11, 20889. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-99942-1.
  66. Onbaşılar EE, Yalçın S, Bakıcı C, et al (2025): Comprehensive evaluation of probiotic effects on laying hen physiology: From performance to bone and gut morphology. Animals, 15, 2408. DOI: 10.3390/ani15162408.
  67. Onbaşılar EE, Yalçın S, Batur B, et al (2026): Effects of xylanase and protease supplementation on growth performance, meat quality, gut health, cecal fermentation, and bone traits in broiler chickens. Animals, 16, 465. DOI: 10.3390/ani16030465.
  68. Özkan E, Avanus K, Manuta N, et al (2024a): Shape variations of pelvis in different classes of dogs using geometric morphometry. Anat Histol Embryol, 53, e13092. DOI: 10.1111/ahe.13092.
  69. Özkan E, Boz Doğan İ, Duro S, et al (2024b): Geometric morphometric evaluation of mandibles of four sheep breeds: Bardoka, İvesi, Polish Mountain sheep and Turcana. Anat Histol Embryol, 53, e13048. DOI: 10.1111/ahe.13048.
  70. Parés-Casanova PM, Domènech X, Rojo C, et al (2021): Morphometric palatine differences between sheep (Ovis aries) and goat (Capra hircus). Int J Morphol, 39, 797–801. DOI: 10.3390/ani15040556.
  71. Parés-Casanova PM, Domènech-Domènech X (2021): Sphenoid bone is more asymmetrical than palatine bone among small ruminants. J Appl Anim Res, 49, 234–238. DOI: 10.1080/09712119.2021.1935968.
  72. Parés-Casanova PM, Siddiq AB, Onar V (2020): Cranial size and shape sexual dimorphism in the Kangal dog from Turkey. Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 44, 396–403. DOI: 10.3906/vet-1907-86.
  73. Pulcini D, Meo Zilio D, Cenci F, et al (2021): Differences in tibia shape in organically reared chicken lines measured by means of geometric morphometrics. Animals, 11, 101. DOI: 10.3390/ani11010101.
  74. Randau M, Cuff AR, Hutchinson JR, et al (2017): Regional differentiation of felid vertebral column evolution: a study of 3D shape trajectories. Org Divers Evol, 17, 305–319. DOI: 10.1007/s13127-016-0304-4.
  75. Rankin A, Emry R, Asher R (2020): Anatomical sciuromorphy in" protrogomorph" rodents. Palaeontol Electron, 23, a25. DOI: 10.26879/1049.
  76. Robinson C (2012): Geometric morphometric analysis of mandibular shape diversity in Pan. J Hum Evol, 63, 191–204. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.05.003.
  77. Salamanca-Carreño A, Parés-Casanova PM, Vélez Terranova OM, et al (2022): Shape directional asymmetry in hindlimb pairs among calves (bos taurus). Animals, 12, 559. DOI: 10.3390/ani12050559.
  78. Salamanca-Carreño A, Parés-Casanova PM, Crosby-Granados RA, et al (2023): Basicranial modular organization. a study in the araucanian horse of colombia. Vet Sci, 10, 255. DOI: 10.3390/vetsci10040255.
  79. Salcido CJ, Polly PD (2025): The relationship between form and function of the carnivore mandible. Anat Rec, 249. DOI: 10.1002/ar.25678.
  80. Sholts SB, Esteban J, Herlin M, et al (2015): Craniofacial form is altered by chronic adult exposure to 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in Han/Wistar and Long–Evans rats with different aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) structures. Toxicol Rep, 2, 472–481. DOI: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2014.12.007.
  81. Simons EA, Frost SR, Singleton M (2018): Ontogeny and phylogeny of the cercopithecine cranium: A geometric morphometric approach to comparing shape change trajectories. J Hum Evol, 124, 40-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2018.08.001.
  82. Singh N, Reeves RH, Richtsmeier JT (2025): Craniofacial morphology of TCMAC21 and TCHSA21RAT models of Down syndrome: An interspecific comparison. J Anat, 70066, 168-176. DOI: 10.1111/joa.70066.
  83. Struthers S, Andersson B, Schmutz M, et al (2023): An analysis of the maxillary beak shape variation between 2 pure layer lines and its relationship to the underlying premaxillary bone, feather cover, and mortality. Poult Sci, 102, 102854. DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2023.102854.
  84. Tavitian A, Somech J, Chamlian B, et al (2024): Craniofacial anomalies in schizophrenia‐relevant GFAP.HMOX1 mice. Anat Rec, 307, 3529-3547. DOI: 10.1002/ar.25449.
  85. Toryan E, Szara T, Gündemir O (2024): Linear measurements and shape analysis in the calcaneus of selected dog breeds. Anat Histol Embryol, 53, e13078. DOI: 10.1111/ahe.13078.
  86. Tsolakis IA, Verikokos C, Papaioannou W, et al (2023): Long-term effect of diet consistency on mandibular growth within three generations: a longitudinal cephalometric study in rats. Biology, 12, 568. DOI: 10.3390/biology 12040568.
  87. Üstündağ Y, Gürbüz İ, Demiraslan Y, et al (2025): Geometric morphometrics of astragalus and shape variation analysis in capra, ovis, and bovidae. Vet Med Sci, 11, e70368. DOI: 10.1002/vms3.70368.
  88. Walmsley A, Elton S, Louys J, et al (2012): Humeral epiphyseal shape in the felidae: The influence of phylogeny, allometry, and locomotion. J Morphol, 273, 1424-1438. DOI: 10.1002/jmor.20084.
  89. Weeks BC, Zhou Z, O'Brien BK, et al (2023): A deep neural network for high‐throughput measurement of functional traits on museum skeletal specimens. Methods Ecol Evol, 14, 347-359. DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.13864.
  90. Weisbecker V, Beck R, Guillerme T, et al (2023): Multiple modes of inference reveal less phylogenetic signal in marsupial basicranial shape compared with the rest of the cranium. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 378, 1880. DOI: 10.1098/rstb. 2022.0085.
  91. Weisbecker V, Guillerme T, Speck C, et al (2019): Individual variation of the masticatory system dominates 3D skull shape in the herbivory-adapted marsupial wombats. Front Zool, 16, 41. DOI: 10.1186/s12983-019-0338-5.
  92. Wilson LA (2013): Geographic variation in the greater Japanese shrew-mole, Urotrichus talpoides: Combining morphological and chromosomal patterns. Mamm Biol, 78, 267-275. DOI: 10.1016/j.mambio.2012.09.003.
  93. Wrozyna C, Neubauer TA, Meyer J, et al (2016): Shape variation in neotropical Cytheridella (Ostracoda) using semilandmarks-based geometric morphometrics: a methodological approach and possible biogeographical implications. PLoS One, 11, e0168438. DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0168438.
  94. Yalcin H, Kaya MA, Arslan A (2010): Comparative geometrical morphometries on the mandibles of Anatolian wild sheep (Ovis gmelini anatolica) and Akkaraman sheep (Ovis aries). Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 16, 1. DOI: 10.9775/kvfd.2009.385.
  95. Yalin EE, Altundağ Y, Altunatmaz K, et al (2025b): Patellar shape variation in cats and dogs: implications for orthopedic surgical planning. Animals, 15, 1608. DOI: 10.3390/ani15111608.
  96. Yalin EE, Szara T, Günay E, et al (2025a): Sexual shape variation and allometric effects in guinea pig (cavia porcellus) skulls. Animals, 15, 3453. DOI: 10.3390/ ani15233453.
  97. Yu F, Bignon-Lau O, Pedersen ÅØ, et al (2024): Morphometrics highlights subspecies differentiation of continental (Rangifer t. tarandus) and insular (Rangifer t. platyrhynchus) Norwegian reindeer. Mammalia, 88, 19-32. DOI: 10.1515/mammalia-2023-0004.
  98. Yunus HA, Kiliçli İB, Batur B, et al (2025): Sexual dimorphism in the caudal skull region of wistar albino rats: a geometric morphometric study. Ankara Üniv Vet Fak Derg, 72, 445-455. DOI: 10.33988/auvfd.1667635.