| Abstract: | The form of amniote claws has been extensively investigated, often with inferences about ecological association being drawn from studies of their geometry. Various methods have been used to quantify differences in the geometry of claws, but rarely have the underlying assumptions of such methods been addressed. Here, we use one set of bird claws and apply six methods (five that have been previously used, and a new one) that are tasked with comparing their shape. In doing so, we compare the (1) ability of these methods to represent the shape of the claw; (2) validity of the assumptions made about underlying claw geometry; (3) their ability to be applied unambiguously; and (4) their ability to differentiate between predetermined functional clusters. We find that of the six methods considered only the geometric morphometric approach reveals differences in the shapes of bird claws. Our comparison shows that geometry‐based methods can provide a general estimate of the degree of curvature of claw arcs, but are unable to differentiate between shapes. Of all of the geometry‐based approaches, we conclude that the adjusted version of the Zani (2000) method is the most useful because it can be applied without ambiguity, and provides a reliable estimate of claw curvature. The three landmarks that define that method (tip and base of the claw arc, plus the intersection between said claw arc and a line drawn perpendicular from the midpoint of tip and claw base) do not all bear biological significance, but relatively clearly circumscribe the length‐to‐height ratio of the claw, which relates to its curvature. Overall, our comparisons reveal that the shape of avian claws does not differ significantly between climbing and perching birds, and that the utilization of preordained functional clusters in comparative data analysis can hinder the discovery of meaningful differences in claw shape. J. Morphol. 278:150–169, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals,Inc. |
