Guillerme, TCooper, NBrusatte, SLDavis, KEJackson, ALGerber, SGoswami, AHealy, KHopkins, MJJones, MEHLloyd, GTO'Reilly, JEPate, APuttick, MNRayfield, EJSaupe, EESherratt, ESlater, GJWeisbecker, VThomas, GHDonoghue, PCJ2020-10-262020-10-262020-07-01Guillerme Thomas, Cooper Natalie, Brusatte Stephen L., Davis Katie E., Jackson Andrew L., Gerber Sylvain, Goswami Anjali, Healy Kevin, Hopkins Melanie J., Jones Marc E. H., Lloyd Graeme T., O'Reilly Joseph E., Pate Abi, Puttick Mark N., Rayfield Emily J., Saupe Erin E., Sherratt Emma, Slater Graham J., Weisbecker Vera, Thomas Gavin H. and Donoghue Philip C. J. (2020) Disparities in the analysis of morphological disparity, Biol. Lett. 16 202001991744-956110.1098/rsbl.2020.0199http://hdl.handle.net/10141/622863Analyses of morphological disparity have been used to characterize and investigate the evolution of variation in the anatomy, function and ecology of organisms since the 1980s. While a diversity of methods have been employed, it is unclear whether they provide equivalent insights. Here, we review the most commonly used approaches for characterizing and analysing morphological disparity, all of which have associated limitations that, if ignored, can lead to misinterpretation. We propose best practice guidelines for disparity analyses, while noting that there can be no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. The available tools should always be used in the context of a specific biological question that will determine data and method selection at every stage of the analysis.enopenAccesshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Journal Article1744-957XBiology Letters16720200199 - 20200199multidimensionalitypalaeobiologyecologyvariance/variationdisparitymorphologyevolutionpalaeontologyecology