The seminal contribution of Fisher, Immer and Tedin (1932) notwithstanding, geneticists have remained cautious about the using the properties of observed phenotypic distributions to infer subtleties of the genetic architecture of complex traits. This caution stems from the observation that a variety of more or less arbitrary factors, having little or nothing to do with genetics, can affect the more subtle features of trait distributions. Paramount among such factors are those arising from the fact that the scales used to measure variation have an ill-defined, relationship to underlying biological differences. Hence, changes in the units or method of measurement can lead to drastically different conclusions about the genetic architecture of the underlying biological system. Mather and Jinks (1982) offer a classical statement of the interdependence of measurement and genetic inference: “The scale on which the measurements are expressed for the purposes of genetical analysis must therefore be reached by empirical means. Obviously it should be one which facilitates both the analysis of the data and the interpretation and use of the resulting statistics…The scale should preferably be one on which…the
