I would suggest to start with some preliminary readings on what
semilandmarks are and imply. Among many others, these two papers are
particularly interesting in my view (plus plenty more refs in these two
papers themselves, as well as in G&M, 2013, and maybe the introduction
to the Yellow Book Anna and I wrote).
Oxnard C., O’Higgins P., 2011. Biology Clearly Needs Morphometrics. Does
Morphometrics Need Biology? Biological Theory. 4: 84– 97.
Klingenberg C.P., 2008. Novelty and “Homology-free” Morphometrics:
What’s in a Name? Evol Biol. 35: 186–190.
Also this one (although not on semilandmarks) might help to understand
the general issues of analyses of forms without clear landmarks:
O’Higgins, P. (1997). Methodological issues in the description of forms.
Fourier descriptors and their applications in biology, 74–105.
Good luck
Andrea
On 12/05/2016 03:26, Emma Sherratt wrote:
Dear Edgar,
Semilandmarks should be slid during Procrustes superimposition; treating
them as fixed landmarks will only add error into your analyses. Therefore
the answer is simply a) use software that supports semilandmark sliding.
Your options are great. And when it comes to deciding whether to minimise
for bending energy or Procrustes distance, I suggest reading Gunz &
Mitteroecker 2013 here
<http://www.italian-journal-of-mammalogy.it/article/view/6292>. For GPA and
further analyses, I suggest using the TPS suite and MorphoJ, or geomorph if
you are confident with script-based analyses.
Emma
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Emma Sherratt, PhD.
Postdoctoral Researcher in the Keogh Lab
<http://biology-assets.anu.edu.au/hosted_sites/Scott/>
Division of Evolution, Ecology & Genetics
Research School of Biology
116 Daley Road
The Australian National University
Acton, ACT 2601
AUSTRALIA
email: [email protected]
tel: +61 2612 53029
mob: +61 4234 19966
Twitter: @DrEmSherratt <https://twitter.com/DrEmSherratt>
Caecilians are legless amphibians...
* __
(\ .-. .-. /_")
\\_//^\\_//^\\_//
`"` `"` `"`*
learn more about them here: www.emmasherratt.com/caecilians
On 12 May 2016 at 09:26, Edgar Esteban Herrera Collazos <
[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Morphometricians,
I'm conducting a study on fish taxonomy using integrative taxonomy, my
first approach is using Geometric Morphometrics.
For GM I decided to use Landmarks and Semilandmarks. My question is: Is
there any difference or advantage between using a) a software that supports
semilandmark sliding or b) by entering each semilandmark as a landmark?
Best regards
--
Edgar Esteban Herrera Collazos B.Sc.
Postgraduate Student at Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
Ichthyology Laboratory 108B Ed 53 - 3208320 Ext 4127
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Estudiante de Posgrado en la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
Laboratorio de Ictiología 108B Ed 53 - 3208320 Ext 4127
--
MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MORPHMET" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to [email protected].
--
Dr. Andrea Cardini
Researcher, Dipartimento di Scienze Chimiche e Geologiche, Università di
Modena e Reggio Emilia, Via Campi, 103 - 41125 Modena - Italy
tel. 0039 059 2058472
Adjunct Associate Professor, Centre for Forensic Science , The
University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009,
Australia
E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected]
WEBPAGE: https://sites.google.com/site/alcardini/home/main
FREE Yellow BOOK on Geometric Morphometrics:
http://www.italian-journal-of-mammalogy.it/public/journals/3/issue_241_complete_100.pdf
--
MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MORPHMET" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
