[image: Captura de pantalla 2018-11-05 a la(s) 11.40.26.png]
Thank you Mr. Fruciano. I had already made the DFA, but wasn't aware the graphical output represented both groups (it certainly makes sense). I have a couple of other questions regarding semi-landmarks. I probably should start a new topic, but I'll first try out here: So, I was adviced to use semi-landmarks, I placed them with MakeFan8, saved the files as images and then used TpsDig to place all landmarks, however I didn't make any distinctions between landmarks and semi-landmarks. What unsettles me is (1) that I've recently comed across the term "sliding semi-landmarks", which leads me to believe semi-landmarks should behave in a particular way. The second thing that unsettles me is whether "more semi-landmarks" means a better analysis. I can understand that most people wouldn't use 65 landmarks+semilandmarks because it's a painstaking job to digitize them, however, in my recent reads I've comed across concepts like a "Variables to specimen ratio", which one paper suggested specimens should be 5 times the number of variables. I do have a a data set of nearly 400 specimens, but it does come short if indeed I should have 65*2*5 specimens! Well, I'll double post in case someone finds him or herself in the same conundrum. El lunes, 5 de noviembre de 2018, 2:12:20 (UTC-6), Carmelo Fruciano escribió: > > > > On 03/11/2018 22:28, Diego Ardón wrote: > > Dear Mr. Soda, > > > > Thank you for replying. Your statement " setting one group’s mean shape > > to be the starting shape and the other group’s to the target; this will > > lead to the most direct comparison. " pretty much describes what I have > > in mind to do. Which software could I use to do this? since I believe > > MorphoJ will not do it. > > Dear Diego, > MorphoJ will actually do it. The easiest is to use what is under the > menu "Discriminant analysis". MorphoJ's user guide has a brief but very > clear description of the graphical output. > I hope this helps. > Best, > Carmelo > > > -- > > > ================== > Carmelo Fruciano > Institute of Biology > Ecole Normale Superieure - Paris > CNRS > http://www.fruciano.it/research/ > > > > El miércoles, 31 de octubre de 2018, 13:51:07 (UTC-6), K. James Soda > > escribió: > > > > Dear Mr. Ardón, > > > > Good question. Whenever we make shape comparisons in GM, be that via > > displacement vector or deformation grid (which is what you’re > > doing), we can typically only compare two shapes at a time. One > > shape is called the reference (or starting shape, in this case). > > This is the shape for which the grid would look “normal”; straight, > > equally spaced grid lines. The second is the target, where the grid > > is deformed to take this second configuration. If you want to > > compare two geographic groups, I would suggest setting one group’s > > mean shape to be the starting shape and the other group’s to the > > target; this will lead to the most direct comparison. I am not > > certain how easy this is to do in MorphoJ, though. > > > > Hope this helps, > > > > James > > > > On Oct 31, 2018, at 12:01 PM, Diego Ardón <diegoar...@gmail.com > > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > >> Hello, my name is Diego and I'm currently undertaking a Master's > >> program in Mexico. One of my thesis project involves a geometric > >> morphometrics study on the shape of a freshwater fish which > >> distributes across Central America. I'm currently having trouble > >> with a concept that will probably be very simple to most of you, > >> but which I haven't found a way to get my head around. > >> > >> I'm running a CVA on MorphoJ, dividing my dataset into two > >> geographically distinct groups. I run the test and change the type > >> of graph to a "Warped Outline Drawing". So now the graph is > >> showing a "starting shape" which I interpret as it being the > >> average of all my landmark data (both geographical groupings), > >> however I'm not sure on how to interpret the "target shape". I was > >> expecting to have two "target shapes", one for each of the > >> geographical groupings. Could someone please help point out my > >> misunderstanding and offer me a way on how to interpret the > >> "target shape"? > >> > >> Thank you, I'll be very thankful > >> > >> Diego Ardón > >> > >> -- > >> 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 morphmet+u...@morphometrics.org <javascript:>. > > > > -- > > 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 morphmet+u...@morphometrics.org <javascript:> > > <mailto:morphmet+u...@morphometrics.org <javascript:>>. > > -- > > > ================== > Carmelo Fruciano > Institute of Biology > Ecole Normale Superieure - Paris > CNRS > http://www.fruciano.it/research/ > -- 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 morphmet+unsubscr...@morphometrics.org.
