Dear Morphometricians, Which kind of graphical output would be better to place when interpreting data output? I've made an imaginary PC graph with imaginary shape for 2D analysis. Transformation grid/wireframe show almost the same thing, except that transformation grid shows the bending energy. Wireframe removes the bending energy, but in return you get a sort of view of the overall shape. Wouldn't it be better for visualization to just find the raw data point corresponding to the furthest ends of the PCs and just placing it there. Then you get the fine details (curves) of the shape as well which you cannot capture with landmarks, unless you are planning to fully landmark the object. Example here is in the Leaf morphology article by Cardini. <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025630.g004> It shows all three leaf morphology visual representation side by side.
For 3D, it will be harder to just use wireframe/transformational grid. Then should I either: 1. find the raw data of the extremities of the PC1 vs PC2 graph and place it in the graph or 2. take a raw specimen near the midpoint 0,0 value (in PC1 vs PC2) and just use IDAV to morph it to whichever PC which is displayed? If the raw data output itself can be used, can it be used for CVA, or Regression analysis as well? You can easily display the labels in MorphoJ and identify which raw data it corresponds to and just place it there. Thanks Helmi -- 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.
