Adding more (semi)landmarks inevitably increases the spatial resolution and
thus allows one to capture finer anatomical details - whether relevant to
the biological question or not. This can be advantageous for the
reconstruction of shapes, especially when producing 3D morphs by warping
dense
Another, though non-statistical, approach to judge whether one has an
appropriate number of landmarks or perhaps too many is to use the tpsSuper
software.
One could start with many landmarks and confirm (one hopes) that the average
unwarped image is clear implying that the landmarks have
I want to chime in on Mike's comment about density of landmarking changing the
effect size. Nicolas Navarro and I did something similar in context of
quantitative genetics of mandible shape and came to a similar conclusion using
2D, 3D and 3D semi-landmarks sets on same dataset.
Navarro N,
Dear Lea,
I see others have responded to your inquiry, already. I thought I would add an
additional perspective.
Your question about statistical significance requires asking a follow-up
question. What statistical methods would you intend to use to evaluate
“significance”? If you are
Dear All,
I'd like to add a few comments on sampling (landmarks but also
specimens). I hope that some of the other subscribers, who know much
more than I do about morphometrics, will refine and correct my points.
A very short one on my two papers. They make a very simple point: if one
is
