The paper cited below showed that the Kluge-Kerfoot effect was a consequence of increasing measurement error as the size of the structures measured decreased. If I recall correctly, the authors examined at least one data set in which all small structures were more greatly magnified than large structures so that all measurements were of approximately the same apparent size; size dependency of varience disappeared. That would seem to be the solution to your problem.
Rohlf, F.J., A.J. Gilmartin, and G. Hart. 1983 The Kluge-Kerfoot Phenomenon--A statistical artifact. Evolution 37:180-202. -- Mike Bell > Hello all, > > Im looking at allometry of caprellid amphipods and am concerned about > relative measurement accuracy at different sizes. > > I am afraid that the error margin will be different according to the > size of the individual. For example if I place the landmarks on a small > image of a small individual, which will then be adjusted for size to > compare the shape to a large individual, the scope for error may be > larger than if I have a large image of a large individual, which would > be adjusted down for size. OR if I have the same size images of a small > and large individual, would the landmarks on the small individual be > more accurately placed? > > Can anyone offer any advice? > > Thanks, > > Gail > > > > Gail V. Ashton, > > Post-doctoral Fellow > >>·}¸¸<<< > > > > Smithsonian Environmental Research Centre > > 647 Contees Wharf Road > > Edgewater, Maryland, 21037-0028 > > Telephone: 443 482 2354 > > Fax: 443 482 2375 > > > > > -- > Replies will be sent to the list. > For more information visit http://www.morphometrics.org > > Michael A. Bell, Professor Department of Ecology and Evolution Stony Brook University Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245, USA Phone:1-631-632-8574. Fax: 1-631-689-6682 -- Replies will be sent to the list. For more information visit http://www.morphometrics.org
