----- Forwarded message from carlo.mel...@unina.it -----
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:34:38 -0500
From: carlo.mel...@unina.it
Reply-To: carlo.mel...@unina.it
Subject: Re: missing structures
To: morphmet@morphometrics.org
Dear Patrick,
you can probably let your missing landmarks overlap with existing ones
if you think that the structure simply disappeared because of function.
All the best
Carlo
Quoting morphmet_modera...@morphometrics.org:
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Patrick Arnold
> <patrick.arn...@uni-jena.de> -----
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 04:48:42 -0500
> From: Patrick Arnold <patrick.arn...@uni-jena.de>
> Reply-To: Patrick Arnold <patrick.arn...@uni-jena.de>
> Subject: missing structures
> To: morphmet@morphometrics.org
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am examining different vertebrae with GMM. Unfurtunatly in one group
> of vertebrae (C7) some structures are lacking which are very distinct
> in all the other groups of vertebrae, thus being very good landmark
> locations. The structure are definetly missing in C7 because they do
> not appear in ontogeny (No Tuberculum ventralis because no costal
> primordium and no Foramen transversum). My problem is now, how to deal
> with missing structure because I do not want to exclude this landmarks
> because they are so nice landmarks in all the other vertebrae. Is
> their any solution in the workflow?
>
> Thanks for answering.
>
> Patrick Arnold
> Institute for Systematic Zoology and Evolutionary Biology
> Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
> Germany
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent through https://webmail.uni-jena.de
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
>
>
>
----- End forwarded message -----
