Thank you!
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 6:18:41 AM UTC+3, f.james.rohlf wrote:
>
> Note that the distinction between full and partial Procrustes is not very
> important if shape variation is in fact very small.
>
>
>
> In a partial Procrustes superimposition there is an additional step that
> projects the aligned specimens onto the tangent space. Without that step
> the shapes are still in the curved space of GPA aligned shapes. As a
> result, there will be one less eigenvalue than expected that is “exactly”
> equal to zero (i.e., around 10^-16). Its size depends on the amount of
> curvature of the space around the GPA consensus shape and that depends on
> the amount of shape variation in the sample and thus is data dependent.
>
>
>
> However, it seems reasonable to me to apply this extra step if one is
> going to use multivariate methods that assume that one has a linear space.
> This was discussed in Rohlf, F. J. 1999. Shape statistics: Procrustes
> superimpositions and tangent spaces. Journal of Classification, 16:197-223.
> Slice 2001. Syst. Biol. 50:141–149 is also relevant.
>
>
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> F. James Rohlf, Distinguished Prof. Emeritus
>
> [image: univautosig]
>
> Depts. of Anthropology and of Ecology & Evolution
>
>
>

## Advertising

--
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.