I guess, my question is very simple.. I didn't use geometry morphometrics for
many years and fail to start now. Something changed.
My partial task is very easy. I have a tps file with a set of specimens with
landmark coordinates. And O want to carry out Procrustes fit. More exactly, I
want to
Andrey, the last time I checked this (last July, I believe), differences
between MorphoJ and TPSRelw were tiny and negligible. I compared MorphoJ
with R in the last days, and again differences were tiny.
The first thing I'd check is whether there's an issue with commas vs
dots as decimal
Andrey,
It is unreasonable to expect the numbers will match perfectly between these two
software packages, as the way in which they perform the operations differs.
First, MorphoJ uses Full Procrustes fit, whereas the TPS series, geomorph, and
others use Partial Procrustes fitting. That will
Thank you Dean,
Of course, numbers should differ. But in my case, there is no correlation
between two sets. I guess that in theory the two sets should have r at
least around 0.9?
On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 5:31:51 PM UTC+3, dcadams wrote:
>
> Andrey,
>
>
>
> It is unreasonable to expect
Andrea,
I think it is worth it to do a pedantic review of your exercise for the benefit
of the community.
First, the differences are not data dependent - they are method dependent.
TPSRelw uses partial Procrustes; MorphoJ uses full Procrustes superimposition.
PCA would have the exact same
