t; *From:* katz.w...@gmail.com [mailto:katz.w...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *David
>> Katz
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 11:48 AM
>> *To:* Adams, Dean [EEOBS]
>> *Cc:* Christy Anna Hipsley ; MORPHMET <
>> morphmet@morphometrics.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [
id
> Katz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 11:48 AM
> *To:* Adams, Dean [EEOBS]
> *Cc:* Christy Anna Hipsley ; MORPHMET <
> morphmet@morphometrics.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [MORPHMET] relative positions of landmark partitions in
> integration tests - how important?
>
&g
katz.w...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of David Katz
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 11:48 AM
To: Adams, Dean [EEOBS]
Cc: Christy Anna Hipsley ; MORPHMET
Subject: Re: [MORPHMET] relative positions of landmark partitions in
integration tests - how important?
I read Christy's question a little diffe
I read Christy's question a little differently, and requiring some
clarification.
First, Dean, doesn't Dean & Felice fix the angle between jaw and cranium so
that you can subject a craniomandibular dataset to a common GPA, which at
the PLS step has the benefit of preserving relative size relations
Christy,
That data example contained variation in relative jaw position among specimens,
which could affect shape estimates, as well as down-stream shape analyses.
Several approaches have been proposed for dealing with such rotational
variation (see Adams 1999; also Bookstein’s Orange book). O
