Dear Dr. Andrea, Fruciano, and Pietro, I asked a question on integration/modularity in geomorph google forum. I benefit hugely from Mike's reply.
That post is somewhat related to the current post. So I am here to let you aware and please feel free to comment further there if you have interest. Link to my question: https://groups.google.com/u/3/g/geomorph-r-package/c/VKpAxHnVW1U On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 7:52:05 PM UTC+8 Carmelo Fruciano wrote: > Dear Andrea, > I've seen this from time to time, but I am not too sure there's been a > recent increase in this. > > Some of the most striking cases in my own literature searches and > reading involve genetic mapping of one coordinate at a time (post-GPA) - > as if each coordinate were a separate trait, which is (IMHO) nonsensical. > This is obviously biased because of my own research interests (i.e., I > have seen more in this area because I've read a bit more in this area > than in others, not because they are more frequent in genetic mapping > than in other areas). But these papers are fairly spread over time and I > didn't catch any particular increase in their frequency as of late. > > I understand this does not exactly address what you were asking but I > still hope it helps, > Carmelo > > > -- > ================== > Carmelo Fruciano > Italian National Research Council (CNR) > IRBIM Messina > http://www.fruciano.org/ > ================== > > > On 10 May 2021 14:49, andrea cardini <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear All, > I have the impression that studies analyzing one landmark at a time > after a Procrustes superimposition (plus a possible sliding of > semilandmarks) are beginning to pop up here and there in the biological > literature. > I wonder whether there's some revolutionary evidence, which was > published and I missed, that contradicts a most basic principle of > Procrustes shape analysis: never to analyze Procrustes shape variables > one at a time, including especially the case of pairs or triplets of > 2D-3D landmark Procrustes shape coordinates. This is nicely summarized > by Paul in J. Anat. (2000) 197, pp. 103–120; exemplified in Fig. 9 of > doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025630; related to the problem of analyzing > one PW at a time discussed by Jim (Syst. Biol. 47(1):147± 158, 1998); > and most likely known since the early days of Procrustes GMM. > I would be astonished to find that this is not longer true but I am > happy to be surprised. > > Many thanks in advance for refs and feedback. > Please, if you reply directly to me, let me know if I can share your > answer. > > Cheers > > Andrea > > > > > -- > Dr. Andrea Cardini > Researcher, Dipartimento di Scienze Chimiche e Geologiche, Università di > Modena e Reggio Emilia, Via Campi, 103 - 41125 Modena - Italy > tel. 0039 059 4223140 > > Adjunct Associate Professor, Centre for Forensic Anthropology, The > University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009, > Australia > > E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected] > WEBPAGE: https://sites.google.com/view/alcardini2/ > or https://tinyurl.com/andreacardini > > FREE Yellow BOOK on Geometric Morphometrics: > https://tinyurl.com/yellowmorphobook > > ESTIMATE YOUR GLOBAL FOOTPRINT: > http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/ > SUPPORT: secondwarning.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 [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/morphmet2/7e5da2bd-3026-12df-522e-a17eed006d24%40gmail.com > . > > > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/morphmet2/945b3620-6f4c-4542-9bec-6e9c50aaf9ecn%40googlegroups.com.
