On the use of shape spaces to compare morphometric methods

By F. James Rohlf. 2000

183 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Geometry and Topology, Paleontology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c0136ae6fa5c98cbdc1b0ba2801577c6da8f4804

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Geometry and Topology

In Paleontology

Citations in the corpus

The tps series of software (2015, methodology): “An early example of this is given in Adams and Rohlf (2000).”
An Invariant Approach to Statistical Analysis of Shapes (2001, methodology): “Studies have shown that the statistical geometry of the EDMA-based methods is extremely complicated and can introduce structure, such as correlation, into data for which none exists (Rohlf, 2000 a ).”
Geometric morphometrics and phylogeny (2000, methodology): “Images of the wings were scanned from Carpenter and LaCasse (1955) and the locations of the landmarks were digitized using the tpsDig software (Rohlf 1999c).”
Evaluating modularity in morphometric data: challenges with the RV coefficient and a new test measure (2016, unknown): “…variety of conditions can be revealed. a multi-faceted procedure has proven useful in objectively comparing alternative methods, and for distinguishing when one method should be preferred over another (in the context of morphometrics, see: 2000a; Rohlf 2000b; Rohlf 2003; also Adams & Collyer 2015).”
A field comes of age: geometric morphometrics in the 21 st century (2013, methodology): “After superimposition, the aligned Procrustes shape coordinates describe the location of each specimen in a curved space related to Kendall’s shape space (Rohlf, 1999b; Slice, 2001).”
Developmental Dynamics and G-Matrices: Can Morphometric Spaces be Used to Model Phenotypic Evolution? (2008, background): “The effect of scale changes can have effects that are more complicated than what is described here (e.g., Rohlf 2000; Klingenberg and Monteiro 2005) and one should never presume that a linear evolutionary trajectory between two phenotypes in one space will pass through the exactly the same…”
Sample size and sampling error in geometric morphometric studies of size and shape (2007, methodology): “For instance, Rohlf (2000a, 2003a) compared statistical power and accuracy of mean shape estimates produced by different geometric morphometric methods as a function of sample size using configurations of three landmarks built by adding isotropic errors around coordinates of either an isosceles or…”