Some comments on coordinate‐free and scale‐invariant methods in morphometrics
- 1 August 1991
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in American Journal of Physical Anthropology
- Vol. 85 (4) , 407-417
- https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330850405
Abstract
The usual strategy for comparing biological shapes is to use some kind of superimposition of the two forms under study and then look at the “residuals” as the shape change. In this paper, I take a careful look at this general strategy and point out some subtle but inherent and important pitfalls. Additionally an alternative approach based on Euclidean Distance Matrix representation is presented. It is applicable to two‐ as well as threedimensional objects.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Euclidean distance matrix analysis: A coordinate‐free approach for comparing biological shapes using landmark dataAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1991
- Statistical Models in Morphometrics: Are They Realistic?Systematic Zoology, 1990
- A Survey of the Statistical Theory of ShapeStatistical Science, 1989
- Finite-Element Scaling Applied to Sexual Dimorphism in Rhesus Macaque (Macaca mulatta) Facial GrowthSystematic Zoology, 1986
- Size and Shape Spaces for Landmark Data in Two DimensionsStatistical Science, 1986
- The Truss: Body Form Reconstructions in MorphometricsSystematic Zoology, 1982
- A nonhomogeneous anthropometric scaling method based on finite element principlesJournal of Biomechanics, 1980
- Statistical Problems of Size and Shape. I. Biological Applications and Basic TheoremsPublished by Springer Nature ,1975
- Size Allometry: Size and Shape Variables with Characterizations of the Lognormal and Generalized Gamma DistributionsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1970