CLASS-L Archives

May 2005

CLASS-L@LISTS.SUNYSB.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
"Classification, clustering, and phylogeny estimation" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From:
Richard Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 23 May 2005 12:06:54 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
"Classification, clustering, and phylogeny estimation" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (11 lines)
This is a question about size and shape in morphometric studies.

I have a series of measurements of bone lengths in individuals that vary greatly in size. I want to consider similarities and differences between the individuals solely in terms of shape. To remove differences in absolute size I have taken each individual, summed all the measurements for that individual, and then divided each measurement by that sum.

This is an intuitively simple method. Some years ago I read a recommendation about using it. Now an editor is asking me to cite a reference to the use of the method. Unfortunately I cannot recollect where I saw it advocated.

Can anybody help?

I know that there are various alternative methods for eliminating size in multivariate morphometric work, such as eliminating the first principal component if that is one of general size. However my question is not about the competing merits of size/shape methodologies in general. This is a specific request for a citation of the approach outlined above. 
 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2