|
Post by duanmianxiong on Jan 21, 2013 5:45:30 GMT -9
what are the morphological differences between different kind of cave bears apart from genetic differences ? the recent DNA has divided them into different species like below Ursus ingressus Ursus kudarensis Ursus spelaeus ladinicus .........
|
|
|
Post by duanmianxiong on Jan 25, 2013 4:24:07 GMT -9
the MDS results Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by duanmianxiong on Jan 25, 2013 4:39:46 GMT -9
the result Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by duanmianxiong on Jan 25, 2013 4:41:48 GMT -9
I was confused by these cave bears.
|
|
|
Post by grrraaahhh on Jan 25, 2013 18:51:24 GMT -9
All, please provide document/article citation when you upload attachments. It makes it easier to enter into informed discussion.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by duanmianxiong on Jan 26, 2013 2:32:58 GMT -9
|
|
|
Post by divingwolf on Jan 26, 2013 16:58:36 GMT -9
Pertains to Reply #1:
Scatter plot of the most important MDS axes (E1, K1) for cave and brown bears (males and females together).
|
|
|
Post by divingwolf on Jan 26, 2013 17:03:29 GMT -9
Pertains to Reply #2: UPGMA classification based on the selected MDS axes (E2, K1, K3) of the morphological cluster 2 members (see St. 3); numbers near the nodes – bootstrap supports in %. I don't have access to the full text of the article. This makes it impossible for me to understand these figures. In particular, I don't know what the variables E2, K1, K3 represent. Source: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618211001303Craniometrical variability in the cave bears (Carnivora, Ursidae): Multivariate comparative analysis by Gennady F. Baryshnikova, Andrey Yu. Puzachenkob Quaternary International Volume 245, Issue 2, 6 December 2011, Pages 350–368
|
|
|
Post by grrraaahhh on Jan 26, 2013 19:46:24 GMT -9
Pertains to Reply #2: UPGMA classification based on the selected MDS axes (E2, K1, K3) of the morphological cluster 2 members (see St. 3); numbers near the nodes – bootstrap supports in %. I don't have access to the full text of the article. This makes it impossible for me to understand these figures. In particular, I don't know what the variables E2, K1, K3 represent. Source: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618211001303Craniometrical variability in the cave bears (Carnivora, Ursidae): Multivariate comparative analysis by Gennady F. Baryshnikova, Andrey Yu. Puzachenkob
Quaternary International Volume 245, Issue 2, 6 December 2011, Pages 350–368 www.zin.ru/labs/theriology/staff/baryshnikov/references/baryshnikov_puzachenko_2011b.pdf
|
|
|
Post by divingwolf on Jan 26, 2013 20:36:02 GMT -9
Thanks, grrraaahhh, this link is extremely useful!
|
|
|
Post by divingwolf on Jan 26, 2013 20:43:03 GMT -9
This figure is from a paper that studies mathematical methods for distinguishing specimens of Ursus deningeri and Ursus spelaeus. Single measurements aren't sufficient, but a combination of measurements makes correct identification possible. The figure shows one of the measurements used, the diameter of the ulna at the indicated location. Source: Dissertation by Kerstin Anja Athen, 2007 tobias-lib.uni-tuebingen.de/volltexte/2007/2893/pdf/Athen_Dissertation2007.pdfAttachments:
|
|
|
Post by divingwolf on Jan 26, 2013 20:46:19 GMT -9
This figure is from a paper that studies mathematical methods for distinguishing specimens of Ursus deningeri and Ursus spelaeus. Single measurements aren't sufficient, but a combination of measurements makes correct identification possible. The figure shows one of the measurements used, a measurement on the ulna at the indicated location. tobias-lib.uni-tuebingen.de/volltexte/2007/2893/pdf/Athen_Dissertation2007.pdfAttachments:
|
|
|
Post by divingwolf on Jan 26, 2013 20:58:43 GMT -9
This figure is from a paper that studies mathematical methods for distinguishing specimens of Ursus deningeri and Ursus spelaeus. Single measurements aren't sufficient, but a combination of measurements makes correct identification possible. The figure shows two of the measurements used, the width and thickness of the ulna at the indicated location. Source: tobias-lib.uni-tuebingen.de/volltexte/2007/2893/pdf/Athen_Dissertation2007.pdfAttachments:
|
|
|
Post by divingwolf on Jan 26, 2013 21:10:06 GMT -9
This figure is from a paper that studies mathematical methods for distinguishing specimens of Ursus deningeri and Ursus spelaeus. Single measurements aren't sufficient, but a combination of measurements makes correct identification possible. The figure shows two of the measurements of the ulna used, the width of the Processus coronoideus (BPcor) and the width of the Processi coronarii (BPcii). Source: tobias-lib.uni-tuebingen.de/volltexte/2007/2893/pdf/Athen_Dissertation2007.pdfAttachments:
|
|
|
Post by duanmianxiong on Jan 27, 2013 3:47:27 GMT -9
Thanking for showing these,but aren't these differences of ulna caused by the different size of Ursus spelaeus and Ursus deningeri,as the picture show the Ursus spelaeus is bigger? Besides I wonder what the differences of cranialmorphy between cave bears group as Ursus ingressus Ursus kudarensis Ursus spelaeus ladinicus
|
|