Figure 5 in Discrete aggregate analysis of ovoid egg shapes in various bird species
Figure 5. Comparison of geometric standards (1, 7, 13, 19, 25, 31) with profiles of real eggs: 2 – Athene noctua; 3 – Neophron percnopterus; 4 – Merops apiaster; 5 – Phylloscopus sibilatrix; 6 – Alcedo atthis; 8 – Falco vespertinus; 9 – Aegithalos caudatus; 10 – Merops apiaster; 11 – Ficedula hypoleuca; 12 – Jynx torquilla; 14 – Sterna hirundo; 15 – Buteo buteo; 16 – Falco cherrug; 17 – Upupa epops; 18 – Dendrocopos major; 20 – Picus canus; 21 – Perdix perdix; 22 – Phasianus colchicus; 23 – Corvus monedula; 24 – Coccothraustes coccothraustes; 26 – Limosa limosa; 27 – Pica pica; 28 – Luscinia luscinia; 29 – Corvus frugilegus; 30 – Alca torda; 32 – Uria aalge; 33 – Numenius arquata; 34 – Recurvirostra avosetta; 35 – Alca torda; 36 – Corvus corax.
ShareScore
40/100
Overall dataset sharing score
Score breakdown
These five areas show where the dataset supports — or may limit — practical reuse.
- Stewardship
- 8
- Harmonization
- 4
- Access
- 20
- Reuse readiness
- 8
- Engagement
- 0