Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
85
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
85 results for “geometric morphology”
Figure 2 in Mandible shape in marsupial and placental carnivorous mammals: a morphological comparative study using geometric morphometrics
Figure 2. Mandible shape variation along the first four relative warps (RW). A, relative warp 1 versus 2, showing the distribution of diet classes; B, relative warp 3 versus 4, showing the distribution of diet classes; C, relative warp 1 versus 2, showing the distribution of taxonomic groups; D, relative warp 3 versus 4, showing the distribution of taxonomic groups. Shape reconstructions show the extreme shape of each RW in black lines against the consensus shape in grey lines.
Figure 1 in Mandible shape in marsupial and placental carnivorous mammals: a morphological comparative study using geometric morphometrics
Figure 1. Lateral view of a Canis lupus mandible showing the landmarks and semilandmarks used. Squares, landmarks; X, semilandmarks; 1, caudal extreme of the condyle; 2, most concave point of the mandibular notch; 3, dorso-caudal angle of the coronoid process; 4–11, semilandmarks; 12, distal extreme of the lower carnassial; 13, distal border of the protoconid projected to the base of the crown; 14, mesial border of the lower carnassial; 15, distal extreme of the c1; 16, mesial extreme of the c1; 17–28, semilandmarks; 29, anterior border of the masseteric fosa.
Figure 5 in Mandible shape in marsupial and placental carnivorous mammals: a morphological comparative study using geometric morphometrics
Figure 5. Canonical analysis of variance of taxonomic groups and diet classes. A, dietary discrimination in marsupials (factor 1 versus 2); B, discrimination of main Carnivora clades (factor 1 versus 2); C, discrimination of main Caniformia clades (factor 1 versus 2); D, discrimination of main Feliformia clades (factor 1 versus 2). Shape reconstructions show the extreme shape of each RW in black lines against the consensus shape in grey lines.
Figure 7 in Mandible shape in marsupial and placental carnivorous mammals: a morphological comparative study using geometric morphometrics
Figure 7. Allometric relationship between mandible shape and size. Consensus configuration is in the middle, shape of the largest species (Ursus arctos) to the left, and shape of the smallest species (Planigale maculate) to the right.
Figure 6 in Mandible shape in marsupial and placental carnivorous mammals: a morphological comparative study using geometric morphometrics
Figure 6. Canonical analysis of variance of taxonomic groups. A, Methateria (light grey) versus Carnivora (dark grey); B, Caniformia (dark grey) versus Feliformia (light grey).
Figure 4 in Mandible shape in marsupial and placental carnivorous mammals: a morphological comparative study using geometric morphometrics
Figure 4. Canonical analysis of variance of diet classes. A, factor 1 versus 2; B: factor 1 versus 3. Shape reconstructions show the extreme shape of each RW in black lines against the consensus shape in grey lines.
Figure 4. Comparative metriorhynchid cranial morphology. A in The evolution of Metriorhynchoidea (mesoeucrocodylia, thalattosuchia): an integrated approach using geometric morphometrics, analysis of disparity, and biomechanics
Figure 4. Comparative metriorhynchid cranial morphology. A, Eoneustes gaudryi comb. nov., holotype, NHM R.3353. B, Geosaurus araucanensis, holotype, MLP 72-IV-7-1. C, Cricosaurus suevicus, lectotype, SMNS 9808. D, Enaliosuchus schroederi, holotype, MMGLV#. E, Suchodus durobrivensis, referred specimen, NHM R.2618. F, Metriorhynchus superciliosus, referred specimen, MNHN 1908-6. G, Geosaurus giganteus, referred specimen, NHM 37020. H, Dakosaurus maximus, neotype, SMNS 8203. Scale bars: 20 mm. We thank N. Knötschke for photograph (D), and P. Hurst and P.M. Barrett for photograph (G).
Data from: Bat species comparisons based on external morphology: a test of traditional versus geometric morphometric approaches
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Morphological disparity in theropod jaws: comparing discrete characters and geometric morphometrics
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Autorotating dispersal units of <i>Getonia floribunda</i> Roxb. (Combretaceae): Morphology, aerodynamics and geometrical significance
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Using geometric morphometric visualizations of directional selection gradients to investigate morphological differentiation
Researchers studying extant and extinct taxa are often interested in identifying the evolutionary processes that have lead to the morphological differences among the taxa. Ideally, one could distinguish the influences of neutral evolutionary processes (genetic drift, mutation) from natural selection, and in situations for which selection is implicated, identify the targets of selection. The directional selection gradient is an effective tool for investigating evolutionary process, because it can relate form (size and shape) differences between taxa to the variation and covariation found within taxa. However, although most modern morphometric analyses use the tools of geometric morphometrics (GM) to analyze landmark data, to date, selection gradients have mainly been calculated from linear measurements. To address this methodological gap, here we present a GM approach for visualizing and comparing between-taxon selection gradients with each other, associated difference vectors, and "selection" gradients from neutral simulations. To exemplify our approach, we use a dataset of 347 three-dimensional landmarks and semilandmarks recorded on the crania of 260 primate specimens (112 humans, 67 common chimpanzees, 36 bonobos, 45 gorillas). Results on this example dataset show how incorporating geometric information can provide important insights into the evolution of the human braincase, and serve to demonstrate the utility of our approach for understanding morphological evolution.
FIGURE 10 in Morphological variation during post-embryonic development in the centipede Lithobius melanops: traditional and geometric morphometrics approaches
FIGURE 10 Shape variation of (A) The forcipular apparatus; (B) The cephalic capsule; and (C) The ultimate leg among epimorphic groups was performed by Canonical Variate Analyses (CVA) [circle: black – agenitalis, white – maturus; rectangles: black – praematurus male, white – praematurus female (in the case of the forcipular aparatus) and praematurus (both sexes in the case of the cephalic capsule and the ultimate leg)]. Thin plate spline deformation grids and vector positions illustrate the shape variation pattern among analyzed groups.
Figure 8 in Mandible shape in marsupial and placental carnivorous mammals: a morphological comparative study using geometric morphometrics
Figure 8. Simplified phylogeny showing the optimization of mandible shape on the main clades.
Figure 2 from: Guan K, Su J, Wang J, Yang Y (2015) Significance of hind wing morphology in distinguishing genera and species of cantharid beetles with a geometric morphometric analysis. ZooKeys 502: 11-25. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.502.9191
Figure 2 - Shape variables of the hind wings in the genera of Lycocerus, Prothemus and Themus. A principal component analysis (PCA) of hind wing configuration. Plot of PC1 (74.39% of total variation) and PC2 (8.52% variation) showing 90% confidence ellipses of population means B canonical variate analysis (CVA) of same matrix, also showing 90% confidence ellipses of population means. The averaged shape of each genus is depicted as deformations using thin plate splines.
Figure 5 from: Guan K, Su J, Wang J, Yang Y (2015) Significance of hind wing morphology in distinguishing genera and species of cantharid beetles with a geometric morphometric analysis. ZooKeys 502: 11-25. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.502.9191
Figure 5 - Shape variables of the hind wings in the Themus species. A principal component analysis (PCA) of hind wing configuration. Plot of PC1 (32.87% of total variation) and PC2 (16.48% variation) showing 90% confidence ellipses of population means B canonical variate analysis (CVA) of same matrix, also showing 90% confidence ellipses of population means. The averaged shape of each species is depicted as deformations using thin plate splines.
Figure 4 from: Guan K, Su J, Wang J, Yang Y (2015) Significance of hind wing morphology in distinguishing genera and species of cantharid beetles with a geometric morphometric analysis. ZooKeys 502: 11-25. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.502.9191
Figure 4 - Shape variables of the hind wings in the Prothemus species. A principal component analysis (PCA) of hind wing configuration. Plot of PC1 (38.40% of total variation) and PC2 (15.88% variation) showing 90% confidence ellipses of population means B canonical variate analysis (CVA) of same matrix, also showing 90% confidence ellipses of population means. The averaged shape of each species is depicted as deformations using thin plate splines.
Figure 3 from: Guan K, Su J, Wang J, Yang Y (2015) Significance of hind wing morphology in distinguishing genera and species of cantharid beetles with a geometric morphometric analysis. ZooKeys 502: 11-25. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.502.9191
Figure 3 - Shape variables of the hind wings in the Lycocerus species. A principal component analysis (PCA) of hind wing configuration. Plot of PC1 (49.02% of total variation) and PC2 (14.92% variation) showing 90% confidence ellipses of population means B canonical variate analysis (CVA) of same matrix, also showing 90% confidence ellipses of population means. The averaged shape of each species is depicted as deformations using thin plate splines.
Figure 6 from: Guan K, Su J, Wang J, Yang Y (2015) Significance of hind wing morphology in distinguishing genera and species of cantharid beetles with a geometric morphometric analysis. ZooKeys 502: 11-25. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.502.9191
Figure 6 - Comparisons of centroid size variables among different groups: A Lycocerus, Prothemus and Themus B Lycocerus asperipennis, Lycocerus metallescens and Lycocerus orientalis; Prothemus chinensis, Prothemus kiukiangensis and Prothemus purpuripennis; Themus licenti, Themus coelestis and Themus impressipennis.
Data from: Evolutionary novelties and losses in geometric morphometrics: a practical approach through hominin molar morphology
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Using geometric morphometric visualizations of directional selection gradients to investigate morphological differentiation
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.