Líneas de Estasis Centroidal (LEC): una hipótesis empírica con alto contenido teórico, para evaluar formas animales
Centroidal stasis lines (SCL): An empyrical hypotheses, with high theoretical content, to evaluate animal shapes
Abstract
The Centroidal Stasis Lines (LEC) are generated by decomposing the centroids of Procrustes coordinates, into their components (X, Y), and plotting each point on a plane, where they are grouped in a straight line, with a negative slope and high correlation coefficient. They were discovered empirically, but due to their very high correlation coefficient, it was thought that they could be important in the discrimination of taxa at the specific or supraspecific level. In this work, an analysis of the theoretical and empirical content of them is carried out, through various direct and indirect evidences, on various types of evidence, on animals, and on geometric figures. All experiments were contrasted with centroids artificially generated from pseudoreplicates produced with the mean, standard deviation and probabilistic distribution of the real data, later randomized. Eight tests carried out, on as many structures, biological and artificial, show that the real centroids always produce LECs, with a negative slope and a high correlation coefficient, while those created randomly, have a very low correlation coefficient, statistically not significant, and a slope that does not differ significantly from zero. The com-parison between these LECs, After being applied to different types of structures, both natural and geometric figures, it is concluded that the LECs appear as an expression of the internal order, and the regularities that the landmarks present in their configuration, and that, in addition, they show the three main properties used to evaluate a scientific theory, such as theoretical foundation, applicability and universality.
Downloads
References
Adams, D. C., F. J. Rohlf & D. E. Slice. 2013. A field comes of age: Geometric morphometrics in the 21st century. Hystrix 24: 7–14.
Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: Geometry and biology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, xviii + 435 pp.
Diez, J. A. & U. Moulines. 1997. Fundamentos de filosofía de la ciencia. Barcelona: Editorial Ariel, S. A., 512 pp.
García-Pérez, J. E. 2021. Generando pseudorréplicas para contrastar hipótesis ecológicas y evolutivas: el caso de un pez ampliamente distribuido en la Orinoquia venezolana. International Journal of Morphology 39(4): 1212–1223.
Hull, D. L. 1997. The ideal species concept – and why we can’t get it. pp. 357–380. In: Claridge, M. F., H. A. Dawah & M.R. Wilson. Species: the units of biodiversity. London: Chapman and Hall.
Pickett, S. T. A., J. Kolasa & C. G. Jones. 2007. Ecological understanding: The nature of theory and the theory of nature. [2nd ed.]. Burlington, MA/San Diego, CA/ London: Academic Press, x + 233 pp. +[i].
Popper, K. R. 1967. El desarrollo del conocimiento científico: conjeturas y refutaciones. Buenos Aires: Editorial Paidós, 463 pp.
Zelditch, M. L., D. L. Swiderski, H. D. Sheets & W. L. Fink. 2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: A primer. Amsterdam: Elsevier, Academic Press, 416 pp.
