Figures & data
Figure 1 Sketch showing the measurements considered for toes and claws. A, width of last phalanx or of claw; B, length of toe; C, height of last phalanx or of claw.
Figure 2 Last phalanx and claw outline showing some details of the measurements considered for the claws. D‐E, section showing where the height of claw was measured; D‐D1 (arc), length of claw; O‐D = O‐D1, claw radius; α, claw curvature angle.
Table I. Sample size, mean value±SE and SD of every ratio value between the morphological measurements considered for the analysis in each group of birds used in the study.
Figure 3 Plots of the two canonical variables from the discriminant analysis showing segregation of the three groups considered. The black squares show the centroid location of each group.
Table II. Eigenvectors for both canonical functions and the relative canonical correlation values.
Table III. The Wilks’ Lambda value and its significance for both canonical functions.
Table IV. Results of classification. Among the original grouped cases for the three groups, 92.9% were correctly classified.
Table V. Values of the four most extreme positive and negative characters obtained from the structure matrix.
Table VI. Wilks’ Lambda values and their significance for both canonical functions after data ranking.
Table VII. Values of the four most extreme positive and negative characters obtained from the structure matrix after data ranking.
Figure 4 Plots of the two canonical variables from the discriminant analysis showing segregation of the three groups considered after data ranking. The black squares show the centroid location of each group.
Figure 5 Three diagrams used as example showing the linearity of the residuals in the first three ranking coefficients: (A) H/W C3, (B) H/W P3, (C) H/W C1. The measurements are in millimetres and the line shows the regression line y = ax+b, which crosses the axes very close to the origin in each diagram.
