English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Computed tomography (CT) analysis software has predominantly been developed for medical and industrial use. Thus far there have not been detailed reports in the palaeontological literature of CT analysis tools utilizing automatic analysis functions for visual 3D comparisons between different taxa/species in order to assess and quantify differences. This paper presents the methodology for the general morphological comparison and analysis of fossil and modern bones–in this case frog femora are showcased. Industrial X-ray computed tomography analysis functions are applied to the analysis, and specifically, the comparison, of bone morphologies and micro-anatomical differences (e.g., cortical wall thickness) of differentially sized frog taxa. In contrast to traditional landmark analysis, this method makes use of the higher detail of the full surface data in the form of a CAD (Computer-aided drafting) data set output from the microCT scan. The application of these industrial analysis functions is shown to be useful for viewing of qualitative, as well as quantitative, differences. Differences are highlighted using 3D nominal/actual comparisons, and wall thickness is compared using the wall thickness analysis function applied to both samples side by side. Single bones as well as complete frog specimens were scanned and, in the case of the latter, femora were virtually extracted (segmented) for the purposes of comparison with other specimens. These techniques may be used for the effective identification and quantification of morphological differences between fossil and extant taxa. Thalassa Matthews. Iziko South African Museum, 25 Queen Victoria Street, Cape Town 8000, South Africa and DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Palaeosciences, Evolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, Wits, 2050, South Africa. tmatthews.matthews@gmail.com Anton du Plessis. CT Scanner Facility, Central Analytical Facilities, Paul Sauer Building, Bosman Street, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, 7602, South Africa/Physics Department, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, 7602, South Africa. anton2@sun.ac.za

Using X-ray computed tomography analysis tools to compare the skeletal element morphology of fossil and modern frog (Anura) species