## 3 Results
### The Semilandmark Models  
#### 3.2.1 Semilandmarks Models along One Curve  
Results on the semilandmark models on a single curve, that is, without specifying the deepest point, are less conclusive than the results on the seven-landmark model, regardless of the number of points included in the model--10, 25, and 50--and the data processing approach--GM or EFA.  
Although differences among carnivore groups are less marked, graphical results (Figures 3-5) show similar trends as those observed in Figure 2, with lions and leopards displaying a wider shape variance in their tooth scores in opposition to hyenas, especially brown hyenas. Meanwhile, spotted hyenas and lions present the widest form variance, with the former group being characterized by its ability to generate quite shallow and homogeneous score cross-sectional profiles.  
MANOVA results (Tables 4 and 5) on the PC scores obtained after dimension reduction on GPA and EFA data highlight a significant decrease in group differentiation, especially when considering shape variables. Spotted hyenas usually present the greatest difficulties in being separated from the rest of the carnivore groups in shape space, while they are the only distinguishable group in form space.  
ML and NN models used to analyze the performance of the semilandmark models for carnivore score characterization also decrease in accuracy when compared with the seven-landmark models. Table 2 presents mediocre results in carnivore group differentiation that only very rarely exceed 60% of accuracy.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Semilandmark Models on a Single Curve at 50\% Cross-Sectional Length**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**10 smlm**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**25 smlm**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**50 smlm**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Shape**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**B\_Hyena**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Leopard**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Lion**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**B\_Hyena**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Leopard**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Lion**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**B\_Hyena**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Leopard**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Lion**} \\
**Leopard** & **0.002** & - & - & **0.003** & - & - & **0.002** & - & - \\
**Lion** & 0.005 & 0.024 & - & **0.002** & 0.078 & - & **0.002** & 0.277 & - \\
**S\_Hyena** & 0.047 & 0.161 & 0.063 & 0.023 & 0.152 & 0.085 & 0.009 & 0.117 & 0.844 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**form**} \\ \hline
**Leopard** & **0.003** & - & - & **0.003** & - & - & 0.011 & - & - \\
**Lion** & 0.065 & 0.440 & - & 0.041 & 0.458 & - & 0.020 & 0.094 & - \\
**S\_Hyena** & **0.001** & **0.001** & **0.001** & **0.001** & **0.001** & **0.001** & **0.001** & **0.001** & **0.001** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: MANOVA \(p\)-values obtained on the 10, 25, and 50 semilandmark (smlm) models used to describe the cross-sections at 50% of the score length. Statistical significance (\(p<0.003\)) is marked in bold.  
Figure 3: PCA plots in shape and form space on the single-curve semilandmark models at 50% cross-sectional score length, using 10 points; 25 points; and 50 points. Extreme changes in shape and form along PC1 and PC2 are illustrated with the aid of transformation grids.  
Figure 4: Shape PCA plots on Elliptic Fourier Analysis on the single-curve semilandmark models at 50% cross-sectional score length, using (**a**) 10 points; (**b**) 25 points; and (**c**) 50 points. Extreme changes in shape along PC1 and PC2 are illustrated with the aid of transformation grids. Optimal harmonics for each model are (**a**) 2; (**b**) 6; and (**c**) 6.  
Figure 5: Form PCA plots on Elliptic Fourier Analysis on the single-curve semilandmark models at 50% cross-sectional score length, using (**a**) 10 points; (**b**) 25 points; and (**c**) 50 points. Extreme changes in form along PC1 and PC2 are illustrated with the aid of transformation grids. Optimal harmonics for each model are (**a**) 2; (**b**) 6; and (**c**) 6.