## 3 Results
### The Semilandmark Models
#### 3.2.2 Semilandmark Models along Two Curves  
Semilandmark models along two curves, that is, considering the deepest point of the score cross-section, resemble the graphical results observed for the seven-landmark model more than when using a single curve (Figure 6 and Figure S7). Such results suggest that the incorporation of the deepest score point might be relevant for tooth score characterization. PCAs also highlight the existence of slight differences in the morphological definition of carnivore tooth scores with regard to the score portion selected for the study, either at score mid-length (50% of total mark length) or at the most conspicuous U-shaped score profile. In comparison to the single curve semilandmark model, the inclusion of three fixed points, being one of them the deepest point on the score cross-section, helps to slightly improve group separation, particularly in form space (Table 6). Prediction models are, however, similarly ineffective to classify fields and hyenids based on the tooth scores they generate (Table 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Semi landmark Models on 2 Curves at U-Section**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**13 smlm**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**23 smlm**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**33 smlm**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Shape**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{8}{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** & **0.001** & - & - & **0.001** & **-** & **-** & **0.001** & - & - \\
**Lion** & 0.004 & 0.348 & - & 0.006 & 0.458 & - & 0.014 & 0.241 & - \\
**S\_Hyena** & 0.019 & 0.083 & 0.150 & 0.012 & 0.079 & 0.118 & 0.007 & 0.059 & 0.746 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**form**} \\ \hline
**Leopard** & 0.005 & - & - & **0.002** & - & - & **0.002** & - & - \\
**Lion** & **0.001** & 0.244 & - & **0.002** & 0.263 & - & 0.082 & 0.267 & - \\
**[PERSON]\_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 6: MANOVA \(p\)-values obtained on the 13, 23, and 33 semilandmark (smlm) models on two curves used to describe the most conspicuous U cross-sections of the carnivore scores. Statistical significance (\(p<0.003\)) is marked in bold. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Semi landmark Models on a Single Curve at 50\% Cross-Sectional Length—EFA**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**10 smlm**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**25 smlm**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**50 smlm**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**shape**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{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** & **0.001** & - & - & **0.003** & - & - & **0.002** & - & - \\
**Lion** & **0.003** & **0.002** & - & **0.003** & 0.010 & - & 0.007 & 0.005 & - \\
**S\_Hyena** & 0.049 & 0.048 & 0.110 & 0.038 & 0.063 & 0.155 & 0.054 & 0.110 & 0.168 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**form**} \\ \hline
**Leopard** & 0.010 & - & - & 0.013 & - & - & 0.013 & - & - \\
**Lion** & 0.137 & 0.118 & - & 0.079 & 0.072 & - & 0.070 & 0.056 & - \\
**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 5: 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, using an EFA approach. Statistical significance (\(p<0.003\)) is marked in bold.