The Phantom of the Elytra -- Phylogenetic Trait Extraction from Images of Rove Beetles Using Deep Learning -- Is the Mask Enough?

Kim Steenstrup Pedersen; Roberta Hunt

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 19 references

The Phantom of the Elytra -- Phylogenetic Trait Extraction from Images of Rove Beetles Using Deep Learning -- Is the Mask Enough?

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Binary masks of rove beetle bodies extract phylogenetic traits better than full-color segmentations or Fourier outlines.

desk verdict A useful first three-way comparison of mask, Fourier, and segmentation representations for DL-based phylogenetic trait extraction, but the headline result is confounded by a large architecture gap and the abstract overstates what the statistics support. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04541 v1 pith:BWQ77XLU submitted 2025-02-06 cs.CV

Roberta Hunt , Kim Steenstrup Pedersen This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords phylogenetictraitextractiondeepmetriclearningrovebeetlesbinarymasksFourierdescriptorsAlignscoreStaphylinidaemorphologicalrepresentation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks which visual representation of a rove beetle carries the most phylogenetic signal when a deep metric learning model is trained to embed images so that their distances reflect evolutionary relatedness. Comparing binary body masks, color dorsal segmentations, and Fourier epicycle outlines, the authors find that the mask-based model reconstructs the reference phylogeny most closely, with normalized Align score 0.33 ± 0.02 on a test set of previously unseen beetle subfamilies, versus 0.45 ± 0.01 for Fourier descriptors and 0.39 ± 0.07 for full segmentations. The result matters because automated trait extraction could make morphology usable for phylogenetics at scale, especially for specimens without usable DNA. The authors interpret the outcome as evidence that overall body shape is phylogenetically informative in this group, while dorsal texture and color may add little. They also note that the Fourier model's weaker performance may be partly due to its much smaller network and occasional outline artifacts rather than to the representation itself.

What carries the argument

The central object is the comparison of three morphological representations fed into deep metric learning: binary masks, Fourier epicycle descriptors (200 coefficients plus angular velocities), and full dorsal segmentations. The mask and segmentation models use a ResNet50 encoder with 23.8 million parameters, while the Fourier model uses a small two-layer encoder DSeqEnc with 103,028 parameters; all produce 128-dimensional embeddings trained with triplet loss. Embeddings are turned into estimated phylogenies, and the normalized Align score and normalized Robinson-Foulds score compare those trees to the reference Rove-Tree-11 phylogeny, whose train/validation/test split follows beetle subfamilies so the model faces wholly unseen taxa.

What would settle it

Train the Fourier descriptors with a ResNet50 encoder, or the masks with DSeqEnc, under the same triplet-loss regime; if Fourier at matched capacity still scores near 0.45 while masks stay near 0.33, the representation claim holds, but if Fourier matches the mask score, the architecture difference, not the representation, explains the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, for extracting phylogenetic traits from rove beetle images, a simple binary mask of the beetle's silhouette outperforms both the original full-color dorsal segmentation and a Fourier-descriptor outline. The mask model achieved normalized Align score 0.33 ± 0.02 on the test set, where lower is better, against 0.39 ± 0.07 for full segmentations and 0.45 ± 0.01 for Fourier descriptors, and also the best normalized Robinson-Foulds score. The authors conclude that shape representations are especially useful for automated phylogenetic trait extraction and that dorsal textural features may be of reduced phylogenetic relevance in this group, though they flag the need for further investigation. They attribute the Fourier model's shortfall to reduced model capacity and to outline approximations that distort fine structures such as legs.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's comparison assumes the input representation, not the model architecture, causes the performance gap between the Fourier and mask models; the Fourier model used a far smaller network, so the gap could be an artifact of capacity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If masks suffice, large museum image collections can be turned into phylogenetic trait matrices without manual measurement or color annotation.
The closest phylogeny came from the simplest input, suggesting that redundant texture and color may act as noise for this task.
Fourier descriptors, a compact classic morphometric tool, need higher-fidelity outlines or larger networks before they can compete with mask-based models.
The same embedding approach could extend to other insect groups and to fossil or pinned specimens where DNA is unavailable.
Automated trait extraction with shape representations may help combine morphological and molecular data in total-evidence phylogenies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The representation comparison is confounded with architecture: our inference, not the paper's, is that an equal-capacity test is needed before concluding Fourier descriptors are inherently worse; the paper acknowledges but does not control the confound.
A testable extension would be feeding Fourier descriptors through ResNet50 or masks through DSeqEnc to isolate representation from capacity.
If texture is truly low-signal, combining masks with targeted trait annotations (for example, pronotum shape) might outperform raw color segmentation.
The mask result may partly reflect that binary silhouettes are invariant to lighting and background, which could make them an easier learning problem than raw color images.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things before you read it. First, this is the first direct comparison of binary masks, Fourier descriptors, and full segmentations as inputs to deep metric learning for phylogenetic trait extraction. That is a legitimate and useful contribution, especially because the authors reused the Rove-Tree-11 dataset and code base, evaluated against a fixed reference tree, and were honestly open about limitations in the Discussion. Second, the central claim that masks are the best representation is not actually established by the controlled comparisons. The Fourier model uses a 103k-parameter MLP while the mask model uses ResNet50 with 23.8M parameters, so the 0.45 vs 0.33 gap could plausibly be a capacity effect. The mask vs segmentation comparison shares the same architecture but the confidence intervals overlap (0.33 plus/minus 0.02 vs 0.39 plus/minus 0.07), so that difference is not significant either. The authors concede both points in the Discussion, but the Abstract and Conclusion present masks as clearly superior and texture as 'of lowered phylogenetic relevance.' That last claim is especially indirect: full segmentations contain shape plus texture, so a null difference cannot localize the cause to texture. What the paper does well: the experimental setup is clean in that train/validation/test are split by subfamily, which tests generalization to unseen groups. The evaluation metrics (normalized Align and Robinson-Foulds) are standard for tree comparison, and the fixed reference tree means the models aren't fitting the metric. The Fourier outline reconstruction with 200 coefficients is sensible, and showing artifacts like the leg distortion in Figure 3 is a good, concrete observation. The disclosure of parameter counts and training details is sufficient for replication. The soft spots are real but not disqualifying. The main one is the architectural confound, which the authors explicitly name; a revision with a matched-capacity Fourier encoder (e.g., a larger MLP or a small CNN) would settle it. The second is statistical framing: a proper test of whether the mask and segmentation distributions differ, rather than just eyeballing confidence intervals, would tighten the conclusion. The texture finding should be phrased as a hypothesis, not a result. There is also one garbled sentence in the Conclusion that should be cleaned up. Who is this for? Researchers working on image-based phenomics, automated trait extraction, or deep metric learning for biological datasets. They will get a useful comparison and a cautionary example of how representation and architecture can be entangled. The paper deserves a serious referee because the question matters, the setup is mostly sound, and the authors are transparent about the weak spots. I would send it to peer review, but with a request for matched-capacity controls and softened claims before acceptance.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper compares three morphological representations—binary masks, Fourier descriptors of outlines, and full color segmentations—as inputs to deep metric learning models for phylogenetic trait extraction from dorsal images of rove beetles. Using the Rove-Tree-11 dataset and its published phylogeny as reference, the authors train a ResNet50 on masks and segmentations and a small fully connected encoder (DSeqEnc) on Fourier descriptors, then evaluate the resulting embeddings by building phylogenies and computing normalized Align and Robinson-Foulds scores on a held-out subfamily. They report that masks achieve the best normalized Align score (0.33 ± 0.02) and conclude that shape representations are especially useful and that dorsal texture may have lower phylogenetic relevance. The Fourier model's lower performance is attributed in the Discussion to its much smaller capacity and to outline approximation artifacts.

Significance. The study addresses a timely and practical question: whether automated morphological trait extraction for phylogenetics should use silhouettes, outlines, or full appearance. The Rove-Tree-11 dataset and its fixed reference phylogeny provide a concrete benchmark, and the evaluation protocol with a held-out subfamily and repeated runs is a sensible way to measure generalization. The manuscript is honest in acknowledging the capacity confound between the Fourier and mask models, and it makes a useful contribution by documenting that a simple representation paired with a strong architecture can beat a richer representation paired with the same architecture. However, the headline claims go beyond what the controlled comparisons establish: the only statistically clear difference is between models that differ in both input representation and architecture, and the mask-versus-segmentation comparison, which is architecture-matched, is not significant. If the authors add a controlled capacity-matched comparison and temper the conclusions accordingly, the result would be a solid empirical contribution to the emerging field of image-based phylogenetic trait extraction.

major comments (3)

[§Results, Table 2; §Methodology, Model Architectures; §Discussion] The main claim that mask-based representations outperform Fourier-based representations is not supported by a controlled comparison. Table 2 reports normalized Align scores of 0.33 ± 0.02 for masks with ResNet50 (23,770,304 parameters, Table 1) and 0.45 ± 0.01 for Fourier descriptors with DSeqEnc (103,028 parameters, Table 1). Because architecture capacity and input representation vary simultaneously, the nAS difference could be due to model capacity rather than to the Fourier representation itself; the Discussion explicitly concedes this. To support the conclusion that masks are the better representation, the authors should include a capacity-matched control—for example, a ResNet50 trained on Fourier-derived features or a DSeqEnc-sized network trained on masks—or otherwise show that the representation, not the architecture, drives the difference.
[§Results, Table 2; §Discussion; §Conclusion] The comparison between masks and full segmentations does not support the conclusion that textural features have lower phylogenetic relevance. Table 2 gives 0.33 ± 0.02 for masks and 0.39 ± 0.07 for segmentations, with the segmentations row underlined as being within the confidence interval of the best model; the two results are not statistically distinguishable. Moreover, full segmentations contain both shape and texture, so even a true null difference between masks and segmentations would not identify texture as the cause. The abstract and conclusion should be revised to state that masks were not worse than segmentations in this experiment, and that the role of texture remains an unresolved hypothesis.
[§Results; §Evaluation Metrics] The statement that masks 'significantly outperformed' the Fourier model is not backed by an inferential test. The paper reports 95% confidence intervals from five runs but does not report paired tests, effect sizes, or any statistical procedure for comparing the nAS distributions. Given that the confidence intervals for masks and segmentations overlap, the word 'significantly' is particularly misleading for the mask-versus-segmentation comparison. The authors should either add appropriate significance tests on the paired runs or use non-overlapping confidence intervals with a clearly stated criterion before using 'significant' in the Results.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and §Conclusion] The conclusion that 'the mask-based model outperformed the others' is too strong given that the segmentation result is within the confidence interval of the mask result; the wording should be qualified to say the mask model achieved the best point estimate but was not significantly different from the segmentation model.
[§Methodology, Fourier Descriptors] The choice of 200 Fourier coefficients is motivated only by visual inspection ('see figure 2'); it would strengthen the paper to report how outline reconstruction error or downstream nAS changes with the number of coefficients, or at least to describe the reconstruction-error criterion more explicitly.
[§Methodology, Data Preprocessing] The threshold value 250 and the 3x3 blur kernel are presented without an ablation or sensitivity analysis; since these choices directly determine the mask, a brief statement of their effect on performance or a reference justifying the values would improve reproducibility.
[§Methodology, Model Architectures] The gradient accumulation configuration (mini-batch 8, 14 accumulation steps) is described, but the effective batch size is stated as mimicking 112; it would be helpful to confirm that all three models use the same effective batch size and learning-rate schedule, since differences in training protocol could also affect the comparison.
[§Evaluation Metrics] The normalized Align score (nAS) and normalized Robinson-Foulds score (nRF) are not defined in the manuscript; readers should be told how the normalization is computed and how the random baseline in Table 2 was generated, so that the absolute values can be interpreted.
[Throughout] There are several small language and completeness issues: 'An comparison' should be 'A comparison', 'our the data preprocessing' should be 'our data preprocessing', 'Fourier descriptors reduces' should be 'reduce', and the sentence in the Conclusion beginning 'In contrast, Fourier descriptors and segmented features, while informative, faced limitations, however, also demonstrated...' is grammatically incomplete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the mask-vs-Fourier-vs-segmentation comparison is evaluated against a fixed, externally available reference phylogeny, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison of three input representations for phylogenetic trait extraction, evaluated with normalized Align and Robinson-Foulds scores against the fixed reference tree in the Rove-Tree-11 dataset. The models are trained with triplet loss and then used to estimate phylogenies from the learned embeddings; the evaluation scores are computed by comparing those estimated trees to the reference tree, not by reusing the training loss or any fitted parameter as the metric. The mask representation is derived from the segmentation by simple thresholding, and the Fourier descriptors are derived from the mask outline, but these preprocessing steps are not fit to the evaluation metric. The Fourier model uses a smaller architecture (DSeqEnc, 103,028 parameters) than the mask model (ResNet50, 23,770,304 parameters), and the paper explicitly acknowledges this capacity confound in the Discussion, so this is a weakness in experimental control rather than a circular derivation. References to the authors' prior Rove-Tree-11 paper provide the dataset, architecture, and code base, but the dataset and its reference tree are public, fixed, and external to the fitted models in this paper; the models are not fitting the evaluation metric. The conclusion that dorsal texture may be less phylogenetically relevant is an interpretive speculation from a non-significant mask-versus-segmentation difference, not a claim forced by definition. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, self-citation-load-bearing, uniqueness-imported, ansatz-smuggled, or renaming circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a benchmark dataset and evaluation pipeline created by the same authors, plus several hand-chosen hyperparameters. No new physical or biological entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Number of Fourier coefficients = 200
Chosen by the authors to preserve shape detail; affects outline fidelity and model input dimension (Methodology, Data Preprocessing).
Latent embedding size = 128
Chosen to match the Rove-Tree-11 baseline; affects capacity of all models.
Mask threshold = 250 after 3x3 blur
Hand-chosen preprocessing threshold to remove JPEG artifacts in binary mask generation.
Number of training epochs = 50
Reduced from prior work for efficiency; could affect convergence.
Gradient accumulation settings = mini-batch 8, 14 accumulation steps (effective 112)
Chosen to mimic the prior batch size on smaller GPUs; may affect training dynamics.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Rove-Tree-11 ground-truth phylogeny is a valid reference for trait extraction.
The tree is used as the target for Align and Robinson-Foulds scores; its provenance and independence from the morphological traits are not established in this paper.
domain assumption Triplet-loss embeddings can serve as proxies for phylogenetic traits.
The pipeline estimates phylogenies from learned embeddings and compares to the reference tree; this is inherited from Hunt and Pedersen 2022.
domain assumption Train/validation/test split by subfamily isolates generalization to unseen taxa.
The split uses three distinct subfamilies; this assumes the test subfamily is representative of the task.
ad hoc to paper 200 Fourier coefficients preserve enough outline information for phylogenetic signal.
Chosen for sufficient detail, but the paper shows artifacts in fine structures like legs.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Phantom of the Elytra -- Phylogenetic Trait Extraction from Images of Rove Beetles Using Deep Learning -- Is the Mask Enough?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BWQ77XLU

@misc{pith2026250204541,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Phantom of the Elytra -- Phylogenetic Trait Extraction from Images of Rove Beetles Using Deep Learning -- Is the Mask Enough?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BWQ77XLU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04541}
}

read the original abstract

Phylogenetic analysis traditionally relies on labor-intensive manual extraction of morphological traits, limiting its scalability for large datasets. Recent advances in deep learning offer the potential to automate this process, but the effectiveness of different morphological representations for phylogenetic trait extraction remains poorly understood. In this study, we compare the performance of deep learning models using three distinct morphological representations - full segmentations, binary masks, and Fourier descriptors of beetle outlines. We test this on the Rove-Tree-11 dataset, a curated collection of images from 215 rove beetle species. Our results demonstrate that the mask-based model outperformed the others, achieving a normalized Align Score of 0.33 plus/minus 0.02 on the test set, compared to 0.45 plus/minus 0.01 for the Fourier-based model and 0.39 plus/minus 0.07 for the segmentation-based model. The performance of the mask-based model likely reflects its ability to capture shape features while taking advantage of the depth and capacity of the ResNet50 architecture. These results also indicate that dorsal textural features, at least in this group of beetles, may be of lowered phylogenetic relevance, though further investigation is necessary to confirm this. In contrast, the Fourier-based model suffered from reduced capacity and occasional inaccuracies in outline approximations, particularly in fine structures like legs. These findings highlight the importance of selecting appropriate morphological representations for automated phylogenetic studies and the need for further research into explainability in automatic morphological trait extraction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04541 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Example input images. (left) original segmentation from dataset. (middle) binary mask extracted from segmentation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Example outlines produced using varying numbers of Fourier coefficients. From left to right: 20, 50, 100 and 200 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Example of undesirable Fourier outline approxi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

L.; Dikow, R

Borowiec, M. L.; Dikow, R. B.; Frandsen, P. B.; McKeeken, A.; Valentini, G.; and White, A. E. 2022. Deep learning as a tool for ecology and evolution. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 13(8): 1640--1660

work page 2022
[4]

Caple, J.; Byrd, J.; and Stephan, C. N. 2017. Elliptical Fourier analysis: fundamentals, applications, and value for forensic anthropology. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 131(6): 1675--1690

work page 2017
[5]

Hermann, K.; Chen, T.; and Kornblith, S. 2020. The origins and prevalence of texture bias in convolutional neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 19000--19015

work page 2020
[6]

o sters, L. M.; W \

Hofmann, M.; Kiel, S.; K \"o sters, L. M.; W \"a ldchen, J.; and M \"a der, P. 2024. Inferring Taxonomic Affinities and Genetic Distances Using Morphological Features Extracted from Specimen Images: A Case Study with a Bivalve Data Set. Systematic Biology, 73(6): 920--940

work page 2024
[7]

F.; Guttenberg, N.; Ledger, S.; Crowther, R.; and Huertas, B

Hoyal Cuthill, J. F.; Guttenberg, N.; Ledger, S.; Crowther, R.; and Huertas, B. 2019. Deep learning on butterfly phenotypes tests evolution’s oldest mathematical model. Science advances, 5(8): eaaw4967

work page 2019
[8]

P.; Bull, J.; and Cunningham, C

Huelsenbeck, J. P.; Bull, J.; and Cunningham, C. W. 1996. Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11(4): 152--158

work page 1996

Show all 19 references

[9]

Hunt, R.; and Pedersen, K. S. 2022. Rove-Tree-11: The not-so-Wild Rover, A hierarchically structured image dataset for deep metric learning research. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision, 2967--2983

2022
[10]

K.; and Yamato, J

Kuhner, M. K.; and Yamato, J. 2015. Practical performance of tree comparison metrics. Systematic biology, 64(2): 205--214

2015
[11]

S.; and Palci, A

Lee, M. S.; and Palci, A. 2015. Morphological phylogenetics in the genomic age. Current Biology, 25(19): R922--R929

2015
[12]

Lestrel, P. E. 1997. Fourier descriptors and their applications in biology. Cambridge University Press

1997
[13]

K.; Hahn, M

Mo, Y. K.; Hahn, M. W.; and Smith, M. L. 2024. Applications of machine learning in phylogenetics. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 196: 108066

2024
[14]

M.; Lio, P.; and Gilks, W

Nye, T. M.; Lio, P.; and Gilks, W. R. 2006. A novel algorithm and web-based tool for comparing two alternative phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics, 22(1): 117--119

2006
[15]

J.; Ingraham, J

Riesselman, A. J.; Ingraham, J. B.; and Marks, D. S. 2017. Deep generative models of genetic variation capture mutation effects. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.06527

2017 arXiv
[16]

Shi, W.; Lu, C.; Shao, M.; Zhang, Y.; Xia, S.; and Koniusz, P. 2024. Few-shot shape recognition by learning deep shape-aware features. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 1848--1859

2024
[17]

Tsutsumi, M.; Saito, N.; Koyabu, D.; and Furusawa, C. 2023. A deep learning approach for morphological feature extraction based on variational auto-encoder: an application to mandible shape. NPJ systems biology and applications, 9(1): 30

2023
[18]

Xie, T.; and Zhang, C. 2024. ARTree: a deep autoregressive model for phylogenetic inference. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

2024
[19]

Zhou, M.; Yan, Z.; Layne, E.; Malkin, N.; Zhang, D.; Jain, M.; Blanchette, M.; and Bengio, Y. 2023. PhyloGFN: Phylogenetic inference with generative flow networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08774

2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

L.; Dikow, R

Borowiec, M. L.; Dikow, R. B.; Frandsen, P. B.; McKeeken, A.; Valentini, G.; and White, A. E. 2022. Deep learning as a tool for ecology and evolution. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 13(8): 1640--1660

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Caple, J.; Byrd, J.; and Stephan, C. N. 2017. Elliptical Fourier analysis: fundamentals, applications, and value for forensic anthropology. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 131(6): 1675--1690

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Hermann, K.; Chen, T.; and Kornblith, S. 2020. The origins and prevalence of texture bias in convolutional neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 19000--19015

work page 2020

[6] [6]

o sters, L. M.; W \

Hofmann, M.; Kiel, S.; K \"o sters, L. M.; W \"a ldchen, J.; and M \"a der, P. 2024. Inferring Taxonomic Affinities and Genetic Distances Using Morphological Features Extracted from Specimen Images: A Case Study with a Bivalve Data Set. Systematic Biology, 73(6): 920--940

work page 2024

[7] [7]

F.; Guttenberg, N.; Ledger, S.; Crowther, R.; and Huertas, B

Hoyal Cuthill, J. F.; Guttenberg, N.; Ledger, S.; Crowther, R.; and Huertas, B. 2019. Deep learning on butterfly phenotypes tests evolution’s oldest mathematical model. Science advances, 5(8): eaaw4967

work page 2019

[8] [8]

P.; Bull, J.; and Cunningham, C

Huelsenbeck, J. P.; Bull, J.; and Cunningham, C. W. 1996. Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11(4): 152--158

work page 1996