In the two figures I was given to examine (#15), there were several differences. I can infer that the differences that I observed were most likely caused by a minor lack of detail in the original methods causing the replica to be slightly different.
The largest difference that I noticed involved the flower. I observed that the flowers had different stems: one curled up and away from the main stem and the other came from the stem at an almost 90 degree angle. I can infer that the methods must have not included the angle of the stem. In the original picture, I observed that that the orientation of the flower to the stem was stem on the right and flower on the left of the picture, but the replica picture had the opposite. I can infer that the orientation of stem to flower was not detailed in the methods. In the background of the first picture there are several large flowers at the top, but in the second picture the flowers in the background are mostly below. I can infer that the methods did not include the angle at which the picture was taken or what the background would look like.
In the second picture, the results are strikingly similar. Since the tree is the same exact tree and both pictures were taken in daylight, I can infer that these were well illustrated in the methods. The one difference I observe in the pictures is the amount of water on the wall. I can infer that that was probably not an error in the methods, but just a product of chance that it rained that day.
The third picture is a map highlighting the countries in which these species are found. The first map highlights Florida, but the second does not and the second highlights Belize and Guatemala, but the first one does not. A factor that caused the difference in the two maps is a difference in research.
In the two figures I was given to examine (#15), there were several differences. I infer that the differences that were observed were most likely caused by a minor lack of detail in the original methods causing the replica to be slightly different.
I observed that the flowers had different stems: one curled up and away from the main stem and the other came from the stem at an almost 90 degree angle. In the original picture, I observed that that the orientation of the flower to the stem was stem on the right and flower on the left of the picture, but the replica picture had the opposite. In the background of the first picture there are several large flowers at the top, but in the second picture the flowers in the background are mostly below.
In the second picture, the results are strikingly similar. Since the tree is the same exact tree and both pictures were taken in daylight, The one difference I observe in the pictures is the amount of water on the wall.
The third picture is a map highlighting the countries in which these species are found. The first map highlights Florida, but the second does not and the second highlights Belize and Guatemala, but the first one does not.
Inferences
The areas that I believed had the most discrepancies were the flower, the angle and background of the photos, the differences in countries filled out in thedescribing the flower, explaining the angle and background of the flower, and
I can infer that the methods must have not included the angle of the stem.
I can infer that the orientation of stem to flower was not detailed in the methods.
I can infer that the methods did not include the angle at which the picture was taken or what the background would look like.
I can infer that these were well illustrated in the methods.
I can infer that that was probably not an error in the methods, but just a product of chance that it rained that day.
A factor that caused the difference in the two maps is a difference in research.
Recent comments