Please download this directory, unzip it, and work with a partner to analyze the data: https://bcrc.bio.umass.edu/data_practice/data_practice_files.tar.gz

Figure 1. Picture of a cactus. The cactus has other plant debris stuck in its thorns, was taken at Balboa park. "Balboa Park. Mostly I visted the cactus garden this day..." by Spifferella at flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/saynathespiffy/44363336205/in/photostream/ shared under a creative commons (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) license.

Cue conditioning using a virtual spider discriminates between high and low spider fearful individuals

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.

Page 30:

Observations:

-Yellow 

-Pedals pointing downward

-Small, brown pistil projecting upward (about 1 cm in width)

-Present in bunches

-Low to the ground

-Relatively small flower

-Lighting is brighter on the two outside pictures

-Saturation on the top figure, on the left images

Inferences:

-Pedals point downward in order to reach more sunlight for photosynthesis

-Grow in bunches to provide protection or nutrients to each other

-Grows low to the ground to require less maintenance and receive more shade during the day

The figure that was observed contained four pictures of a species of yellow flower. Three of the four images were individual pictures of a flower and the last picture was a bunch of the yellow flowers that were growing close to the ground. The yellow flowers had a brown pistil that projected upward, followed by the bright yellow pedals that pointed downward. I believe that this orientation was to make it easier for the flower to receive sunlight to perform photosynthesis. This species of flower was pictured growing in bunches, close to the ground. I believe that the clustered growth was beneficial to the flower in order to provide protection and nutrients to one another. The low growth could be advantageous because it allows the flower to require less maintenance and receive shade during the day.

            The lighting on the left picture seems to be brighter than the other pictures in the figure. It does not look like any filters were used to enhance the pictures. A ruler was used in the picture in the middle left in order to show a scale as to how large the yellow flowers typically are. They are relatively small of about a couple inches. All if the pictures in the figure were taken at different angles, such as straight on or from the side.

The figures that were created have differences in the overall format of the pictures. The first figure is smaller than the second figure. In addition, the first picture has absolutely no white space between the panels, while the second figure does. When the second figure was formatted the corners of panel A were not lined up perfectly so the edges of the figure look messier.

When the figures were created there were differences made in the labels. In Figure 1 the color of the letters is a royal blue. The second figure’s labels are more of a navy blue. In addition, the second figure’s labels are larger. Between the two figures the font that was chosen for the letter labels are different.

            Panel A in figure 1 and Panel A in figure two are not perfectly the same. One of the main differences is the composition of the picture. Figure 1 includes a lot more of the flower pot than figure 2.

            The factor that lead to the differences in panel A is the angle and position that the photographs were taken. In Figure 1 the photo was taken from a lower height, while the second figure’s photo was taken from higher up.

Panel B in both figures contain the same type of plant, but the figures still vary. The first figure’s panel B is a lot brighter than the second figures. The brightness of the photograph makes it easier to see the plant.

Looking at the two sets of images on page 3, there are observable similarities between the photos which we can use to infer that one was taken first and then described to achieve the second set. Based on that, there are other observable differences between the photos, first of which is layout and design. The first set of three images has images that are different sizes and are not touching each other, with varying levels of space between them. Photo “A” is singularly on the left and is longer than photo “B” but ends slightly at the start of photo “C”. Photos “B” and “C” are stacked on the right, but again, are not bordering one another. This contrasts to the observations of the second figure, which features the three pictures bordering one another in the same layout scheme (A on the left and B and C stacked) but done so on a different scale. Not only do the pictures border, they are different sizes. “A” is much larger and is the height of “B” and C” stacked. Photos “B” and “C” are the same size and are stacked to the right of photo “A”. In addition to layout formatting, the size of the labels is comparable. Both series of images used a capital letter followed by a period and both sets used the same label in the same location for what was meant to be the comparable photo. However, the second series of images used a larger font to make the labels and thus are more visible.

Another observable inconsistency with the photos is the use of arrows. The first observable difference between the series is that the first used blue arrows and the second used white arrows. Another difference is the directionality of the arrows and the placement in the picture. In the first series photo “B” there is only one arrow, but it bends to point upward. In the second series, there are instead two arrows, one pointing diagonally down and one pointing diagonally up. It is inferred that these arrows were meant to be pointing toward something of noticeable value, although it would appear that they are pointing to different things in the different series and it was not held consistent in any description, not only on how to make the arrows and where to put them, but what exactly they should be pointing out.

Another observation is the color of the sky. In the first photo series, all three pictures feature a blue sky. In the second series, the sky is darker, gray and cloudy. From this it can be inferred that the series were taken on different days that had different weather. It can be furthered inferred that the second series had weather that was of stormy conditions, which can be coupled with the observations that the water was rippled, and leaves of the tree were pointing at an angle, not hanging straight down. From those observations it can be inferred that it was windy and that coupled with the gray sky can lead to the stormy inference.

Another inference that can be made is that the comparable photos between the two series were taken at different locations and angles. While the subject matter is relatively the same, the observations of different views of the buildings in the back lead one to infer that the camera angle was different, thus causing it to capture more or less of the buildings in the back.

The two figures present on my page both have multiple images of the same plant. Both of the figures include three different pictures of the same subtropical/tropical looking plant that has a single orange, and blue flower on it. The pictures of both figures are organized in a similar manner with the largest picture being placed on top of two smaller pictures. The largest picture in both figures includes the largest picture of the plant, with the picture containing the whole plant and not just it’s one flower. The smaller pictures below the large picture  contain close up shots of the flower present on the plant. Both figures also include on their bottom right corners letters A,B, and C. While the two figures are similar in their overall organization and the shots used they do differ in several ways. While they both have letters in each picture the letters they use differ in font type, size, and distance from the bottom right hand corner. The figure on the left is slightly more blurry than the picture on the right, however the figure on the left also has more color than the figure on the right. The figure on the right is more clear than the figure on the left, however the figure on the right is quite discolored with the plant taking on a darker green color that is verging into a grey color. The figure on the left also includes pictures that appear to be closer to the plant than the pictures found on the right figure.