https://doi.org/10.26706/ijceae.4.2.20230604

---

Abstract:-

This study examines the discriminant function analysis on the skull dimensions of samples of wolf skulls from northwestern Canada in four regions which include Rocky mountain males and Rocky mountain females as well as Arctic males and Arctic females. The variables that were measured in millimeters for each skull of a wolf are Y1: palatal length, Y2: postpalatal length, Y3: Zygomatic width, Y4: palatal width outside the first upper molar, Y5: palatal width inside the second upper premolars, Y6: width between the postglenoid foramina, Y7: interorbital width, Y8: least width of the braincase and Y9: crown length of the first upper molar. We produced the discriminant function equations for the four regions and stated the rules for classifying a certain variable that depicts a skull into one of the four regions considered in the study, that is, Rocky mountain males, Rocky mountain females, Arctic males and Arctic females. In this article, we employed the classification rules to classify each of the N = 25 statement vectors such that the classification and discrimination procedure asserted that 92.0% of the original grouped cases were correctly classified and 88.0% of the cross-validated grouped cases were correctly classified. The analyses in this article were analyzed and executed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 8.0

Index Terms:-

discriminant function, classification, wolf, region, classification rules, tolerance level

---

REFERENCES

1. W. Hardle and L. Simar. “Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis” Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 2nd ed., New York, 2007, pp.289-301
   

---

2. P. Jolicoeur. “Sexual dimorphism and geographical distance as factors of skull variation in the wolf Canis lupus L.,” in M.W, Fox,(ed.), The wild canids, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1975,pp. 409 – 432
   

---

3. L.D. Mech. Canis Lupus. Mammalian Species, 1974. Vol. 37, pp.1-6
   

---

4. L.D. Mech. Estimated costs of maintaining a recovered wolf population in agricultural regions of Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2001, vol. 26, pp. 817-822
   

---

5. L.D. Mech, S.H. Fritts and D. Wagner. Minnesota wolf dispersal to Wisconsin and Michigan. American Midland Naturalist, 1995, vol. 133(2), pp. 368-370
   

---

6. P.E. Anyanwu, D.D. Ekezie and I.S.Onyeagu. A Review of the Limitations of Some Discriminant Analysis Procedures in Multi-Group Classification. Mathematical Theory and Modeling, 2015, vol.5, No.9, www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-5804 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0522 (Online)
   

---

7. T. W. Anderson. “An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis” Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, 3rd ed, 2003, New Jersey, pp.207-208
   

---

8. G. O. Nwafor and C. E Onwukwe. On Proper Classification and Placement of Students in Nigerian University Systems Using Discriminant Analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 2014, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 394-397
   

---

9. J.O. Onu and O. J. Onyedikachi. An Application of Discriminant Analysis to the Classification of Students on the Basis of their Academic Performances. Journal of Research in Physical Sciences, vol. 2, no. 3, 2006.
   

---

10. M.G. Obudho, G.O. Orwa,, R.O. Otieno, and F.A. Were. Classification of Stateless People through a Robust Nonparametric Kernel Discriminant Function. Open Journal of Statistics, vol. 12, 2022, pp. 563-580.https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2022.125034
    

---

11. M. AlKubaisi, W. A. Aziz, S. George and K. Al-Tarawneh. Multivariate Discriminant Analysis Managing Staff Appraisal Case Study. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 9(2), 2021, pp.35-62.
    

---

12. D.F. Morrison. “Multivariate Statistical Methods” McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 3rd ed., New York, 1996, pp.269-289
    

---

13. A.M. Ksirsagar and E. Arseven “A note on the equivalency of two discrimination procedures” The American statistician, vol.29, 1975, pp.38-39
    

---

To view full paper, Download here

---