[Babase] CYCGAPS version14Feb06
Jeanne Altmann
altj at princeton.edu
Thu Feb 16 14:37:32 EST 2006
1. What you have for Alto's and its fission products is correct, except
that you don't have an end-date for Alto's; it should be the date before
the fission products start--or however you are handling this on the level
of the individual. As we also just discussed on the phone, this first stab
at cyc stats for Alto's is a conservative one, that is, particularly on the
level of individuals, some data will be available in periods that are not
captured in cycstats and repstats (before the begin date and within the gap
period, but the periods that ARE captured in cycstats and repstats will be
very good
2. For Hook's and its fission products, you should also have :
Begin date HOOKS (2.00) 01 Feb 1981
End date HOOKS (2.00) 28 Feb 1995
Begin date LINDAS (2.10) 01 Mar 1995
Begin date WEAVERS (2.20) 01 Mar 1995
That is, we have no gaps from Begin to End; again this is conservative;
some data are available at least for some individuals, before the Hook's
begin date.
3. For Lodge and its fission products, again we just have start and end
dates, and I did not give you those.
Begin Lodge 1 Jan 1985
End Lodge 31 Dec 1995
Joy and Nzige:
Begin 1 Jan 1996
End 31 Dec 1996
No cycgaps are currently being specified for these groups (3.0, 3.1, 3.2).
Some reproductive data will be available before 1 Jan 1985 for Lodge and
after 31 Dec 1996 for Joy/Nzige, as for the other groups. However, for the
record I note that the BABASE cycle data for these groups are VERY
INCOMPLETE with the Begin-End period. Repstats will be accurate but
cycstats will be a mess as only D-dates are regularly entered for most of
these years except for entry of T dates that are puberty or resumptions. I
have decided to leave this for our first pass on repstats and cycstats
(rather than have almost the whole period being specified as a gap, to test
how this works. Also note, we still have many missing T dates for a couple
of years in the other groups, as noted in BABASE discussions while I was in
Kenya, and I need to move scoring those from back burner to front burner as
soon as feasible.
jeanne
At 05:03 PM 14/02/2006, you wrote:
>On 02/14/2006 03:26:46 PM, Jeanne Altmann wrote:
>>Karl, does this work for you, or do you need this in a different
>>form? Catherine, if a different form is needed, would you please
>>modify?
>>jeanne
>>p.s. I took the document for which we decided dates with Jacinta for
>>her project, and I removed the material about ranks, leaving only
>>census/repro dates. These are by groups, not individuals, so they
>>are conservative, i.e. we may subsequently be able to decrease the
>>gap dates for some individuals.
>
>Here's what I got from the document:
>
>All females have been under continuous observation from 1 July, 1971
>except:
>
>The unborn.
>Proton's after Dec 31, 1990.
>Anyone in Altos, Dotty's, or Nyayo's from Jan 1, 1990 through
>Dec 31, 1995, inclusive.
>
>
>Is this the correct starting point?
>
>(I can tell this is going to cause problems because you can't have
>a sexual cycle event recorded during a period in which you're not under
>observation. One solution would be for me to tell the system
>the individuals are under observation on those days on which
>there are Mdates, Tdates, or Ddates. Or maybe the answer is to
>get down and dirty and have detailed gaps for each individual.)
>
>
>Karl <kop at meme.com>
>Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
> -- Robert A. Heinlein
>
>_______________________________________________
>Babase mailing list
>Babase at www.eco.princeton.edu
>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
More information about the Babase
mailing list