The axes are terrible, I agree.
And I think they managed to confuse a bear for a dog - so kudos to the fieldworker for going out and measuring the bear piss.
But it’d be quite rare for every datapoint on a scatterplot to be individually labelled - in fact if they all can be clearly labelled the sample is on the small side.
The cicada conclusion seems very weakly supported without a better sample for other subgroups. But a more general conclusion about the whole sample like larger insects and mammals tend to do more of whatever Y is, does have some support in this data.
The axes are terrible, I agree.
And I think they managed to confuse a bear for a dog - so kudos to the fieldworker for going out and measuring the bear piss.
But it’d be quite rare for every datapoint on a scatterplot to be individually labelled - in fact if they all can be clearly labelled the sample is on the small side.
The cicada conclusion seems very weakly supported without a better sample for other subgroups. But a more general conclusion about the whole sample like larger insects and mammals tend to do more of whatever Y is, does have some support in this data.