Sexual Dimorphism in the Craniofacial Skeleton of Modern Humans

  • Chris G. Wood
  • John M. Lynch
Chapter
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 284)

Abstract

Sexual dimorphism is a major component of infraspecific variation in nonhuman primates. Among humans, differences in the pattern and degree of sexual dimorphism may provide a means for discriminating between populations. In this paper we explore the variance dimorphism, sex-specific size and shape differences, and between-population differences in patterns of sexual dimorphism in a sample of Romano—British (n = 47) and modern African (n = 53) crania. Shape coordinates, uniform components of variation and centroid size were derived for nine midsagittal landmarks obtained from lateral radiographs of the skull. No evidence was found for size-variance or shape-variance dimorphism in either population. Significant sexual size dimorphism was detected in the Romano—British sample alone. No significant sexual dimorphism in uniform components of variation was found in either sample. Multivariate analyses of variance for the effect of sex on shape coordinate pairs detected significant variation in the African sample, particularly in those landmarks that measure the amount of prognathism. Although the discriminant functions derived from the shape coordinate pairs correctly reallocated 81% of specimens to their sex, this value was not found to differ significantly from that of randomized data. The results of this study suggest that the consistency in patterns of between-population sexual dimorphism warrant caution when extrapolating from one sample to others for the purposes of sex discrimination.

Keywords

Discriminant Function Sexual Dimorphism Physical Anthropology Centroid Size Discriminant Function Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baylac, M. 1993, XY: Coordinates utilities. Laboratoire d’Entomologie. Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 Rue Buffon, F-75005 Paris.Google Scholar
  2. Bookstein, F. L. 1987. Describing a craniofacial anomaly: Finite elements and the biometrics of landmark locations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 74: 495–509.Google Scholar
  3. Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: Geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Burnaby, T. P. 1966. Growth-invariant discriminant functions and generalized distances. Biometrics 22: 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calgano, J. M. 1981. On the applicability of sexing human skeletal material by discriminant function analysis. Journal of Human Evolution 10: 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheverud, J. M. and J. T. Richtsmeier. 1986. Finite-element scaling applied to sexual dimorphism in rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) facial growth. Systematic Zoology 35: 381–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corner, B. D. and J. T. Richtsmeier. 1991. Morphometric analysis of craniofacial growth in Cebus apella. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 84: 323–342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dryden, I. L. 1993. Statistical shape analysis of landmark data. Paper presented at the European Young Statisticians Meeting (EYSM-8), Palanga, Lithuania.Google Scholar
  9. Farwell, D. E., and T. I. Molleson. 1993. Poundbury Volume 2. The Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, Dorset County Museum, Dorchester, U. K.Google Scholar
  10. Hall, R. L. (ed.) 1982. Sexual dimorphism in Homo sapiens. A question of size. Praeger: New York.Google Scholar
  11. Hamilton, M. E. 1982. Sexual dimorphism in skeletal samples. Pages 107–163 in R. L. Hall, (ed.), Sexual dimorphism in Homo sapiens. A question of size. Praeger: New York.Google Scholar
  12. Hanken, J. and B. K. Hall. 1993. Mechanisms of skull diversity and evolution. Pages 1–36 in J. Hanken and B. K. Hall, (eds.), The skull. Volume 3: Functional and evolutionary mechanisms. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.Google Scholar
  13. Leigh, S. R., and J. M. 1991. Sexual dimorphism in the baboon facial skeleton. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 84: 193–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leutenegger, W., and J. Cheverud. 1985. Sexual dimorphism in primates: the effects of size. Pages 33–50 in W. L. Jungers (ed.), Size and scaling in primate biology. Plenum Press: New York.Google Scholar
  15. Lieberman, D. E., D. R. Pilbeam and B. A. Wood. 1988. A probabilistic approach to the problem of sexual dimorphism in Homo habilis: A comparison of KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1813. Journal of Human Evolution 17: 503–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luboga, S. A. 1986. Morphometric variation in the cranial base and facial skeleton of higher primates with special reference to modern humans. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Makerere.Google Scholar
  17. Luboga, S. A., and B. A. Wood. 1990. Position and orientation of the foramen magnum in higher primates. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 81: 67–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lynch, J. M. 1993. Craniometric variation in selected mustelidae. Ph.D. dissertation, National University of Ireland.Google Scholar
  19. Marcus, L. F. 1990. Traditional morphometrics. Pages 77–122 in F. J. Rohlf and F. L. Bookstein, (eds.), Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Special Publication 2.Google Scholar
  20. Meindl, R. S., C.O. Lovejoy, R. P. Mensforth, and L. D. Carlos. 1985. Accuracy and direction of error in sexing of the skeleton: Implications for paleodemography. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68: 79–85.Google Scholar
  21. Nie, N. H., C. H. Hull, J. G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, and D. H. Bennet. 1975. Statistical package for the social sciences. McGraw-Hill: New York.Google Scholar
  22. O’Higgins, P., and I. L. Dryden. 1993. Sexual dimorphism in hominoids: Further studies of craniofacial shape differences in Pan, Gorilla, and Pongo. Journal of Human Evolution 24: 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Higgins, P., W. J. Moore, D. R. Johnson, T. J. McAndrew and R. M. Flinn. 1990. Patterns of cranial sexual dimorphism in certain groups of extant hominoids. Journal of Zoology (London) 222: 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Richtsmeier, J. T. and S. Lele. 1993. A coordinate-free approach to the analysis of growth patterns: models and theoretical considerations. Biological Reviews 68: 381–411.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rohlf, F. J. and F. L. Bookstein. 1987. A comment on shearing as a method of “size correction.” Systematic Zoology 36: 356–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Slice, D. 1990. DS-DIGIT: Basic digitizing software. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11778.Google Scholar
  27. Uytterschaut, H. T. 1986. Sexual dimorphism in human skulls. A comparison of sexual dimorphism in different populations. Human Evolution 3: 243–250.Google Scholar
  28. White, T. D. 1991. Human osteology. Academic Press: San Diego.Google Scholar
  29. Wood, B. A., Yu Li, and C. Willoughby. 1991. Intraspecific variation and sexual dimorphism in cranial and dental variables among higher primates and their bearing on the hominid fossil record. Journal of Anatomy 174: 185–205.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wood, B. A., C. G. Wood, and L. W. Konigsberg. 1994. Paranthropus boisei: An example of evolutionary stasis? American Journal of Physical Anthropology 95: 117–136.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris G. Wood
    • 1
  • John M. Lynch
    • 2
  1. 1.Hominid Palaeontology Research Group, Department of Human Anatomy and Cell BiologyThe University of LiverpoolLiverpoolEngland
  2. 2.Interdisciplinary Humanities ProgramArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations