Population variation in femur subtrochanteric shape

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 50, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 286-293

  Wescott, Daniel J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Eurymeria; Femur; Forensic anthropology; Forensic science; Platymeria; Stenomeria; Subtrochanteric shape

Indexed keywords

AFRICAN AMERICAN; AMERICAN INDIAN; CAUCASIAN; CONFERENCE PAPER; ETHNIC DIFFERENCE; FEMUR; FEMUR SUBTROCHANTERIC SHAPE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; HISPANIC; HUMAN; PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY; PLESIOMORPHY; POLYNESIA; POPULATION STRUCTURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RACE DIFFERENCE; SKELETON; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 14844288055     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1520/jfs2004281     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (61)

1. Montagu A. Man's most dangerous myth: the fallacy of race. New York: Columbia University Press, 1942.
2. Brace CL. Region does not mean "race"-reality versus convention in forensic anthropology. J Forensic Sci 1995;40:171-5.
3. Gill GW. Introduction. In: Gill GW, Rhine S, editors. Skeletal attribution of race: methods for forensic anthropology. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 4. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1990;vii-xii.
4. Sauer NJ. Forensic anthropology and the concept of race: if races don't exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them? Social Sci Med 1992;34:107-11.
5. Shipman P. The evolution of racism: human differences and the use and abuse of science. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994.
6. Kennedy KAR. But professor, why teach race identification if races don't exist? J Forensic Sci 1995;40:797-800.
7. McCullough JM. Race-a new synthesis for a new century. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; 2004 Feb 15-21; Dallas. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2004.
8. Sauer NJ. Forensic anthropology and the belief in human races. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; 2004 Feb 16-21; Dallas. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2004.
9. Smith EL. The deconstruction of race: its origin and existence. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; 2004 Feb 16-21; Dallas. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2004.
10. Wedel VL. Race vs. ancestry: a necessary distinction. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; 2004 Feb 16-21; Dallas. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2004.
11. Stewart TD. Essentials of forensic anthropology especially as developed in the United States. Springfield. IL: Charles C Thomas, 1979.
12. Krogman WM, İşcan MY. The human skeleton in forensic medicine. 2nd ed. Springfield. IL: Charles C Thomas, 1986.
13. Bass WM. Human osteology: a laboratory and field manual. 4th ed. Special publications no. 2 of the Missouri Archaeological Society. Columbia, MO: Missouri Archaeological Society, 1995.
14. Reichs KJ. Introduction. In: Reichs KJ, editor. Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1986;xv-xxxi.
15. St. Hoyme L, İşcan MY. Determination of sex and race: accuracy and assumptions. In: İşcan MY. Kennedy KAR, editors. Reconstruction of life from the skeleton. New York: Alan R. Liss, 1989;53-93.
16. Hrdlička A. The scapula: visual observations. Am J Phys Anthropol 1942;29:73-94.
17. Farrally MR, Moore WJ. Anatomical differences in the femur and tibia between Negroids and Caucasoids and their effect on locomotion. Am J Phys Anthropol 1975;43:63-9.
18. DiBennardo R, Taylor JV. Multiple discrimant function analysis of sex and race in the postcranial skeleton. Am J Phys Anthropol 1983;61:305-14.
19. İšcan MY. Assessment of race from the pelvis. Am J Phys Anthropol 1983;62:205-8.
20. DeForest PR. Metropolitan forensic anthropology (MFAT) studies in identification: I race and sex assessment by discriminant function analysis of the postcranial skeleton. J Forensic Sci 1984;29:798-805.
21. İšcan NY, Cotton TS. Osteometric assessment of racial affinity from multiple sites in the postcranial skeleton. In: Gill GW, Rhine S, editors. Skeletal attribution of race: methods for forensic anthropology. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 4. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1990;83-90.
22. Baker SJ, Gill GW, Kieffer DA. Race and sex determination from the intercondylar notch of the distal femur. In: Gill GW, Rhine S, editors. Skeletal attribution of race: methods for forensic anthropology. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 4. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1990;91-6.
23. Stewart TD. Anterior femoral curvature: its utility for race identification. Hum Biol 1962;34:49-62.
24. Walensky NA. A study of anterior femoral curvature in man. Anat Rec 1965;151:559-70.
25. Gilbert BM. Anterior femoral curvature: its probable basis and utility as a criterion of racial assessment. Am J Phys Anthropol 1976;45: 601-4.
26. Trudell MB. Anterior femoral curvature revisited: race assessment from the femur. J Forensic Sci 1999;44:700-7.
27. Royer D, Gill GW, Weathermon RL. Differences in femoral torsion between American Indians and whites. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; 1997 Feb 17-22; New York. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 1997.
28. Gilbert R, Gill GW. A metric technique for identifying American Indian femora. In: Gill GW, Rhine S, editors. Skeletal attribution of race: methods for forensic anthropology. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 4. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1990;97-9.
29. Gill GW, Rhine S. Appendix A. A metric technique for identifying American Indian femora, by Gilbert R, Gill FW. In: Gill GW, Rhine S, editors. Skeletal attribution of race: methods for forensic anthropology. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 4. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1990;97-9.
30. Brothwell DR. Digging up bones. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.
31. Buxton LH. Platymeria and platycnemia. J Anat, London 1938;73:31-6.
32. Townsley W. Platymeria. J Path Bact 1946;58:85-8.
33. Oliver G. Practical anthropology. Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1969.
34. Gill GW. Racial variation in the proximal and distal femur: heritability and forensic utility. J Forensic Sci 2001;46(4):791-99.
35. Miller MJ. Femoral platymeria in the Northwestern Plains: genetic and environmental influences. Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Plains Conference; 1995 Oct; Laramie, WY. Lincoln, NE: Plains Anthropological Society, 1995.
36. Halvorsen HA, Weathermon RL. Femoral variation between whites and American Indians. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; 2004 Feb 16-21; Dallas. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2004.
37. Clow CM. An osteometric description of the pre-contact Easter Island population [MA thesis]. Laramie (WY): University of Wyoming, 1997.
38. Voulgaris DA. An osteometric description and statistical analysis of femora recovered from Easter Island with discussion of the utility and functional significance of platymeria [MA thesis]. New York: Hunter College, City University of New York, 1999.
39. Cole TM III. Size and shape of the femur and tibia in northern Plains Indians. In: Owsley DW, Jantz RL, editors. Skeletal biology in the Great Plains: migration, warfare, health, and subsistence. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994;219-34.
40. Ruff CB. Sexual dimorphism in human lower limb bone structure: relationship to subsistence strategy and sexual dimorphism. J Hum Evol 1987;16:391-416.
41. Ruff CB. Biomechanical analysis of northern and southern Plains femora: behavioral implications. In: Owsley DW, Jantz RL, editors. Skeletal biology in the Great Plains: migration, warfare, health, and subsistence. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994;235-46.
42. Ruff CB. Biomechanics of the hip and birth in early Homo. Am J Phys Anthropol 1995;98:527-74.
43. Ruff CB. Body size, body shape, and long bone strength in modern humans. J Hum Biol 2000;38:269-90.
44. Ruff CB, Hayes WC. Cross-sectional geometry of Pecos Pueblo femora and tibiae-a biomechanical investigation: I. method and general patterns of variation. Am J Phys Anthropol 1983;60:359-81.
45. Ruff CB, Hayes WC. Cross-sectional geometry of Pecos Pueblo femora and tibiae-a biomechanical investigation: II. sex, age, and side differences. Am J Phys Anthropol 1983;60:383-400.
46. Bridges PS. Changes in activities with the shift to agriculture in the southeastern United States. Current Anthropol 1989;30:385-94.
47. Frost HM. A determinant of bone architecture: the minimum effective strain. Clinical Orthop Rel Res 1983;175:268-92.
48. Frost HM. Mechanical determinants of bone modeling. J Met Bone Dis Rel Res 1983;4:217-30.
49. Wescott DJ. Structural variation in the humerus and femur in the American Great Plains and adjacent regions: differences in subsistence strategy and physical terrain [dissertation]. Knoxville (TN): University of Tennessee, 2001.
50. Brues AM. Forensic diagnosis of race-general race vs specific populations. Soc Sci Med 1992;34:125-8.
51. Adams BJ, Byrd JE. Interobserver variation of selected postcranial skeletal measurements. J Forensic Sci 2002;47:1193-202.
52. Snow CE. Early Hawaiians: an initial study of the skeletal remains from Mokapu, Oahu. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1974.
53. Ousley SD, Jantz RL. The forensic data bank: documenting skeletal trends in the United States. In: Reichs KJ, editor. Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains. 2nd ed. Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1998;441-58.
54. Zobeck TS. Postcraniometic variation among the Arikara [dissertation]. Knoxville (TN): University of Tennessee, 1983.
55. Moore-Jansen PH, Ousley SD, Jantz RL. Data collection procedures for forensic skeletal material. Knoxville (TN); Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee; 1994 Report of Investigations No. 48.
56. SAS Institute. SAS/STAT user's guide, Vol. 1 & 2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1990.
57. Sokal RB, Rohlf FJ. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. San Francisco: WH Freeman and Company, 1969.
58. DiBennardo R. The use and interpretation of common computer implementations of discriminant function analysis. In: Reichs KJ, editor. Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1986;171-95.
59. Ohman JC, Lovejoy CO. The shape of a long bone's shaft: bending stress or growth plate form? Am J Phys Anthropol Supp 32:115.
60. Martin RB, Burr DB, Sharkey NA. Skeletal tissue mechanics. New York: Springer, 1998.
61. Frost HM. Bone's mechanostat: a 2003 update. Anat Rec 2003;275A: 1081-101.