Geometric morphometric analysis of mandibular ramus flexure

American Journal of Physical Anthropology

Volumn 128, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 623-629

  Oettle A C ^a   Pretorius, E ^a   Steyn, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Sex assessment; Sexual dimorphism; Skeletal biology

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CRANIOFACIAL MORPHOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MANDIBLE; MORPHOMETRICS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHOTOGRAPHY; SEX DIFFERENCE;

ADULT; AFRICAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANTHROPOLOGY, PHYSICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MANDIBLE; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SEX DETERMINATION (ANALYSIS);

EID: 27744457947     PISSN: 00029483     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20207     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bookstein FL. 1989. Principal warps: thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 11:567-585.
2. Bookstein FL. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Bookstein FL. 1996. Combining the tools of geometric morphometrics. In: Marcus LF, editor. Advances in morphometrics. New York: Plenum Press, p 131-151.
4. Donnelly S, Hens SM, Rogers NL, Schneider KL. 1998. A blind test of mandibular ramus flexure as a morphological indicator of sexual dimorphism in the human skeleton. Am J Phys Anthropol 107:363-366.
5. Hennessy RJ, Stringer CB. 2002. Geometric morphometric study of the regional variation of modern human craniofacial form. Am J Phys Anthropol 117:37-48.
6. Hill CA. 2000. Technical note: evaluating mandibular ramus flexure as a morphological indicator of sex. Am J Phys Anthropol 111:572-577.
7. Indryana NS, Glinka J, Mieke S. 1998. Mandibular ramus flexure in an Indonesion population. Am J Phys Anthropol 105:89-90.
8. Kemkes-Grottenthaler A, Lobig F, Stock F. 2002. Mandibular ramus flexure and gonial eversion as morphological indicators of sex. Homo 53:97-111.
9. Kendall DG. 1981. The statistics of shape. In: Barnett V, editor. Interpreting multivariate data. New York: Wiley-Liss. p 75-80.
10. Kendall DG. 1984. Shape-manifolds, Procrustean metrics and complex projective spaces. Bull Lond Math Soc 16:81-121.
11. Koski K. 1996. Mandibular ramus flexure: indicator of sexual dimorphism? Am J Phys Anthropol 101:545-546.
12. Loth SR, Henneberg M. 1996. Mandibular ramus flexure: a new morphologic indicator of sexual dimorphism in the human skeleton. Am J Phys Anthropol 99:473-485.
13. Loth SR, Henneberg M. 1998. Mandibular ramus flexure is a good indicator of sexual dimorphism. Am J Phys Anthropol 105:91-92.
14. Lynch JM, Wood CG, Luboga S. 1996. Geometric morphometrics in primatology: craniofacial variation in Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes. Folia Primatol (Basel) 67:15-39.
15. Pretorius E, Clarke FC. 2000. Geometric morphometric analysis of the male and female body shape of Hyalomma truncatum and H. marginatum rufipes (Acari: Ixodidae). Int J Acarol 26:229-238.
16. Pretorius E, Clarke FC. 2001. Geometric morphometric analysis of the male and female body shape of Amblyomma gemma, A. variegatum and A. hebraeum. Int J Acarol 27:71-279.
17. Pretorius E, Scholtz CH. 2001. Geometric morphometrics and the analysis of higher taxa: a case study based on the metendosternite of the Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera). Biol J Linn Soc 74:35-50.
18. Pretorius E, Philips K, Scholtz CH. 2001. Geometric morphometrics, the metendosternite and its uses in phylogenetics of the Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera). Elytron 14:119-140.
19. Rohlf FJ. 1993. Relative-warp analysis and example of its application to mosquito wings. In: Marcus LF, Bello E, García-Valdecasas A, editors.Contributions to morphometrics, volume 8. Madrid: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, p 131-159.
20. Rohlf FJ. 1995. Multivariate analysis of shape using partialwarp scores. In: Mardia KV, Gill CA, editors. Proceedings in current issues in statistical shape analysis. Leeds, UK: Leeds University Press, p 154-158.
21. Rohlf FJ. 2002. Geometric morphometrics and phylogeny. In: Forey P, Macleod N, editors. Morphology, shape and phylogenetics. London: Francis & Taylor. p 175-193.
22. Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol Evol 8:129-132.
23. Rohlf FJ, Slice D. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 39:40-59.
24. Rohlf FJ, Loy A, Corti M. 1996. Morphometric analysis of Old World Talpidae (Mammalia, Insectovora) using partial-warp scores. Syst Biol 45:344-362.
25. Rosas A, Bastir M. 2002. Thin-plate spline analysis of allometry and sexual dimorphism in the human craniofacial complex. Am J Phys Anthropol 117:236-245.
26. Sheets DH. 2001. IMP, integrated morphometric package. In: http://www.canisius.edu/~sheets/morphsoft.html
27. Sheets DH, Slice DE. 1993. The fractal analysis of shape. In: Marcus LF, Bello E, García-Valdecasas A, editors. Contributions to morphometrics, volume 8. Madrid: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, p 161-189.
28. Slice D. 2001. Landmark coordinates aligned by Procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall's shape space. Syst Biol 50:141-149.
29. Walker GF, Kowalski CJ. 1972. On the growth of the mandible. Am J Phys Anthropol 36:111-118.
30. Wood CG, Lynch JM. 1996. Sexual dimorphism in the craniofacial skeleton of modern humans. In: Marcus LF, Corti M, Loy A, Naylor GJP, editors. Advances in morphometrics. New York: Plenum Press, p 407-414.