Investigation into the usability of geometric morphometric analysis in assessment of sexual dimorphism

American Journal of Physical Anthropology

Volumn 129, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 64-70

  Pretorius, E ^a,b   Steyn, M ^a   Scholtz, Y ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA   (South Africa)

^b NONE   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Geometric morphometrics; Greater sciatic notch; Orbit shape; Ramus flexure

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ANATOMY; ARTICLE; CANONICAL ANALYSIS; CANONICAL VARIATES ANALYSIS; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GEOMETRIC MORPHOMETRY; GEOMETRY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MALE; MANDIBULAR NERVE; MORPHOMETRICS; NEGRO; ORBIT; PELVIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SEX DIFFERENCE; SKELETON; SOUTH AFRICA;

AFRICAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; BODY SIZE; BONE AND BONES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SOUTH AFRICA;

EID: 29244439935     PISSN: 00029483     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20251     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Asala SA. 2001. Sex determination from the head of the femur of South African whites and blacks. Forensic Sci Int 117:15-22.
2. Bookstein FL. 1989. Principal warps: thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 11:567-585.
3. Bookstein FL. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. Bookstein FL. 1996. Combining the tools of geometric morphometrics. In: Marcus LF, editor. Advances in morphometrics. New York: Plenum Press. p 131-151.
5. De Villiers H. 1968. The skull of the South African Negro. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.
6. DiBennardo R, Taylor JV. 1983. Multiple discriminant function analysis of sex and race in the postcranial skeleton. Am J Phys Anthropol 61:305-314.
7. 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.
8. Hennessy RJ, Stringer CB. 2002. Geometric morphometric study of the regional variation of modern human craniofacial form. Am J Phys Anthropol 117:37-48.
9. Hill CA. 2000. Technical note: evaluating mandibular ramus flexure as a morphological indicator of sex. Am J Phys Anthropol 111:572-577.
10. Indryana NS, Glinka J, Mieke S. 1998. Mandibular ramus flexure in an Indonesien population. Am J Phys Anthropol 105:89-90.
11. İşcan MY, Miller-Shaivitz P. 1984. Determination of sex from the tibia. Am J Phys Anthropol 64:53-57.
12. Kemkes-Grottenthaler A, Lobig F, Stock F. 2002. Mandibular ramus flexure and gonial eversion as morphological indicators of sex. Homo 53:97-111.
13. Kendall DG. 1981. The statistics of shape. In: Barnett V, editor. Interpreting multivariate data. New York: Wiley-Liss. p 75-80.
14. Kendall DG. 1984. Shape-manifolds, Procrustean metrics and complex projective spaces. Bull Lond Math Soc 16:81-121.
15. Krogman WM, İşcan MY. 1986. The human skeleton in forensic medicine. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
16. Loth SR, Henneberg M. 1996. Mandibular ramus flexure: a new morphologic indicator of sexual dimorphism in the human skeleton. Am J Phys Anthropol 99:473-85.
17. 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.
18. Oettlé AC, Pretorius E, Steyn M. 2005. Geometric morphometric analysis of mandibular ramus flexure. Am J Phys Anthropol (in press).
19. Patriquin M, Loth SR, Steyn M. 2003. Sexually dimorphic pelvic morphology in South African whites and blacks. Homo 53:255-262.
20. Richtsmeier JT, DeLeon VB, Lele SR. 2002. The promise of geometric morphometrics. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 45:63-91.
21. Rogers T, Saunders S. 1994. Accuracy of sex determination using morphological traits of the human pelvis. J Forensic Sci 39:1047-1056.
22. Rohlf FJ. 1995. Multivariate analysis of shape using partial-warp scores. In: Mardia KV, Gill CA, editors. Proceedings in current issues in statistical shape analysis. Leeds: Leeds University Press, p 154-158.
23. Rohlf FJ. 2002. Geometric morphometrics and Phylogeny. In: Forey P, Macleod N, editors. Morphology, shape and phylogenetics. London: Francis & Taylor. p 175-193.
24. Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol Evol 8:129-132.
25. Rohlf FJ, Slice D. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 39:40-59.
26. Rohlf FJ, Loy A, Corti M. 1996. Morphometric analysis of old world Talpidae (Mammalia. Insectovora) using partial-warp scores. Syst Biol 45:344-362.
27. 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.
28. Sheets DH. 2001. IMP. integrated morphometric package. In: http://www.canisius.edu/~sheets/morphsoft.html: Sheets, David H.
29. Slice DE. 1993. The fractal analysis of shape. In: Marcus LF, Bello E, Garcia-Valdecasas A, editors. Contributions to morphometrics. Volume 8. Madrid: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, p 161-189.
30. Steyn M, İşcan MY. 1998. Sexual dimorphism in the crania and mandibles of South African whites. Forensic Sci Int 98:9-16.
31. Steyn M, İşcan MY. 1999. Osteometric variation in the humerus: sexual dimorphism in South Africans. Forensic Sci Int 106:77-85.
32. Steyn M, Pretorius E, Hutten L. 2004. Geometric morphometric analysis of the greater sciatic notch in South Africans. Homo 54:197-206.
33. 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.