Sexual dimorphism in the subadult mandible: Quantification using geometric morphometrics

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 6-10

  Franklin, Daniel ^a   Oxnard, Charles E ^a   O'Higgins, Paul ^b   Dadour, Ian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HULL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Forensic anthropology; Forensic science; Geometric morphometrics; Mandible; Morphological variation; Population affinity; Sex assessment; Subadult

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GENOMICS; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MALE; MANDIBLE; MATURATION; MORPHOMETRICS; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEX DIFFERENCE; VALIDATION STUDY;

EID: 33845912686     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: 15564029     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00311.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Krogman WM, Iscan MY. The human skeleton in forensic medicine. Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 1986.
2. Workshop of European Anthropologists. Recommendations for age and sex diagnoses of skeletons. J Hum Evol 1980;9:517-49.
3. Saunders SR. Subadult skeletons and growth related studies. In: Saunders SA, Katzenberg MA, editors. The skeletal biology of past peoples: research methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1992:1-20.
4. Weaver DS. Sex differences in the ilia of a known age and sex sample of fetal and infant skeletons. Am J Phys Anthropol 1980;52:191-5.
5. Molleson T, Cruse K. Some sexually dimorphic features of the human juvenile skull and their value in sex determination in immature skeletal remains. J Arch Sci 1998;25:719-28.
6. Schutkowski H. Sex determination of infant and juvenile skeletons: I. Morpholognostic features. Am J Phys Anthropol 1993;90:199-206.
7. Holcomb SMC, Konigsberg LW. Statistical study of sexual dimorphism in the human fetal sciatic notch. Am J Phys Anthropol 1995;97:113-25.
8. Loth SR, Henneberg M. Sexually dimorphic mandibular morphology in the first few years of life. Am J Phys Anthropol 2001;115:179-86.
9. Scheuer L. Brief communication: a blind test of mandibular morphology for sexing mandibles in the first few years of life. Am J Phys Anthropol 2002;119:189-91.
10. Buck TJ, Vioarsdóttir US. A proposed method for the identification of race in sub-adult skeletons: a geometric morphometric analysis of mandibular morphology. J Forensic Sci 2004;49:1159-64.
11. O'Higgins P. The study of morphological variation in the hominid fossil record: biology, landmarks and geometry. J Anat 2000;197:103-20.
12. Comas J. Manual of physical anthropology. Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher, 1960.
13. de Villiers H. The skull of the South African Negro: a biometrical and morphological study. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press, 1968.
14. White TD, Folkens PA. Human osteology. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press, 2000.
15. Rosas A, Bastir M. Thin-plate spline analysis of allometry and sexual dimorphism in the human craniofacial complex. Am J Phys Anthropol 2002;117:236-45.
16. O'Higgins P, Jones N. Facial growth in Cercocebus torquatus: an application of three-dimensional geometric morphometric techniques to the study of morphological variation. J Anat 1998;193:251-72.
17. Bookstein FL, Gunz P, Mitteroecker P, Prossinger H, Schaefer K, Seidler H. Cranial integration in Homo: singular warp analysis of the midsagittal plane in ontogeny and evolution. J Hum Evol 2003;44:167-87.
18. Mitteroecker P, Gunz P, Bookstein FL. Heterochrony and geometric morphometrics: a comparison of cranial growth in Pan paniscus versus Pan troglodytes. Evol Dev 2005;7:244-58.
19. Slice DE, editor. Modern morphometrics in physical anthropology. New York: Plenum Publishers, 2005.
20. Dryden IL, Mardia KV. Statistical shape analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.
21. Bookstein FL. Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
22. Vioarsdóttir US, O'Higgins P, Stringer C. A geometric morphometric study of regional differences in the ontogeny of the modern human facial skeleton. J Anat 2001;201:211-29.
23. Baylac M, Villemant C, Simbolotti G. Combining geometric morphometrics with pattern recognition for the investigation of species complexes. Biol J Linnean Soc 2003;80:89-98.
24. Haralabakis NB, Spyropoulou MN. Factors affecting human growth. Odontostomatol Proodos 1990;44:167-77.
25. van Vark GN, van der Sman PGN, Dijkema J. Some multivariate tests for differences in sexual dimorphism between human populations. Ann Hum Biol 1989;16:301-10.
26. Walker PL. Greater sciatic notch morphology: sex, age and population differences. Am J Phys Anthropol 2005;127:385-91.
27. Franklin D, Freedman L, Milne N. Sexual dimorphism and discriminant function sexing in indigenous South African crania. HOMO 2005;55:213-28.
28. Giles E, Elliot O. Sex determination by discriminant function analysis of crania. Am J Phys Anthropol 1963;21:53-68.
29. Johnson DR, O'Higgins P, Moore WJ, McAndrew TJ. Determination of race and sex of the human skull by discriminant function analysis of linear and angular dimensions. Forensic Sci Int 1989;41:41-53.
30. Rathbun TA, Buikstra JE. The role of the forensic anthropologist: the case for cooperative research. In: Rathbun RA, Buikstra JE, editors. Human identification: case studies in forensic anthropology. Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 1984:5-14.
31. Reichs KJ, editor. Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains. Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 1998.
32. Burns KR. Forensic anthropology training manual. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1999.
33. Franklin D, Milne N, Freedman L. A geometric morphometric study of cranial sexual dimorphism in selected indigenous populations of South Africa. Am J Phys Anthropol 2004;123(S38):96.
34. Franklin D. Cranial variation in southern Africa: a series of inter-landmark and three-dimensional multivariate morphometric studies. PhD thesis, The University of Western Australia, Australia, 2005.
35. Pretorius E, Steyn M, Scholtz Y. Investigation into the usability of geometric morphometric analysis in assessment of sexual dimorphism. Am J Phys Anthropol 2006;129:64-70.