Sexual dimorphism in chin shape: Implications for adaptive hypotheses

American Journal of Physical Anthropology

Volumn 143, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 417-425

  Thayer, Zaneta M ^a   Dobson, Seth D ^b  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory   (United States)

Author keywords

elliptical Fourier functions; mentum osseum; sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CANINE TOOTH; CHIN; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOURIER ANALYSIS; FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INCISOR; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SEX DIFFERENCE; SKELETON; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANTHROPOMETRY; CHIN; CUSPID; FEMALE; FOURIER ANALYSIS; HUMANS; INCISOR; MALE; MANDIBLE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; SEX CHARACTERISTICS;

EID: 78349288867     PISSN: 00029483     EISSN: 10968644     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21330     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Andersson M,. 1994. Sexual selection. UK: Princeton UP.
2. Athreya S,. 2006. Patterning of geographic variation in Middle Pleistocene Homo frontal bone morphology. J Hum Evol 50: 627-643.
3. Bailey NW,. 2008. Love will tear you apart: different components of female choice exert contrasting selection pressures on male field crickets. Behav Ecol 19: 960-966.
4. Barber N,. 1995. The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: sexual selection and human morphology. Ethol Sociobiol 16: 395-424.
5. Bass W,. 1995. Human osteology: a laboratory and field manual. Special Publication#2: The Missouri Archaeological Society.
6. Baudouin J-Y, Tiberghien G,. 2004. Symmetry, averageness, and feature size in the facial attractiveness of women. Acta Psychol (Amst) 117: 313-332.
7. Biggerstaff RH,. 1977. The biology of the human chin. In:, Graber AADTM, editor. Orofacial growth and development. Paris: Mouton. p 71-87.
8. Brown P, Maeda T,. 2009. Liang Bua Homo floresiensis mandibles and mandibular teeth: a contribution to the comparative morphology of a new hominin species. J Hum Evol 57: 571-596.
9. Byers SN,. 2002. Introduction to forensic anthropology: a textbook. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
10. Chen S, Lestrel P, Kerr W, McColl J,. 2000. Describing shape changes in the human mandible using elliptical Fourier functions. Eur J Orthod 22: 205-216.
11. Cunningham MR, Roberts AR, Barbee AP, Druen PB, Wu C-H,. 1995. "Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours": consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol 68: 261-279.
12. Daegling DJ,. 1993. Functional morphology of the human chin. Evol Anthropol 1: 170-177.
13. Daegling DJ, Jungers WL,. 2000. Elliptical Fourier analysis of symphyseal shape in great ape mandibles. J Hum Evol 39: 107-122.
14. Danel D, Pawlowski B,. 2006. Attractiveness of men's faces in relation to women's phase of menstrual cycle. Coll Antropol 30: 285-289.
15. Darwin C,. 1871. The descent of man in relation to sex. London: Murray.
16. Dobson SD, Trinkaus E,. 2002. Cross-sectional geometry and morphology of the mandibular symphysis in Middle and Late Pleistocene Homo. J Hum Evol 43: 67-87.
17. Fisher RA,. 1958. The genetical theory of natural selection. New York: Dover.
18. Frayer DW, Wolpoff MH,. 1985. Sexual dimorphism. Annu Rev Anthropol 14: 429-473.
19. Fukase H, Suwa G,. 2008. Growth-related changes in prehistoric Jomon and modern Japanese mandibles with emphasis on cortical bone distribution. Am J Phys Anthropol 136: 441-454.
20. Gadgil M,. 1972. Male dimorphism as a consequence of sexual selection. Am Nat 106: 574-580.
21. Gangestad S, Scheyd GJ,. 2005. The evolution of human physical attractiveness. Annu Rev Anthropol 34: 523-548.
22. Gangestand SW, Simpson JA, Cousins AJ, Garver-Apgar CE, Christensen PN,. 2004. Research report women's preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle. Psychol Sci 15: 203-207.
23. Gould SJ, Lewontin RC,. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptionist paradigm. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 205: 581-598.
24. Grammer K, Fink B, Møller AP, Thornhill R,. 2003. Darwinian aesthetics: sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biol Rev 78: 385-407.
25. Grammer K, Thornhill R,. 1994. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol 108: 233-242.
26. Gregory WK,. 1922. Origin and evolution of the human dentition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
27. Gross MR,. 1996. Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes. Trends Ecol Evol 11: 92-98.
28. Guy F, Mackaye H-T, Likius A, Vignaud P, Schmittbuhl M, Brunet M,. 2008. Symphyseal shape variation in extant and fossil hominoids, and the symphysis of Australopithecus bahrelghazali. J Hum Evol 55: 37-47.
29. Hershkovitz P,. 1970. The decorative chin. Bull Field Mus Nat Hist 41: 6-10.
30. Hrdlicka A,. 1911. Human dentition and teeth from the evolutionary and racial standpoint. Dominion Dental J 21: 1-15.
31. Ichim I, Kieser J, Swain M,. 2007. Tongue contractions during speech may have led to the development of the bony geometry of the chin following the evolution of human language: a mechanobiological hypothesis for the development of the human chin. Med Hypotheses 69: 20-24.
32. Ichim I, Swain M, Kieser JA,. 2006a. Mandibular biomechanics and development of the human chin. J Dent Res 85: 638-642.
33. Ichim I, Swain MV, Kieser JA,. 2006b. Mandibular stiffness in humans: numerical predictions. J Biomech 39: 1903-1913.
34. Inoue M,. 1990. Fourier analysis of the forehead shape of skull and sex determination by use of computer. Forensic Sci Int 47: 101-112.
35. Jennions MD, Petrie M,. 1997. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev 72: 283-327.
36. Jones BC, Little AC, Penton-Voak IS, Tiddeman BP, Burt DM, Perrett DI,. 2001. Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health: support for a "good genes" explanation of the attractiveness and symmetry relationship. Evol Hum Behav 22: 417-429.
37. Jones D, Brace CL, Jankowiak W, Laland KN, Musselman LE, Langlois JH, Roggman LA, Perusse D, Schweder B, Symons D,. 1995. Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neoteny: cross-cultural evidence and implications [and Comments and Reply]. Curr Anthropol 36: 723-748.
38. Krogman WM,. 1962. The human skeleton in forensic medicine. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas.
39. Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M,. 2000. Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull 126: 390-423.
40. Langlois JH, Ritter JM, Roggman LA, Vaughn LS,. 1991. Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Dev Psychol 27: 79-84.
41. Law Smith MJ, Perrett DI, Jones BC, Cornwell RE, Moore FR, Feinberg DR, Boothroyd LG, Durrani SJ, Stirrat MR, Whiten S, Pitman RM, Hillier SG,. 2006. Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 273: 135-140.
42. Lestrel PE, editor. 1997. Fourier descriptors and their applications in biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 3-44.
43. Lestrel PE, Cesar RM Jr, Takahashi O, Kanazawa E,. 2004. A Fourier-wavelet representation of 2-D shapes: sexual dimorphism in the Japanese cranial base. Anthropol Sci 112: 3-28.
44. Lieberman DE,. 1995. Testing hypotheses about recent human evolution from skulls: integrating morphology, function, development, and phylogeny. Curr Anthropol 36: 159.
45. Manning JT,. 1995. Fluctuating asymmetry and body weight in men and women: implications for sexual selection. Ethol Sociobiol 16: 145-153.
46. McGlothlin JW, Ketterson ED,. 2008. Hormone-mediated suites as adaptations and evolutionary constraints. Phil Trans Roy Soc B: Biol Sci 363: 1611-1620.
47. Møller A, Pomiankowski A,. 1993. Fluctuating assymetry and sexual selection. Genetica 89: 267-279.
48. Møller Anders P,. 1997. Developmental stability and fitness: a review. Am Nat 149: 916-932.
49. Mueller U, Mazur A,. 1997. Facial dominance in Homo sapiens as honest signaling of male quality. Behav Ecol 8: 569-579.
50. Mueller U, Mazur A,. 1998. Reproductive constraints on dominance competition in male Homo sapiens. Evol Hum Behav 19: 387-396.
51. Penton-Voak IS, Chen JY,. 2004. High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance in humans. Evol Hum Behav 25: 229-241.
52. Penton-Voak IS, Jacobson A, Trivers R,. 2004. Populational differences in attractiveness judgements of male and female faces: comparing British and Jamaican samples. Evol Hum Behav 25: 355-370.
53. Perrett DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak I, Rowland D, Yoshikawa S, Burt DM, Henzi SP, Castles DL, Akamatsu S,. 1998. Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 394: 884.
54. Petrie M,. 1991. Peahens prefer peacocks with elaborate trains. Anim Behav 41: 323-331.
55. Plavcan JM,. 2001. Sexual dimorphism in primate evolution. Am J Phys Anthropol 116: 25-53.
56. Reisenfeld A,. 1969. The adaptive mandible: an experimental study. Acta Anat (Basel) 72: 246-262.
57. Rhodes G, Yoshikawa S, Clark A, Lee K, McKay R, Akamatsu S,. 2001. Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-Western cultures: in search of biologically based standards of beauty. Perception 30: 611-625.
58. Roberts SC, Little AC, Gosling LM, Perrett DI, Carter V, Jones BC, Penton-Voak I, Petrie M,. 2005. MHC-heterozygosity and human facial attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav 26: 213-226.
59. Robinson L,. 1913. The story of the chin. Knowledge 36.
60. Ruff C, Holt B, Trinkaus E,. 2006. Who's afraid of the big bad Wolff?: "Wolff's law" and bone functional adaptation. Am J Phys Anthropol 129: 484-498.
61. Schmittbuhl M, Le Minor J-M, Schaaf A, Mangin P,. 2002. The human mandible in lateral view: elliptical Fourier descriptors of the outline and their morphological analysis. Ann Anat 184: 199-207.
62. Schmittbuhl M, Le Minor JM, Taroni F, Mangin P,. 2001. Sexual dimorphism of the human mandible: demonstration by elliptical Fourier analysis. Int J Legal Med 115: 100-101.
63. Schmittbuhl M, Rieger J, Minor J-ML, Schaaf A, Guy F,. 2007. Variations of the mandibular shape in extant hominoids: generic, specific, and subspecific quantification using elliptical fourier analysis in lateral view. Am J Phys Anthropol 132: 119-131.
64. Schwartz JH,. 2007. Skeleton keys: an introduction to human skeletal morphology, development and analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65. Schwartz JH, Tattersall I,. 2000. The human chin revisited: what is it and who has it? J Hum Evol 38: 367-409.
66. Seiffert ER, Kappelman J,. 2001. Morphometric variation in the hominoid orbital aperture: a case study with implications for the use of variable characters in Miocene catarrhine systematics. J Hum Evol 40: 301-318.
67. Slatkin M,. 1984. Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38: 622-630.
68. Snyder J, Kirkpatrick L, Barrett HC,. 2008. The dominance dilemma: do women really prefer dominant males? Personal Relationships 15: 425-444.
69. Swaddle JP, Reierson GW,. 2002. Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269: 2285-2289.
70. Thornhill R, Gangestad S,. 2006. Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evol Hum Behav 27: 131-144.
71. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW,. 1999. Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn Sci 3: 452-460.
72. Thornhill R, Grammer K,. 1999. The body and face of woman: one ornament that signals quality? Evol Hum Behav 20: 105-120.
73. Thornhill R, Møller AP,. 1997. Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol Rev 72: 497-548.
74. Waterman TT,. 1916. Evolution of the chin. Am Nat 50: 237-242.
75. Weidenreich F,. 1936. The mandibles of Sinanthropus pekinesis: a comparative study. Paleontology Sinica Series D 7: 1-132.
76. White TD,. 2000. Human osteology. New York: Academic Press.
77. Widemo F, Sæther SA,. 1999. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol Evol 14: 26-31.