Abstract
Adult mandibles of 317 modern humans and 91 great apes were selected that showed no pathology. Adult mandibles of Pan troglodytes troglodytes, Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus and Gorilla gorilla gorilla and from 2 modern human populations (Zulu and Europeans from Spitalfields) were reliably sexed. Thirteen measurements were defined and included mandibular height, length and breadth in representative positions. Univariate statistical techniques and multivariate (principal component analysis and discriminant analysis) statistical techniques were used to investigate interspecific variability and sexual dimorphism in human and great ape mandibles, and intraspecific variability among the modern human mandibles. Analysis of interspecific differences revealed some pairs of variables with a tight linear relationship and others where Homo and the great apes pulled apart from one another due to shape differences. Homo and Pan are least sexually dimorphic in the mandible, Pan less so than Homo sapiens, but both the magnitude of sexual dimorphism and the distribution of sexually dimorphic measurements varied both among and between modern humans and great apes. Intraspecific variation among the 10 populations of modern humans was less than that generally reported in studies of crania (74.3% of mandibles were correctly classified into 1 of 10 populations using discriminant functions based on 13 variables as compared with 93% of crania from 17 populations based on 70 variables in one extensive study of crania). A subrecent European population (Poundbury) emerged as more different from a recent European population (Spitalfields) than other more diverse modern populations were from each other, suggesting considerable morphological plasticity in the mandible through time. This study forms a sound basis on which to explore mandibular variation in Neanderthals, early Homo sapiens and other more ancient fossil hominids.
Keywords: Hominoids, mandible, sexual dimorphism
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.2 MB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Donnelly S. M., Hens S. M., Rogers N. L., Schneider K. L. Technical note: a blind test of mandibular ramus flexure as a morphologic indicator of sexual dimorphism in the human skeleton. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1998 Nov;107(3):363–366. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199811)107:3<363::AID-AJPA11>3.0.CO;2-Y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- GILES E. SEX DETERMINATION BY DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION ANALYSIS OF THE MANDIBLE. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1964 Jun;22:129–135. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330220212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hanihara T. Comparison of craniofacial features of major human groups. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Mar;99(3):389–412. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199603)99:3<389::AID-AJPA3>3.0.CO;2-S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Humphrey L. T. Growth patterns in the modern human skeleton. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1998 Jan;105(1):57–72. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199801)105:1<57::AID-AJPA6>3.0.CO;2-A. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hunter W. S., Garn S. M. Disproportionate sexual dimorphism in the human face. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1972 Jan;36(1):133–138. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330360115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hylander W. L. The functional significance of primate mandibular form. J Morphol. 1979 May;160(2):223–240. doi: 10.1002/jmor.1051600208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kaifu Y. Changes in mandibular morphology from the Jomon to modern periods in eastern Japan. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1997 Oct;104(2):227–243. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199710)104:2<227::AID-AJPA9>3.0.CO;2-V. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kieser J. Biomechanics of masticatory force production. J Hum Evol. 1999 May;36(5):575–579. doi: 10.1006/jhev.1999.0297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kieser J., Gebbie T., Ksiezycka K. A mathematical model for hypothetical force distribution between opposing jaws. J Dent Assoc S Afr. 1996 Nov;51(11):701–705. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kinzey W. G. Basic rectangle of the mandible. Nature. 1970 Oct 17;228(5268):289–290. doi: 10.1038/228289a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lavelle C. L. A comparison between the mandibles of Romano-British and nineteenth century periods. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1972 Mar;36(2):213–219. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330360209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Leakey M. G., Feibel C. S., McDougall I., Ward C., Walker A. New specimens and confirmation of an early age for Australopithecus anamensis. Nature. 1998 May 7;393(6680):62–66. doi: 10.1038/29972. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Loth S. R., Henneberg M. Mandibular ramus flexure: a new morphologic indicator of sexual dimorphism in the human skeleton. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Mar;99(3):473–485. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199603)99:3<473::AID-AJPA8>3.0.CO;2-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- MURPHY T. The chin region of the Australian aboriginal mandible. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1957 Dec;15(4):517–535. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330150404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moore W. J., Lavelle C. L., Spence T. F. Changes in the size and shape of the human mandible in Britain. Br Dent J. 1968 Aug 20;125(4):163–169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Proffit W. R., Fields H. W. Occlusal forces in normal- and long-face children. J Dent Res. 1983 May;62(5):571–574. doi: 10.1177/00220345830620051301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Weijs W. A., Hillen B. Relationship between the physiological cross-section of the human jaw muscles and their cross-sectional area in computer tomograms. Acta Anat (Basel) 1984;118(3):129–138. doi: 10.1159/000145832. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wood B. A., Li Y., Willoughby C. Intraspecific variation and sexual dimorphism in cranial and dental variables among higher primates and their bearing on the hominid fossil record. J Anat. 1991 Feb;174:185–205. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]