Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2004 Dec 28;127(4):392–405. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.20226

Big‐bodied males help us recognize that females have big pelves

Robert G Tague 1,✉
PMCID: PMC7159750  PMID: 15624207

Abstract

Schultz ([1949] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 7:401–424) presented a conundrum: among primates, sexual dimorphism of the pelvis is a developmental adjunct to dimorphism in other aspects of the body, albeit in the converse direction. Among species in which males are larger than females in body size, females are larger than males in some pelvic dimensions; species with little sexual dimorphism in nonpelvic size show little pelvic dimorphism. Obstetrical difficulty does not explain this relationship. The present study addresses this issue, evaluating the relationship between pelvic and femoral sexual dimorphism in 12 anthropoid species. The hypothesis is that species in which males are significantly larger than females in femoral size will have a higher incidence, magnitude, and variability of pelvic sexual dimorphism, with females having relatively larger pelves than males, compared with species monomorphic in femoral size. The results are consistent with the hypothesis. The proposed explanation is that the default pelvic anatomy in adulthood is that of the female; testosterone redirects growth from the default type to that of the male by differentially enhancing and repressing growth among the pelvic dimensions. Testosterone also influences sexual dimorphism of the femur. The magnitude of the pelvic response to testosterone is greater in species that are sexually dimorphic in the femur than in those that are monomorphic. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2005. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Keywords: obstetrics, pelvis, primate, sexual dimorphism, testosterone, variability

LITERATURE CITED

  1. Arthur GH, Noakes DE, Pearson H, Parkinson TJ. 1996. Veterinary reproduction and obstetrics. 7th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders. [Google Scholar]
  2. Badoux DM. 1974. An introduction to biomechanical principles in primate locomotion and structure In: Jenkins FA, Jr, editor. Primate locomotion. New York: Academic Press; p 1–43. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bardin CW, Catterall JF. 1981. Testosterone: a major determinant of extragenital sexual dimorphism. Science 211: 1285–1294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernstein P, Crelin ES. 1967. Bony pelvic sexual dimorphism in the rat. Anat Rec 157: 517–526. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bilezikian JP. 2002. Sex steroids, mice, and men: when androgens and estrogens get very close to each other. J Bone Miner Res 17: 563–566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Black ES. 1970. Sexual dimorphism in the ischium and pubis of three species of South American monkeys. J Mammal 51: 794–796. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cheverud JM, Dow MM, Leutenegger W. 1985. The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution 39: 1335–1351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chrousos GP, Renquist D, Brandon D, Barnard D, Fowler D, Loriaux DL, Lipsett MB. 1982. The squirrel monkey: receptor‐mediated end‐organ resistance to progesterone? J Clin Endocrinol Metab 55: 364–368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Coe CL, Savage A, Bromley LJ. 1992. Phylogenetic influences on hormone levels across the primate order. Am J Primatol 28: 81–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Crelin ES. 1960. The development of bony pelvic sexual dimorphism in mice. Ann NY Acad Sci 84: 479–512. [Google Scholar]
  11. Crelin ES. 1969. The development of the bony pelvis and its changes during pregnancy and parturition. Trans NY Acad Sci 31: 1049–1058. [Google Scholar]
  12. Crelin ES, Blood DK. 1961. The influence of the testes on the shaping of the bony pelvis in mice. Anat Rec 140: 375–379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cunningham FG, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC III, Hauth JC, Wenstrom KD. 2001. Williams obstetrics. 21st ed. New York: McGraw‐Hill. [Google Scholar]
  14. Felsenstein J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125: 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fleagle JG. 1976. Locomotor behavior and skeletal anatomy of sympatric Malaysian leaf‐monkeys (Presbytis obscura and Presbytis melalophos). Yrbk Phys Anthropol 20: 440–453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fleagle JG. 1988. Primate adaptation and evolution. San Diego: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gaulin SJC, Sailer LD. 1984. Sexual dimorphism in weight among the primates: the relative impact of allometry and sexual selection. Int J Primatol 5: 515–535. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gaulin SJC, Sailer LD. 1985. Are females the ecological sex? Am Anthropol 87: 111–119. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gingerich PD. 1972. The development of sexual dimorphism in the bony pelvis of the squirrel monkey. Anat Rec 172: 589–595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Groves C. 1993. Order Primates In: Wilson DE, Reeder DM, editors. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press; p 243–277. [Google Scholar]
  21. Grumbach MM. 2000. Estrogen, bone, growth and sex: a sea change in conventional wisdom. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 13: 1439–1455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Harvey PH, Clutton‐Brock TH. 1985. Life histories in primates. Evolution 39: 559–581. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hershkovitz P. 1983. Two new species of night monkeys, genus Aotus (Cebidae, Platyrrhini): a preliminary report on Aotus taxonomy. Am J Primatol 4: 209–243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hills M. 1978. On ratios—a response to Atchley, Gaskins, and Anderson. Syst Zool 27: 61–62. [Google Scholar]
  25. Iguchi T, Irisawa S, Fukazawa Y, Uesugi Y, Takasugi N. 1989. Morphometric analysis of the development of sexual dimorphism of the mouse pelvis. Anat Rec 224: 490–494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Jost A, Magre S. 1984. Testicular development phases and dual hormonal control of sexual organogenesis In: Serio M, Motta M, Zanisi M, Martini L, editors. Sexual differentiation: basic and clinical aspects. New York: Raven Press; p 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kappelman J. 1996. The evolution of body mass and relative brain size in fossil hominids. J Hum Evol 30: 243–276. [Google Scholar]
  28. Leutenegger W. 1974. Functional aspects of pelvic morphology in simian primates. J Hum Evol 3: 207–222. [Google Scholar]
  29. Leutenegger W, Cheverud J. 1982. Correlates of sexual dimorphism in primates: ecological and size variables. Int J Primatol 3: 387–402. [Google Scholar]
  30. Leutenegger W, Cheverud JM. 1985. Sexual dimorphism in primates: the effects of size In: Jungers WL, editor. Size and scaling in primate biology. New York: Plenum Press; p 33–50. [Google Scholar]
  31. Leutenegger W, Larson S. 1985. Sexual dimorphism in the postcranial skeleton of New World primates. Folia Primatol (Basel) 44: 82–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lovejoy CO. 1988. Evolution of human walking. Sci Am 259: 118–125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Mobb GE, Wood BA. 1977. Allometry and sexual dimorphism in the primate innominate bone. Am J Anat 150: 531–537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Notelovitz M. 2002. Androgen effects on bone and muscle. Fertil Steril [ Suppl] 77: 34–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Pickford M. 1986. On the origins of body size dimorphism in primates In: Pickford M, Chiarelli B, editors. Sexual dimorphism in living and fossil primates. Florence: Il Sedicesimo; p 77–91. [Google Scholar]
  36. Plavcan JM, van Schaik CP. 1997. Interpreting hominid behavior on the basis of sexual dimorphism. J Hum Evol 32: 345–374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Poláček P, Novotný VL. 1965. Sex differences of the bony pelvis in growing macaques. Folia Morphol (Praha) 13: 145–157. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Rawlins RG. 1975. Age changes in the pubic symphysis of Macaca mulatta . Am J Phys Anthropol 42: 477––488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Ridley M. 1995. Brief communication: pelvic sexual dimorphism and relative neonatal brain size really are related. Am J Phys Anthropol 97: 197–200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Robinson JG, Wright PC, Kinzey WG. 1986. Monogamous cebids and their relatives: intergroup calls and spacing In: Smuts BB, Cheney R, Seyfarth M, Wrangham RW, Struhsaker TT, editors. Primate societies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; p 44–53. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ruff CB. 2003. Long bone articular and diaphyseal structure in Old World monkeys and apes. II: estimation of body mass. Am J Phys Anthropol 120: 16–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Schultz AH. 1949. Sex differences in the pelves of primates. Am J Phys Anthropol 7: 401–424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Schultz BB. 1985. Levene's test for relative variation. Syst Zool 34: 449–456. [Google Scholar]
  44. Southwick FS, Crelin ES. 1969. The development of sexual dimorphism in transplanted mouse pelves. Yale J Biol Med 41: 446–447. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. SPSS . 1992. SPSS/PC+, version 5.0. Chicago: SPSS. [Google Scholar]
  46. SPSS . 2001. SPSS for Windows, version 11.0. Chicago: SPSS. [Google Scholar]
  47. Steudel K. 1981a. Sexual dimorphism and allometry in primate ossa coxae. Am J Phys Anthropol 55: 209–215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Steudel K. 1981b. Functional aspects of primate pelvic structure: a multivariate approach. Am J Phys Anthropol 55: 399–410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Steudel K. 1984. Patterns of allometry in the pelvis of higher primates. J Hum Evol 13: 545–554. [Google Scholar]
  50. Tague RG. 1989. Variation in pelvic size between males and females. Am J Phys Anthropol 80: 59–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Tague RG. 1991. Commonalities in dimorphism and variability in the anthropoid pelvis, with implications for the fossil record. J Hum Evol 21: 153–176. [Google Scholar]
  52. Tague RG. 1992. Sexual dimorphism in the human bony pelvis, with a consideration of the Neandertal pelvis from Kebara cave, Israel. Am J Phys Anthropol 88: 1–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Tague RG. 1993. Pubic symphyseal synostosis and sexual dimorphism of the pelvis in Presbytis cristata and Presbytis rubicunda . Int J Primatol 14: 637–654. [Google Scholar]
  54. Tague RG. 1995. Variation in pelvic size between males and females in nonhuman anthropoids. Am J Phys Anthropol 97: 213–233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Tague RG, Lovejoy CO. 1986. The obstetric pelvis of A.L. 288‐1 (Lucy). J Hum Evol 15: 237–255. [Google Scholar]
  56. Tague RG, Lovejoy CO. 1998. AL 288‐1—Lucy or Lucifer: gender confusion in the Pliocene. J Hum Evol 35: 75–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Thorington RW Jr, Vorek RE. 1976. Observations on the geographic variation and skeletal development of Aotus . Lab Anim Sci 26: 1006–1021. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Uesugi Y, Taguchi O, Noumura T, Iguchi T. 1992. Effects of sex steroids on the development of sexual dimorphism in mouse innominate bone. Anat Rec 234: 541–548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Walker C, Schäfer‐Witt C. 1990. New World monkeys In: Parker SP, editor. Grzimek's encyclopedia of mammals, volume 2 New York: McGraw‐Hill; p 122–177. [Google Scholar]
  60. Walrath DE, Glantz MM. 1996. Sexual dimorphism in the pelvic midplane and its relationship to Neandertal reproductive patterns. Am J Phys Anthropol 100: 89–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Washburn SL. 1942. Skeletal proportions of adult langurs and macaques. Hum Biol 14: 444–472. [Google Scholar]
  62. Waterman HC. 1929. Studies on the evolution of the pelvis of man and other primates. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 58: 585–642. [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Physical Anthropology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES