|Cephalo-facial Variation Among Onge|
|Tweet Topic Started: Jan 30 2017, 05:30:40 PM (30 Views)|
|ren||Jan 30 2017, 05:30:40 PM Post #1|
Very brachycephalic, and orthognathic for a tropical population.
"Morphological facial Index shows that 59.25%
males and 76.92% females are hypereuryproscopic,
40.74% males and 7.69% females
are euryproscopic whereas only 15.38%
females are Mesoproscopic."
So, their wide, round skulls and retention of childhood facial features are the main reasons they have an East Asiatic appearance, but this could possibly be due to a genetic commonality exclusive of Australasians.
|black man||Jan 30 2017, 07:51:34 PM Post #2|
The Right Hand
Not necessarily. Really ancient tropical populations were anyway phenotypically different from all kinds of present-day tropical populations, weren't they? Plus, isolation on small islands is generally considered to constribute to distinctiveness due to founder effects and gene drifts.
This is a very misleading text passage because of the traditional (Eurocentric) double standards concerning how they read numbers cited by the author as "Martin and Saller (1957)". The traditional (Eurocentric) double standard of the way the classified anthropometric data can be seen under "ranges" in tables 3 and 4. According to that logic, if your sister has the same facial shape like you, she'll possibly be misclassified as "more leptoprosopic" than you. And as you can see in tables 1 and 2, average male morphological facial index is higher in males. So Onge males are objectively more leptoprosopic than Onge females according to the data to which the author refers.
I don't know whether Pandey measured Onge only. If so, there are possibly no directly comparable data and the craniofacial numbers he reported could be used as supplemental materials at best. For this reason I'll re-analyse von Eickstedt's numbers as follows...
males: morphological facial index: 84,2; morphological facial height: 1100; cheekbone width: 1307; lower face: 1100-502=598 (54,4%)
females: morphological facial index: 80,6; morphological facial height: 1007; cheekbone width: 1249; lower face: 1007-470=537 (53,3%)
I.e., adult Onge males tend to have slightly longer lower faces than Onge females. And that's probably why most of them tend to have slightly longer faces than the latter. This is also what I'd have guessed when just judging from Pandey's data.
All large-scale societies seem to feature certain ranges of cranio-facial types. And some of the latter types are more common in some occupational groups than in others. However, Onge populations were traditionally more like small-scale societies. So selection processes might have been in favour of more cranio-facial homogeneity.
Judging from the data available, one has to conclude that, e.g., Onge are not homogenous concerning height growth, though. There is a range of typical body heights which probably overlaps with the range of typical body heights in mainstream populations. And the correlates of different kinds of height growth in Onge might be of interest in this context.
|1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)|
|« Previous Topic · smaller language families, language isolates, unclassified languages · Next Topic »|