Endogamy and anthropological differentiation on the Canary Islands (anthropological studies on the Canary Islands III)

Multiple regression analysis of anthropometric measurements influencing the cephalic index of male Japanese university students

“…Other external and internal factors, such as genetics, (6) environmental factors, (6,33) dietary protein, (34) psychological and physiological stress, (34) medical facilities and care, (34) and natural climates, (13,33,35) have been proposed to potentially influenced head form. Other hypothesised factors that could potentially influence head form include heterosis, (36) socioeconomic status (37)(38)(39) and nutrition or diet. (40) Some researchers believe that the brachycephalic head form has been selected as a consequence of evolutionary forces.…”

Offspring from endogamic vs. exogamic matings: Absence of anthropometric differences among Sardinian children (Italy)

“…It has long been debated whether offspring of exogamic human matings have larger body dimensions than samesex offspring of endogamic matings. Some authors report this phenomenon (Billy, 1971;Buffa et al, 1995;Chung et al, 1986;Crognier, 1973;Damon, 1965;Demoulin and Bressac, 1975;Ferá k et al, 1968;Floris and Sanna, 1982;Hulse, 1957Hulse, , 1969Hulse, , 1981Khongsdier and Mukherjee, 2003a, b;Nikityuk and Filippov, 1977;Olivier et al, 1977Olivier et al, , 1978Schreider, 1968;Schwidetzky, 1977;Strouhal, 1971;Wolanski, 1978Wolanski, , 1980, while others refute such a notion (Clegg, 1982;Ferá k et al, 1968;Lasker et al, 1990;Livshits et al, 1987;Marquer, 1979;Rovillé-Sausse et al, 1993;Sanna et al, 2002Sanna et al, , 2003Schmitt et al, 1991;Schull and Neel, 1963).…”

“…A heterotic effect has been invoked to explain larger body dimensions in the offspring of exogamic matings (Billy, 1971;Chung et al, 1986;Ferá k et al, 1968;Floris and Sanna, 1982;Hulse, 1957Hulse, , 1969Hulse, , 1981Khongsdier and Mukherjee, 2003a, b;Nikityuk and Filippov, 1977;Schreider 1968;Schwidetzky, 1977;Strouhal, 1971;Wolanski, 1980). However, it is noteworthy to recall that this heterotic effect has never been supported by genetic evidences.…”

“…The positive secular changes are mainly related to the changes in nutritional and socioeconomic conditions (Danubio and Sanna, 2008). Also contributing to the phenomenon are factors like migration and exogamy, while endogamy and consanguinity cause an increase of homozygosity, leading to from an anthropometric point of view a tendency toward smaller body dimensions (Das, 2005;Krishan, 1986;Morton, 1958;Schwidetzky, 1977;Strouhal, 1971).…”