Modularity and sexual dimorphism in human metacarpals

K, Morrish; Hlusko, Leslea J.

doi:10.5070/p9312024956

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, metacarpals with traditional attributes of a robust form, such as a wider diaphysis and expanded articular surfaces, are likely to have an internal cortical structure more suited to withstanding higher mechanical loads, particularly to torsion (e.g., Marzke & Marzke, 1987 ; Micklesfield et al, 2011 ; Nikander et al, 2010 ; Plochocki et al, 2006 ). Furthermore, while the non‐pollical metacarpals (MC2–MC5) presented many significant correlations of PC1 with J and CSA , the MC1 shows no significant correlations between PC1 and cross‐sectional properties, and could imply that the external morphology of the pollical metacarpal has a different relationship with internal cortical structure compared to the non‐pollical metacarpals; something that could perhaps be related to the developmental uniqueness of the thumb in comparison to the palmar fingers (Morrish & Hlusko, 2014 ; Reno et al, 2008 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally, external metacarpal shape has been assessed through linear measurements such as the maximum length, articular length, base dorsopalmar height, and base mediolateral width (see Bush et al, 1982 ; Morrish & Hlusko, 2014 ; North & Rutledge, 1983 ; Smith, 2000 ), and in some cases these measurements have been used to estimate stature and sex across a range of human populations (e.g., Alabi et al, 2020 ; DeSilva et al, 2014 ; Khanpetch et al, 2012 ; Kimura, 1992 ; Meadows, 1990 ; Musgrave & Harneja, 1978 ). More recently, researchers have utilized a 3D geometric morphometric (GM) approach to comparatively analyze extant hominid metacarpal morphology and make interpretations of function in extinct hominin specimens.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Variation and covariation of external shape and cross‐sectional geometry in the human metacarpus

Tanner,

Bardo,

Davies

et al. 2023

American Journal of Biological Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesAnalyses of external bone shape using geometric morphometrics (GM) and cross‐sectional geometry (CSG) are frequently employed to investigate bone structural variation and reconstruct activity in the past. However, the association between these methods has not been thoroughly investigated. Here, we analyze whole bone shape and CSG variation of metacarpals 1–5 and test covariation between them.Materials and MethodsWe analyzed external metacarpal shape using GM and CSG of the diaphysis at three locations in metacarpals 1–5. The study sample includes three modern human groups: crew from the shipwrecked Mary Rose (n = 35 metacarpals), a Pre‐industrial group (n = 50), and a Post‐industrial group (n = 31). We tested group differences in metacarpal shape and CSG, as well as correlations between these two aspects of metacarpal bone structure.ResultsGM analysis demonstrated metacarpus external shape variation is predominately related to changes in diaphyseal width and articular surface size. Differences in external shape were found between the non‐pollical metacarpals of the Mary Rose and Pre‐industrial groups and between the third metacarpals of the Pre‐ and Post‐industrial groups. CSG results suggest the Mary Rose and Post‐industrial groups have stronger metacarpals than the Pre‐industrial group. Correlating CSG and external shape showed significant relationships between increasing external robusticity and biomechanical strength across non‐pollical metacarpals (r: 0.815–0.535; p ≤ 0.05).DiscussionDifferences in metacarpal cortical structure and external shape between human groups suggest differences in the type and frequency of manual activities. Combining these results with studies of entheses and kinematics of the hand will improve reconstructions of manual behavior in the past.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation and covariation of external shape and cross‐sectional geometry in the human metacarpus

Tanner,

Bardo,

Davies

et al. 2023

American Journal of Biological Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As we will see below, despite its small size, the hand shows a remarkable degree of variation in morphology. Previous work has shown high modularity (e.g., the Mc1 vs. the ulnar metacarpals in modern humans; Morrish & Hlusko, 2014) and limited morphological integration within the wrist (Williams, 2010) that can differ across hominines (Bardo et al, 2020; Bucchi et al, 2022). Exactly how modularity or morphological integration factor into the mosaic morphologies documented among hominin hands remains unclear.…”

Section: Part 3: Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Form, function and evolution of the human hand

Kivell

Baraki

Lockwood

et al. 2022

American Journal of Biological Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The modern human hand is an intriguing mix of primitive morphology and derived function. Traditionally, its form and function are explained as a functional “trade‐off” between the requirements of locomotion and manipulation, but recently acquired comparative, experimental and fossil evidence suggests that this functional trade‐off is more complex than conventional wisdom suggests. Moreover, when studying hand evolution within the hominin clade, the only morphological evidence comes from the hard‐tissues, and evidence about hand function must be inferred indirectly from the archaeological record. We lack information about critical aspects of hand form (e.g., soft tissues) and function (e.g., neurology) as well as non‐lithic evidence about behavior. Thus, comparative anatomical, experimental and ethological studies of modern humans and other primates are critical to making more informed inferences about hand use in the past. We review the relevant fossil and archaeological evidence within the relevant comparative context (e.g., other extant apes and dexterous monkeys) in an attempt to reconstruct hand evolution within the hominin clade. We conclude by summarizing our current understanding—or lack thereof—of the evolutionary history of the modern human hand.

show abstract

Modularity and sexual dimorphism in human metacarpals

Cited by 2 publications

References 24 publications

Variation and covariation of external shape and cross‐sectional geometry in the human metacarpus

Variation and covariation of external shape and cross‐sectional geometry in the human metacarpus

Form, function and evolution of the human hand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About