1979
DOI: 10.1016/0047-2484(79)90006-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Race differences in the sex dimorphism of dermatoglyphic traits

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1986
1986
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Significant sex differences are known for many dermatoglyphic features (Cummins & Midlo, 1943; Schwidetzky & Jantz, 1977, 1979), and given the known ontogeny of dermatoglyphic structures, they must be established and fixed prenatally. On the one hand, sex differences might be strongly conservative, for instance populationwide sex differences in frequencies of dermatoglyphic whorl patterns on the 4th finger on the right hand were found to be statistically almost identical across hundreds of human populations (Králík, Polcerová, et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Significant sex differences are known for many dermatoglyphic features (Cummins & Midlo, 1943; Schwidetzky & Jantz, 1977, 1979), and given the known ontogeny of dermatoglyphic structures, they must be established and fixed prenatally. On the one hand, sex differences might be strongly conservative, for instance populationwide sex differences in frequencies of dermatoglyphic whorl patterns on the 4th finger on the right hand were found to be statistically almost identical across hundreds of human populations (Králík, Polcerová, et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…14 It is also known that diverse populations represented different sexual dimorphic characteristics. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] For example, studies on Turkmenians, Chuvasians, and Eastern European, African, Middle Eastern, and Yeminite-Jews, all demonstrate significant sexual dimorphism, but their levels of expression vary 1988). 16,17 Tiwari et al's 18 study on Tibetans found that whorl was the most common pattern followed by loop and arch in males.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, as no significant interethnic differences in pattern asymmetry were revealed, this allowed us in the consequent analysis to regard all Ob Ugrians as a single group. However, the male and female samples were analysed separately, as the finger and palm patterns are subject to sexual dimorphism (Cummins and Midlo, 1961;Schwidetzky and Jantz, 1979). Considering the method restrictions arising from the quantitative evaluation of the dermal ridge relief, we considered only the pattern types, and assessed the coincidence of arches, loops and whorls on corresponding fingers of the right and left hands.…”
Section: The Health Consequences Of Modernization the Health Consequementioning
confidence: 99%