Literature DB >> 15214056

Boas and beyond: migration and craniometric variation.

John H Relethford1.   

Abstract

Migration is expected to affect craniometric variation in three ways: 1) movement into a different environment leading to developmental plasticity; 2) movement into a different environment followed by in situ adaptation through natural selection; and 3) changes in among-group differentiation and genetic distance through the action of gene flow. The relative influence of these three factors has been argued in the literature, most recently in a series of articles debating the statistical and biological significance of Boas's immigration studies as they relate to cranial plasticity. The Boas debate is discussed within the broader context of debate over genetic and environmental influences on craniometric variation. Additional examples are provided from an ongoing study of global craniometric variation. Although developmental plasticity and climatic adaptation have had an impact on craniometric variation, these factors tend not to erase, or even obscure greatly, underlying patterns of population structure and history that fit a neutral model of quantitative variation. Thus, craniometric data can be used to explore questions of gene flow and genetic affinity. Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15214056     DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.20045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hum Biol        ISSN: 1042-0533            Impact factor:   1.937


  11 in total

1.  Human phylogeography and diversity.

Authors:  Alexander H Harcourt
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Heritability of human cranial dimensions: comparing the evolvability of different cranial regions.

Authors:  Neus Martínez-Abadías; Mireia Esparza; Torstein Sjøvold; Rolando González-José; Mauro Santos; Miquel Hernández
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.610

3.  Temporal variations in basicranium dimorphism of North Indians.

Authors:  Vineeta Saini; Rashmi Srivastava; Satya Narayan Shamal; Tej Bali Singh; Vinod Kumar; Pramod Kumar; Sunil Kumar Tripathi
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2013-12-28       Impact factor: 2.686

4.  Detecting interregionally diversifying natural selection on modern human cranial form by using matched molecular and morphometric data.

Authors:  Charles C Roseman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-08-23       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Close correspondence between quantitative- and molecular-genetic divergence times for Neandertals and modern humans.

Authors:  Timothy D Weaver; Charles C Roseman; Chris B Stringer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-03-17       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Distance from Africa, not climate, explains within-population phenotypic diversity in humans.

Authors:  Lia Betti; François Balloux; William Amos; Tsunehiko Hanihara; Andrea Manica
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2009-03-07       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Different cranial ontogeny in Europeans and Southern Africans.

Authors:  Marina L Sardi; Fernando V Ramírez Rozzi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The effect of ancient population bottlenecks on human phenotypic variation.

Authors:  Andrea Manica; William Amos; François Balloux; Tsunehiko Hanihara
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2007-07-19       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Global geometric morphometric analyses of the human pelvis reveal substantial neutral population history effects, even across sexes.

Authors:  Lia Betti; Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel; Andrea Manica; Stephen J Lycett
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Phenotypic variation in infants, not adults, reflects genotypic variation among chimpanzees and bonobos.

Authors:  Naoki Morimoto; Marcia S Ponce de León; Christoph P E Zollikofer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-11       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.