Literature DB >> 7977674

Comparison of four simple methods for estimating sexual dimorphism in fossils.

J M Plavcan1.   

Abstract

Estimating sexual dimorphism in skeletal and dental features of fossil species is difficult when the sex of individuals cannot be reliably determined. Several different methods of estimating dimorphism in this situation have been suggested: extrapolation from coefficients of variation, division of a sample about the mean or median into two subsamples which are then treated as males and females, and finite mixture analysis (specifically for estimating the maximum dimorphism that could be present in a unimodal distribution). The accuracy of none of these methods has been thoroughly investigated and compared in a controlled manner. Such analysis is necessary because the accuracy of all methods is potentially affected by fluctuations in either sample size, sex ratio, or the magnitude of intrasexual variability. Computer modeling experiments show that the mean method is the least sensitive to fluctuations in these parameters and generally provides the best estimates of dimorphism. However, no method can accurately estimate low to moderate levels of dimorphism, particularly if intrasexual variability is high and sex ratios are skewed.

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7977674     DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330940403

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Phys Anthropol        ISSN: 0002-9483            Impact factor:   2.868


  9 in total

Review 1.  Investigating human evolutionary history.

Authors:  B Wood
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.610

2.  Canine sexual dimorphism in Egyptian Eocene anthropoid primates: Catopithecus and Proteopithecus.

Authors:  E L Simons; J M Plavcan; J G Fleagle
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1999-03-02       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  The ontogeny of sexual dimorphism in free-ranging rhesus macaques.

Authors:  Cassandra M Turcotte; Eva H J Mann; Michala K Stock; Catalina I Villamil; Michael J Montague; Edwin Dickinson; Samuel Bauman Surratt; Melween Martinez; Scott A Williams; Susan C Antón; James P Higham
Journal:  Am J Biol Anthropol       Date:  2022-01-21

4.  Canine sexual dimorphism in Ardipithecus ramidus was nearly human-like.

Authors:  Gen Suwa; Tomohiko Sasaki; Sileshi Semaw; Michael J Rogers; Scott W Simpson; Yutaka Kunimatsu; Masato Nakatsukasa; Reiko T Kono; Yingqi Zhang; Yonas Beyene; Berhane Asfaw; Tim D White
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 12.779

5.  Estimating sexual size dimorphism in fossil species from posterior probability densities.

Authors:  Tomohiko Sasaki; Sileshi Semaw; Michael J Rogers; Scott W Simpson; Yonas Beyene; Berhane Asfaw; Tim D White; Gen Suwa
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-11-02       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Footprints reveal direct evidence of group behavior and locomotion in Homo erectus.

Authors:  Kevin G Hatala; Neil T Roach; Kelly R Ostrofsky; Roshna E Wunderlich; Heather L Dingwall; Brian A Villmoare; David J Green; John W K Harris; David R Braun; Brian G Richmond
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Sexual dimorphism in Homo erectus inferred from 1.5 Ma footprints near Ileret, Kenya.

Authors:  Brian Villmoare; Kevin G Hatala; William Jungers
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Collagen Sequence Analysis Reveals Evolutionary History of Extinct West Indies Nesophontes (Island-Shrews).

Authors:  Michael Buckley; Virginia L Harvey; Johanset Orihuela; Alexis M Mychajliw; Joseph N Keating; Juan N Almonte Milan; Craig Lawless; Andrew T Chamberlain; Victoria M Egerton; Phillip L Manning
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 16.240

9.  New footprints from Laetoli (Tanzania) provide evidence for marked body size variation in early hominins.

Authors:  Fidelis T Masao; Elgidius B Ichumbaki; Marco Cherin; Angelo Barili; Giovanni Boschian; Dawid A Iurino; Sofia Menconero; Jacopo Moggi-Cecchi; Giorgio Manzi
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 8.140

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.