Talk:Craniometry

}}

Lacking Modern Data
This article is mostly about historic (mis)conceptions and less about modern insights into craniometry. What is the distribution of human skull forms in given populations? How accurate is this map today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PSM_V50_D602_World_cephalic_index_map.jpg ? Would modern measurements show a different map due to migrations etc? Are there similar maps for mean/median skull width, height, nose length etc… ? How much can genetics predict the shape of human skulls? How accurately could one predict the (ancestral) birth place of a person given head measurements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.233.247.150 (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I thoroughly agree.
 * 1. Measurements of human and hominin skulls is essential to the study of physical anthropology, or paleoanthropology in particular. In forensics, it's important in attempting to reconstruct and identify a deceased individual.
 * 2. Also agreed: racist misuse of these measurements is well documented (certainly in Wikipedia). But phenotypical variation among human populations is not going to change.
 * Wikipedia is benefited when we stick to documenting facts, rather than engaging in political grandstanding and virtue signaling.
 * Kortoso (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite
I've tried to boil down the racist and pseudoscientific 1911-worldview of the original article, leaving a description of the history of craniometry behind. -- The Anome 18:08, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This now needs a thorough copyedit and fact check. -- The Anome 18:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Citations!
Clearly, this is a controvercial topic and subject matter. However, this version of the page contains no citations or references! I'm half-tempted to just delete the whole thing and hope someone can come up with VERIFIABLE, UNBIASED information. Until then, I've tagged it. --66.91.248.69 11:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up
I've altered the sentence Certain patterns could be discerned in Europe, which gave life to theories of population history (which, according to user 68.119.151.169 makes no sense) to ''Certain patterns could be discerned in Europe. These patterns gave life to theories of population history: several historians believed they could deduce socio-economic histories of nations and ethnic relations between nations from skull shapes.'' However, I'm not fully happy with this. Does anyone have any improvements in mind? Aecis 17:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's hard to know how to improve it without knowing what it's supposed to mean. :-) This text doesn't come from the 1911 Britannica.  User:EGud added this paragraph in May: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craniometry&diff=13778865&oldid=13778859.  But there are no sources and no supporting text.  Searching Google hasn't shed any light for me on who or what this is about.  So I'm removing this paragraph; if anyone understands the anthropological issues better than I and can cite them, please feel free to restore and expand it. Twp 12:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Kozmosis?
Someone (I'm too lazy to find out who) added an external link to a web forum called "Kozmosis" in this article. After putzing around there for several minutes, I still had no idea how it is related to Craniometry (it appears to be some kind of open source programming forum), & therefore removed the reference & link. If I'm wrong, add more information explaining why that forum is relevant. -- llywrch 18:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well that was moronic. You have, for the last three years, given them free advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inaneism (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am curious?
I am curious, why do people keep posting studys done by racist scientists who have, for the most part, have been exposed for fruadulence, bias and distortion. Examples: Rushton, Lynn, Beal. These people, especially Rushton, have not only had counter studys done of their work, but have also been investigated by police.

It is very discouraging to know that people are presenting the work of these individual's as fact, when the overwhelming majority of their colleagues have firmly dismissed their work as nothing more than pseudo-sciencfic brinkmanship.

You can find more references to Rushton or Lynn, over wikipedia, then you will any crediable scientist.

Rediculous.

(Wikipedia, helping to spread lies.)

P.S. One gets the impression that the people editing this page have no idea what they are referencing.


 * Well, there's a few reasons why they are mentioned.


 * Firstly, so they can be discussed neutrally and portrayed as crackpot or discredited theories in order to provide the reader with the reasons why they are considered crackpot racist theories unworthy of modern scientific consideration
 * Secondly to provide historical context for words which people may stumble across on the internet. Why you'd be suggesting is we don't mention Hitler, the SS, the holocaust because it was evil genocide. But I'd say we have to mention their theories in order to critically dispute them and provide people with aa more moral, ethical and correct argument to take away and use to efute these ideas elsewhere on the net
 * Wikipedia is Neutral Point of View, meaning we may disagree with these theories but can only refute them by providing studies and references which refute them, and at best, mention "they are no longer supported by the majority of anthropologists" or similar.


 * So although most of us would agree with you that craniometry and other archair pseudoscientific mechanisms for classifying races as inferior to white people are crap and all that, I think its valid to responsibly mention these theories, not just ostrich neck them and hope that kids some day will come to the "right" conclusions without knowing why the wrong conclusions ARE wrong. Rolinator 03:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

some merge with Cephalic index?

How have they changed?
From the article "Cranial vault size and shape have changed greatly during the last 150 years in the US." How have they changed? The whole paragraph is fairly useless without this information Epachamo 01:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gouldmismeasure.jpg
Image:Gouldmismeasure.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Craniometry and Race
Brain Size: Biological Anthropological Perspectives

The majority of empirical studies on the matter of racial differences in brain size suggest that blacks from comparable environments will have larger brains than do others. Brain sizes vary considerably within any species, but this variation is not usually related to intelligence. Instead, it correlates mainly with body size: large people tend to have larger brains (Henneberg, 1998; Gould, 1981, 1999). For example, most differences in brain size among various animal species can be explained by their overall physical size. In mammals, 90% of variation in brain weight can be explained by variation in body weight (Jerison 1973). This also explains why women, on average, have smaller brains than do men (Peters, 1991; Gould, 1981), and why these differences are in no way indicative of the level of male intelligence being higher than female intelligence. Moreover, Neanderthals had on average larger brains than anatomically modern humans (Tattersall, 1995; Gould, 1981), but most would agree that they were considerably less intelligent than Homo sapiens (Tattersal, 1995, 2004; Gould, 1981; Mithen 1998).

While among (non extinct) large mammals it is known that humans demonstrate, in relative terms, the largest brains, with the brain’s mass equaling approximately 2% of body mass. Among shrews, the smallest mammals, who exhibit supposedly much less cognitive and behavioral flexibility than do humans, their brains can be up to 10% (!) of their body mass. That is, shrews possess brains that are 5 times heavier than are human brains, in relative terms (Van Dongen, 1998). Thus, the relationship between relative brain size and intelligence is speculative. Some have speculated that perhaps absolute or relative size of the cerebral cortex, might better predict intelligence. However, human cortical volume is considerably exceeded by that of the elephant’s and large cetaceans, both in absolute and relative terms, (Jerison, 1973; Haug, 1987). Moreover, the prefrontal cortex in humans is not disproportionally large when compared with other primates (Jerison, 1997; Semendeferi, 2002).

Paleoanthropological evidence suggests that brain size in humans may be the result of the gastrointestinal tract structure and its musculoskeletal supports (Henneberg, 1998), and that this is related to richer, meat-based diets and extra-oral food processing. This and other evolutionary anthropological research suggests that the gross anatomy of the hominid brain is not related to its functional capabilities (ibid). For example, fossil evidence suggests that relative brain/body size ratios increased several times during human evolution, starting around 2 million years ago and reached its current state probably before the lineage leading to modern humans split from that leading to Neanderthals, 500,000 years ago (McHenry 1994)! There has also been at least one “reduction” of relative human brain size, starting 35, 000 years ago (Ruff et al, 1997; Woods, et al, 2006).

Race and Brain Size:

Three time Nobel nominated anthropologist Philip Tobias (1970), compared 7 racial and national groups in a study on brain size/weight, in which he reported that the brain size of American blacks was larger than any white group, (which included American, English and French whites) except those from the Swedish sub sample (who had the largest brains of any of the groups measured), and American blacks were estimated to have some 200 million more neurons than American whites, and brains that were reported to be 54g heavier (See Tobias 1970; Weizmann et al. 1990). Gould (1981, 1996) discovered upon recalculating Morton’s highly suspicious brain size data that the blacks in his sample were on average larger in brain volume than whites. Morton included in his sample of blacks more females than he included in the white sample. For example, in his analysis of Hottentotts (black tribe from South Africa) all measured crania were of females; the Englishmen were all mature men. Morton had also eliminated especially large brains from the African group and especially small brains from the European group (Gould, 1981, 1996). After correcting these biases and errors, it was shown that the black sample actually had larger brains than did the white sample (ibid). Interestingly, during the time periods in which the samples for the above mentioned studies were gathered, anthropomorphic research shows that blacks were on average physically smaller (in stature) than whites, lived in inferior environments and received poorer nutrition (e.g. Alan, 2006). Indicating that in spite of these environmental disadvantages, relatively lower anthropomorphic measurements and poorer nutritional intake, blacks still demonstrated larger brain volume. Tobias (1970) discusses factors which influence brain weight; in this discussion he includes nutrition. Tobias (1970) also discusses the sampling problems one may encounter with fresh brains. He argued that lack of standardization in sampling procedures often means that studies of brain weight of different races by different investigators may not be comparable, and therefore most comparisons are not reliable. These were all issues he kept in close consideration while conducting his own investigations into “racial” differences in brain size (in which American whites were actually found to have “smaller” brains than American blacks).

Friedrich Tiedemann (a famous 17th century craniometrist) noted that many anthropologists in his time simply chose the smallest-brained African ‘skull’ they could find and then published a single drawing as "proof" of what every (Caucasian) observer already "knew" in any case! Tiedemann would produce the largest compilation of cranial data ever assembled, with all items based entirely on his own measurements of skulls representing all races. From his extensive tables, Tiedemann concluded that no differences in brain sizes can distinguish human races (See Gould, 1999). In some instances the favor was in the direction of blacks.

Cranial Size, Morphology and Continental Groups:

Most contemporary evidence shows that there is virtually no correlation between the intensity of different selective force gradients and cranial size (inappropriately referred to by some as “brain size”) or morphology in modern human populations. So that different continental groups will differ very little in cranial size, and so that neutral expectations can be observed with respect to most cranial morphological variables (Harvati and Weaver, 2006; Keita, 2004; Roseman and Weaver, 2004; Roseman, 2004; Gould, 1981, 1996; Brace, 2001). For example, research shows that positive geographic selective force correlations relating to craniometric variables are usually (‘vaguely’) observed only when samples from extreme cold (arctic) environments, such as Inuit types and Siberians, are included in analysis (Roseman, 2004; Harvati and Weaver, 2006). Harvati and Weaver (2006) found using a global climate data set constructed by interpolating observations from thousands of climate stations around the world, a weak association between cranial centroid sizes and climatic variables, which approached, but did not reach, significance. This effect completely disappeared when an Inugsuk (a group from Greenland similar to Eskimos) sample was removed from the analysis (ibid). Roseman (2004) observed similar findings with a Siberian sample. That is, once the Serbian sample is removed from the analysis, there is no indication that environmental temperature or latitude play ‘any’ role in cranial size or morphology.

Keita (2004) found using principal components analysis on male crania from the northeast quadrant of Africa and selected European and other African series, no consistent cranial ‘size differences’ between these regional groups, as all samples showed marked variation in size. There were, however, some distinguishing differences in relationship to cranial shape between European and African samples, particularly with respect to nasal aperture and changes in the maxilla (part of the upper jaw from which the teeth grow). The primary goal of this study was to assess the anatomical basis of patterns of craniofacial variation along an African–European continuum, with special focus on North Africa. There was interest in whether there was a sharp boundary separating any of these groups from each other (see Keita, 2004). In terms of overall cranial size, tropical African groups were found in many instances to have larger crania than European groups. For example, on close inspection of the 2 dimensional PC scatter plots, designating cranial size/shape, the Teita (Kenya) sample appeared to have the largest crania of any group in the analysis, followed by Norse (Norway) and then Zulu. African crania were also found to be broader (wider) than European crania on average. Surprisingly, one European sample, Berg (Hungarian), correlated more closely with African samples in this respect than with other European samples. Tremendous overlap between all groups was observed for most variables (see Keita, 2004).

Other physical anthropological research also shows the crania of Sub-Saharan Africans to be wider, on average, exhibiting greater cranial breadth than European and North African samples, verbatim. For example sub-Saharan specimens show a generalized vertical facial flattening, with consequent widening of the entire structure (Bruner and Manzi, 2004). This pattern involves interorbital and orbital enlargement, widening and flattening of the nasal bones and aperture, maxillary development and upper rotation, and a general widening and lowering of the face. The face shortens vertically and this flattening leads to a relative lateral enlargement of the whole morphology and maxillary frontward rotation (see Bruner and Manzi, 2004). The pattern toward the other extreme shows the opposite processes, with a general vertical stretching related to a lateral narrowing; as seen in European and North African samples (ibid).

Despite some trends observed among certain African crania, Roseman and Weaver (2007) found that the amount of phenotypic variation in human cranial morphology decreases at the population level the further one travels from Sub-Saharan Africa. That is, African populations tend to exhibit more cranial variation than do other world populations (Roseman and Weaver, 2007; Hanihara et al, 2003; Keita, 2004). Relethford (1994) and Relethford and Harpending (1994) found that the amount of morphological variation among major geographic groups is relatively low, and is compatible with those based on the genetic data, where Africa shows the most variation. Extensive research in human genetics on ‘presumably’ neutral loci has also shown that the overwhelming majority of human diversity is found among individuals within local populations. In sum, studies of craniometric diversity are similar to genetic apportionments, implying that interregionally differing selection pressures have played a limited role in producing contemporary human cranial diversity (Roseman and Weaver, 2004; also see Brace, 2001).

Microcephaly, Europeans and Neanderthal’s Brain: Perspectives from Evolutionary Genetics

Evolutionary genetic studies into human brainsize have discovered several genes that when mutated can result in severely reduced brain volume, or ‘Autosomal recessive primary microcephaly’. One of these genes, the gene microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size during development and has experienced positive selection in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens (Zhang, 2003; Evans et al, 2005). Within modern humans a group of closely related haplotypes, known as ‘haplogroup D’ arose from a single copy at this locus (Evans, 2006). Globally, D alleles are young and first appeared about 37,000 years ago; with high frequency haplotypes being rare in Asia, and particularly Africa. The highest frequencies are seen in Europe/Eurasia. There is, however, contradictory research that shows these genes to also be quite common among Papua New Guinea Highlanders (Yu et al, 2007). A second microcephalin gene, ‘ASPM’ (abnormal spindle like Microcephaly associated), went an episode of positive selection that ended some time ago, between 6–7 million and 100,000 B.P. (Zhang, 2003). Newer D variants have shown positive selection arising about 5,800 years ago (Evans et al, 2005); although other research calls this date into serious question, as well as whether these particular gene variants are actually being selected (Voight 2006; Yu et al, 2007). Microcephaly genetic researchers believe that D alleles may have first arisen in an archaic homo species (“Neanderthals”) about 1.1 million years ago before introgression into modern Homo sapien sapiens about 37, 000 years ago; possibly as the result of interspecies breeding (Evans et al, 2006). One team of researchers believes that microcephalin shows by far the most compelling evidence of admixture among the human loci examined thus far (Evans et al, 2006). There is, indeed, much paleoanthropological evidence that is congruent with theories suggesting Europeans to share close biological relationships with Neanderthals (Brace, 1979, 2005; Trinkaus, 2007; Wolpoff, 2004; Gutiérrez et al, 2002). For example, numerous craniofacial, dental, and postcranial traits in European early humans are unlikely to have come from middle Paleolithic modern humans; many of these traits are said to be distinctly Neanderthal (Trinkaus, 2007; Brace, 1979, 2005; Simmons and Smith, 1991). For example, many point to the presence of “occipital bunning” in some remains as indicating specifically European Neanderthal influences (Simmons and Smith 1991; Brace, 2005). Furthermore, it is believed that only a very small amount of admixture would be necessary for the retention of these particular Neanderthal genes (Evans et al, 2006). Normal D variants of both ‘MCPH1’ and ‘ASPM’ genes have been shown to have mild affects on human brainsize with empirical evidence demonstrating the alleles to reduce brain volume, slightly (Woods et al, 2006). For example, each additional ASPM allele (found at rates of 40% in both Europeans and Papua New Guinea highlanders) was associated with a non significant 10.9 cc decrease in brain volume. For MCPH1 (frequencies of 80% in Europe), each additional allele was associated with a non significant 19.5 cc decrease in brain volume, when compared with those with microcephaly A variant alleles (Woods et al, 2006). Haplogroup A’ alleles are believed to be uniquely African (e.g. King et al, 2007). While selective pressure in favor of smaller brain volume might seem counterintuitive, it should be noted that the fossil records show that brain size in humans has decreased over the past 35,000 years, and on through the Neolithic period (Frayer, 1984; Ruff et al, 1997; Woods, et al, 2006; Henneberg, 1998). Interestingly, the selected variant of MCPH1 is thought to have arisen about 37,000 years ago (Evans et al, 2006) making it a candidate gene responsible for this general decline (Woods et al, 2006). These archaeological changes in brain size are paralleled by changes in body size (Ruff et al, 1997; Woods et al., 2006), and it is possible that decreases in brain size may have exerted selective pressure for corresponding decreases in body size (Ruff et al, 1997; Frayer, 1984; see also, Woods et al., 2006).

The supposed rate of selection for these particular variant MCPH1 and ASPM alleles (although challenged) might also indicate that the genes are relatively unexpressed in the human brain, outside of causing ‘Autosomal recessive primary microcephaly.’ In one study it was shown that genes with maximal expression in the human brain show “little or no” evidence for positive selection (Nielsen et al, 2005). For example, the microcephaly genes in question have also been implicated in the development of breast cancer (Xu et al, 2004), and other non brain related conditions (Trimborn et al, 2004). Implying that the mild brain volume reductions observed with each additional variant of ASPM and MCPH1 may in fact be adaptively unimportant. It should be further noted that one microcephalin gene (CDK5RAP2) has shown evidence of positive selection in West African Yoruba (Voight, 2006; bond et al, 2005), however, this gene at the MCPH3 locus has been least involved in causing a microcephalin phenotype (Hassan et al, 2007), and is not believed to have arisen in an archaic homo species.

Sensory-Motor Functions and Human Brain size

It is known that the largest portions of the human brain are responsible for sensory and motor functions. This would mean (at least by the logic, ‘bigger is better’) that people with especially acute senses or strong motor skills can be expected to have larger brains than do others (see Allen, 2002). Studies have shown “blacks”, in general, to possess superior motor abilities and development (Super, 1976; Wilson 1978; DiNucci, 1975), olfactory and visual acuity (Gilad et al., 2003; Voight, 2003; Kleinstein et al, 2003) over whites and other ethnic groups. Some researchers believe that the superior motor abilities demonstrated by black children may in fact be the result of environmental and cultural factors (Super, 1976). The overall implications are the same, however, and suggest that blacks should also have larger brains than do whites and others, on average. For example, Cernovsky (1990) reported that American blacks were superior in brain weight when compared with American whites.

Testosterone, Brain size and Penis size…? Some of the more desperate claims for racial differences in brain size are accompanied by highly unusual arguments suggesting racial differences in “penis size” (i.e. that they are inversely correlated). Thorough investigation of the formal neuroscience, anthropology, paleontology, anatomy, physiology, and ‘sex psychology’ literature reveal that legitimate references to this - ridiculous (?) - notion are not only remote, but in fact, “completely nonexistent.” The development and size of one’s penis is controlled by testosterone levels during puberty; and it is testosterone (and body size) that determine penis size. Testosterone: “Primary male hormone, causes the reproductive organs to grow and develop; responsible for secondary sexual characteristics, and promotes erections and sexual behavior” (1). With this in mind; employing elementary logic one may safely arrive at the conclusion that because men tend to have dramatically higher levels of testosterone than do women (about 10 times the level), and on average have larger brains (due mostly to body size); that testosterone not only increases body and penis size, but also brain size! In fact, the relationship between larger brain size and testosterone is one of common knowledge, and is well documented in the literature (e.g. Solms and Turnbull, 2002; Hulshoff Pol et al, 2006; Nottenbohm, 1980; Bloch and Gorski, 1988). Moreover, low testosterone has been associated with smaller penis and testes size in humans (McLachlan and Allan, 2005). Low testosterone has also been associated with failure to go through full normal puberty, poor muscle development, reduced muscle strength, low interest in sex (decreased libido), osteoporosis (thinning of bones common in whites and Asians), poor concentration, difficulty getting and keeping erections, low semen volume, longer time to recover from exercise, and easy fatigue, in men (McLachlan and Allan, 2005). At the other relative extreme, high testosterone has been associated with improved health and longevity, superior motor abilities, increased reproductive success (in men), increased mental focus (sharpens focus and concentration), larger brain volume, and “boldness” (Dabbs and Dabbs, 2000; Solms and Turnbull, 2002; Hulshoff Pol et al, 2006; Fink el al, 2005).

With respect to brain size, again; it is known that sex hormones (e.g. testosterone, estrogen) induce sexually-dimorphic brain development and organization. Research with cross-sex hormone administration to transsexuals has provided a unique opportunity to study the effects of sex steroids on brain morphology in young adulthood. Hulshoff Pol et al (2006) used magnetic resonance brain images prior to, and during, cross-sex hormone treatment to study the influence of anti-androgen +estrogen treatment on brain morphology in eight young adult male-to-female transsexual subjects and of androgen treatment in six female to- male transsexuals. The team found that compared with controls, anti-androgen (i.e. male sex hormones/testosterone) + estrogen treatment decreased brain volumes of male-to-female subjects towards female proportions, while androgen treatment in female-to-male subjects increased total brain and hypothalamus volumes towards male proportions (Hulshoff Pol et al, 2006 ). These findings have been replicated in animal studies (Nottenbohm, 1980; Bloch and Gorski, 1988).

The reductions in brain size observed after anti-androgen treatment in male-to-female subjects were also very dramatic (31cc in only a 4 month period). Indeed, the magnitude of change signified a decrease in brain volume, which is at least ten times the average decrease observed a year in healthy adult individuals (Hulshoff Pol et al, 2006). The authors include that it was not surprising that the influences of sex hormones on the brain were not limited to the hypothalamus, but were also expressed as changes in total brain size. Estrogen and androgen receptor mRNA containing neurons are not limited to the hypothalamus, but are distributed throughout the adult human brain (Hulshoff Pol et al, 2006; Simerly et al, 1990).

Research shows that American blacks possess androgen levels (e.g. male sex hormones) that are about 10% higher than American whites (Ross and Henderson, 1994; Bernstein et al, 1986; Ross et al, 1995). This would mean that white men, on average, possess ‘estrogen to androgen’ levels that are higher than that of black men; while these dynamics have been shown empirically to reduce the size of the male brain toward female proportions. East Asians are shown to have lower androgens levels than even whites (Ross et al, 1995). Other research shows that males with lower androgen levels tend also to have higher pitched voices and are less dominant and more feminine in appearance (Fink el al, 2005; Dabbs and Dabbs, 2000), which is consistent with experiments that investigate the effects of androgen levels, sexual dimorphism and the brain (Hulshoff Pol et al, 2006; Simerly et al, 1990; Nottenbohm, 1980; Bloch and Gorski, 1988). Vegetarians have also been found to have lower androgen levels than do those who eat meat (Dabbs and Dabbs, 2000), while castrated males tend also to have lower androgen levels (King A. et al, 2001).

Cited Literature:

Alan S.A. (2006). African-American and White living standards in the 19th century American south; a biological comparison. CESifo Working Paper No. 1696.

Allen B.P. (2006). If No “Races,” No Relevance to Brain Size, and No Consensus on Intelligence, Then No Scientific Meaning to Relationships Among These Notions: Reply to Rushton11. General Psychologist, Summer, 2003 Volume 38:2 Pages 31-32.

Bernstein L, Ross RK, Judd H, et al (1986). Serum testosterone levels in young black and white men. J Natl Cancer Inst 76:45—48, 1986.

Bloch GJ & Gorski RA. (1988) Estrogen/progesterone treatment in adulthood affects the size of several components of the medial preoptic area in the male rat. Journal of Comparative Neurology 1988 275 613–622.

Bond J, Roberts E, Springell K, Lizarraga SB, Scott S, et al. (2005) A centrosomal mechanism involving CDK5RAP2 and CENPJ controls brain size. Nat Genet 37: 353–355.

Bruner E., Manzi G. (2004).Variability in facial size and shape among North and East African human populations. Ital. J. Zool., 71: 51-56 (2004).

Brace C.L, Nelson A.R., Seguchi N, Oe H., Sering L., Qifeng P., Yongyi L., and Tumen D (2001). Old World sources of the first New World human inhabitants: A comparative craniofacial view. PNAS August 14, 2001 u vol. 98 u no. 17 u 10017–10022.

Cernovsky Z.Z. (1990). Race and Brain Weight: A note on Rushton’s conclusions. Psychological Reports 66:337-38.

Currat M., Excoffier L., Maddison W., Otto S.P., Ray N., Whitlock M.C., Yeaman S. (2006). Comment on ‘Ongoing adaptive evolution of ASPM, a brain size determinant in Homo sapiens’ and ‘Microcephalin, a gene regulating brain size, continues to evolve adaptively in humans’. Science (2006) 313:172. author reply 172.

Dabbs,J.M, Dabbs M.G. (2000). Heroes, Rogues and Lovers: Testosterone and Behavior. McGraw-Hill Companies (July 25, 2000).

DiNucci, James M. (1975). Motor Performance Age and Race Differences between Black and Caucasian Boys Six to Nine Years of Age. The ERIC database, an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education. 1975-02-00.

Evan P., Mekel-Bobrov N., Vallender E., Hudson R., Lahn B., (2006). Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage. 18178–18183, PNAS November 28, 2006, vol. 103, no. 48.

Erik Trinkaus (1984). Reply. Current anthropology. Vol. 25. No. 3 June 1984.

Fink B., Grammer K., Mitteroecker P., Gunz P., Schaefer K.,. Bookstein F.L. and Manning J.T. (2005). Second to fourth digit ratio and face shape Proc. R. Soc. B (2005) 272, 1995–2001.

Frayer, D.W. (1984). In The Origins of Modern Humans: A world survey of the Fossil Evidence (eds Smith, F.H. & Spencer, f.) 211-250 (Liss, New York, 1984).

Gilad Y, Bustamante CD, Lancet D, Paabo S (2003). Natural selection on the olfactory receptor gene family in humans and chimpanzees. Am J Hum Genet 73:489–501.

Gould, S. J. (1981). Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton.

Gould, S. J. (1996). Mismeasure of Man (2nd edition). New York: Norton.

Gould S.J. (1999). The Great Physiologist of Heidelberg - Friedrich Tiedemann - Brief Article. Natural History, July, 1999

Hanihara T, Ishida H., and Dodo Y (2003). Characterization of Biological Diversity through Analysis of Discrete Cranial Traits. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121:241–251 (2003).

Harvati K, Weaver TD. (2006) Human cranial anatomy and the differential preservation of population history and climate signatures. Anat Rec A 288:1225–1233. Hassan M.J., Khurshid M, Azeem Z., John P, Ali G., Chishti M.S. and Ahmad W. Previously described sequence variant in CDK5RAP2 gene in a Pakistani family with autosomal recessive primary microcephaly. BMC Medical Genetics 2007, 8:58.

Haug, H. (1987). Brain sizes, surfaces, and neuronal sizes of the cortex cerebri: a stereological investigation of man and his variability and a comparison with some mammals (primates, whales, marsupials, insectivores, and one elephant). Am. J. Anat. 180, 126–142

Henneberg M. (1998). Evolution of the Human Brain: Is Bigger Better? Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology Volume 25 Issue 9 Pages 745-749, September 1998

Hiernaux J. (1975). The people of Africa. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Horan R.D., Bulte E., Shogren J.F. (2005). How trade saved humanity from biological exclusion: an economic theory of Neanderthal extinction. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization Volume 58, Issue 1, September 2005, Pages 1-29.

Hulshoff Pol H.E., Cohen-Kettenis P.T., Peper J.S., Cahn W. (2006). Changing your sex changes your brain: influences of testosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure. European Journal of Endocrinology (2006) 155 S107–S114.

Jerison, H.J. (1973) Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence, Academic Press

Jerison, H.J. (1997). Evolution of prefrontal cortex. In Development of the Prefrontal Cortex: Evolution, Neurobiology, and Behavior (Krasnegor, N.A. et al., eds), pp. 9–26, Brookes Keita (2004). Exploring Northeast African Metric Craniofacial Variation at the Individual Level: A Comparative Study Using Principal Components Analysis. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 16:679–689 (2004) King A., Ashby J. and Nelson C. (2001). Effects of Testosterone Replacement on a Male Professional Singer. Journal of Voice Volume 15, Issue 4, December 2001, Pages 553-557 King T.E., Parkin1 E.J., Swinfield G., Cruciani F., Scozzari R. et al (2007). Africans in Yorkshire? The deepest-rooting clad of the Y phylogeny within an English genealogy. European Journal of Human Genetics (2007) 15, 288–293

McHenry HM (1994). Tempo and mode in human evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:6780–6786 Mekel-Bobrov N., Evans P.D., Gilbert S.L., Vallender E.J., Lahn B.T. Response to comment on ‘Ongoing adaptive evolution of ASPM, a brain size determinant in Homo sapiens’ and ‘Microcephalin, a gene regulating brain size, continues to evolve adaptively in humans’. Science (2006) 313:172. Mithen, S., 1998 (Ed). Creativity in Human Evolution and Prehistory, London: Routledge.

Murphy, N. B. (1968). Carotid cerebral angiography in Uganda: review of boo consecutive cases. East African M. 7.,1968,45,47-60.

Nielsen,R., Bustamante,C., Clark,A.G., Glanowski,S., Sackton,T.B., Hubisz,M.J., Fledel-Alon,A. (2005). A Scan for Positively Selected Genes in the Genomes of Humans and Chimpanzees. June 2005 | Volume 3 | Issue 6 | e170.

Nottebohm F. (1980). Testosterone triggers growth of brain vocal control nuclei in adult female canaries. Brain Research 1980 189 429.

Peters, M. (1991). Sex differences in human brain size and the general meaning of differences in brain size. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 507-522. Peters, M. (1993). Still no convincing evidence of a relation between brain size and intelligence in humans. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 751-756. Peters, M., Jåncke, L., Staiger, J. F., Schlaug, G., Huang, Y., & Steinmetz, H. (1998). Unsolved Problems in comparing brain sizes in Homo Sapiens. Brain and Cognition, 27, 254-285. Tanenbaum,D.M., Civello,D., White,T.J., et al. (2005). A scan for positively selected genes in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees. PLoS Biol. 3.

Relethford JH. 1994. Craniometric variation among modern human populations. Am J Phys Anthropol 95:53–62.

Relethford JH, Harpending HC. 1994. Craniometric variation, genetic theory, and modern human origins. Am J Phys Anthropol 95:249–270.

Roseman C.C. (2004). Detecting interregionally diversifying natural selection on modern human cranial form by using matched molecular and morphometric data. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 August 31; 101(35): 12824–12829.

Roseman C.C., Weaver T.D. (2007) Molecules versus morphology? Not for the human cranium. Volume 29, Issue 12, Pages 1185 – 1188.

Roseman C.C., Weaver T.D. (2004). Multivariate apportionment of global human craniometric diversity. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Volume 18, Issue 5, Pages 668 - 675.

Ross, R.K., Coetzee, G. A., Reichardt, J., Skinner, E, and Henderson, B.E. (1995). Does the Racial-Ethnic Variation in Prostate Cancer Risk Have a Hormonal Basis? Cancer, Volume 75, Issue S7 (p 1778-1782).

Ross R.K., Henderson B.E. (1994). Do diet and androgens alter prostate cancer risk via a common etiologic pathway? / Natl Cancer lnst 1994; 86:252-4.

Ruff C.B., Trinkaus E., and Holliday T.W. (1997). Body mass and encephalization in Pleistocene Homo. Nature Vol. 387, 8 May 1997.

Semendeferi, K. et al. (2002) Humans and great apes share a large frontal cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 272–276 Simerly RB, Chang C, Muramatsu M & Swanson LW. (1990). Distribution of androgen and estrogen receptor mRNA-containing cells in the rat brain: an in situ hybridization study. Journal of Comparative Neurology 1990 294 76–95.

Simmons T., Smith F.H. (1991). Human Population Relationships in the Late Pleistocene. Current Anthropology, Vol. 32, No. 5 (Dec., 1991), pp. 623-627

Solms M. and, Turnbull O. (2002). The brain and the inner world. Other Press, New York

Super, C. M. (1976). Environmental effects on motor development: The case of African infant precocity. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 18, 561–567.

Tattersall, I. and J.H. Schwartz (2000). Extinct Humans, New York: Westview Press.

Tattersall (1995) The Fossil Trail (Ev).

Tobias, T.V. (1970). Brain Size, Grey matter and Race – Fact or Fiction? American Journal of Physical Anthropology 32:3-26.

Trimborn,M., Bell,S.M., Felix,C., Rashid,Y., Jafri,H., Griffiths,P.D., Neumann,L.M., Krebs,A., Reis,A., Sperling,K., et al. (2004). Mutations in Microcephalin cause aberrant regulation of chromosome condensation. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75, 261-266.

Van Dongen, P.A.M. (1998) Brain size in vertebrates. In The Central Nervous System of Vertebrates (Vol. 3) (Nieuwenhuys, R. et al., eds), pp. 2099–2134, Springer Berlin Voight BF, Kudaravalli S, Wen X, Pritchard JK (2006) A map of recent positive selection in the human genome. PLoS Biol 4(3): e72.

Wilson A. (1978). Developmental Psychology of the Black Child. Africana Research Publications (December 1978).

Woods R., Freimer N., Young J., Fears S, Sicotte N., Service S., Valentino D., Toga A., Mazziotta J. (2006). Normal Variants of Microcephalin and ASPM Do Not Account for Brain Size Variability. Human Molecular Genetics, Volume 15, Number 12, 15 June 2006, pp. 2025-2029(5). Xu X., Lee J., and Stern D.F. (2004). Microcephalin Is a DNA Damage Response Protein Involved in Regulation of CHK1 and BRCA1. THE JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY Vol. 279, No. 33, Issue of August 13, pp. 34091–34094, 2004. Yu F, Hill R.S., Schaffner S.F., Sabeti P.C., Wang E.T. et al (2007).Comment on “Ongoing Adaptive Evolution of ASPM, a Brain Size Determinant in Homo sapiens”. Mignault A.A,1 Ferland RJ. Et al, 20 APRIL 2007 VOL 316 SCIENCE.

Zhang J. (2003). Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size. Genetics 165: 2063–2070 (December 2003).

Skull versus Cranium
The caption "Selection of Primate skulls." doesn't match the original source's caption (though it does use the terminology of the source's citation of the image). In any case, the proper term without the mandible is "cranium," not "skull," as is made clear in the Skull entry. 68.83.72.162 (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why has this craniometry article been redirected?
I was interested in learning about craniometry and was surprised to find that the article had been redirected to Anthropometry in Aug. 2011 then to History of anthropometry in July 2013. I didn't find any explanation for this redirection on this discussion page (or elsewhere). Shoudn't the craniometry article be restored? --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Since I received no answer to this message and since the person who did the redirection didn't answer my question on his talk page at User_talk:Redheylin, I am restoring the article.--Jacques de Selliers (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Craniometry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020310125529/http://www.unifi.it:80/riviste/cromohs/3_98/orsucci.html to http://www.unifi.it/riviste/cromohs/3_98/orsucci.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A recent post moved from top
Spun Language on endocranial volume. - - Rushton "alleged", OK. - - - Ho, and Beales et al, didn't merely "claim," they "Found" or "concluded. - - - Which you did use for the Univ of Pennsylvania: "Concluded."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:4380:22F0:E543:B97E:8575:A7F (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Moved by me. I have no idea what it means; perhaps just remove.--Nø (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)