Cited by 51Morphological variations and asymmetryPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies

Allometric scaling of infraorbital surface topography in Homo

Maddux, Scott D., Franciscus, Robert G.·2009·Journal of Human Evolution

Abstract

Infraorbital morphology is often included in phylogenetic and functional analyses of Homo. The inclusion of distinct infraorbital configurations, such as the "canine fossa" in Homo sapiens or the "inflated" maxilla in Neandertals, is generally based on either descriptive or qualitative assessments of this morphology, or simple linear chord and subtense measurements. However, the complex curvilinear surface of the infraorbital region has proven difficult to quantify through these traditional methods. In this study, we assess infraorbital shape and its potential allometric scaling in fossil Homo (n=18) and recent humans (n=110) with a geometric morphometric method well-suited for quantifying complex surface topographies. Our results indicate that important aspects of infraorbital shape are correlated with overall infraorbital size across Homo. Specifically, individuals with larger infraorbital areas tend to exhibit relatively flatter infraorbital surface topographies, taller and narrower infraorbital areas, sloped inferior orbital rims, anteroinferiorly oriented maxillary body facies, posteroinferiorly oriented maxillary processes of the zygomatic, and non-everted lateral nasal margins. In contrast, individuals with smaller infraorbital regions generally exhibit relatively depressed surface topographies, shorter and wider infraorbital areas, projecting inferior orbital rims, posteroinferiorly oriented maxillary body facies, anteroinferiorly oriented maxillary processes, and everted lateral nasal margins. These contrasts form a continuum and only appear dichotomized at the ends of the infraorbital size spectrum. In light of these results, we question the utility of incorporating traditionally polarized infraorbital morphologies in phylogenetic and functional analyses without due consideration of continuous infraorbital and facial size variation in Homo. We conclude that the essentially flat infraorbital surface topography of Neandertals is not unique and can be explained, in part, as a function of possessing large infraorbital regions, the ancestral condition for Homo. Furthermore, it appears likely that the diminutive infraorbital region of anatomically modern Homo sapiens is a primary derived trait, with related features such as depressed infraorbital surface topography expressed as correlated secondary characters.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.10.003

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The observation of considerable size variation but consistency in H. sapiens-like midfaces challenges the view that allometric factors and/or sexual dimorphism might have produced the midfacial variation within a single lineage or species.

    “This observation challenges the view that allometric factors and/or sexual dimorphism might have produced the midfacial variation within a single lineage or species 37,38”

    From The evolutionary history of the human face (2019) · cites this paper as [37]

  • Allometric factors may influence zygomaxillary morphology when comparing smaller and larger individuals, given the association between body size and facial size in primates.

    “It is possible that allometric factors influence the zygomaxillary morphology when comparing smaller and larger individuals 37,38 given the association between body size and facial size in primates 39”

    From The evolutionary history of the human face (2019) · cites this paper as [37]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 122 · Cited by 51

Authors
Maddux, S. D., & Franciscus, R. G.
Affiliations
University of Iowa (US)
Corresponding author
Maddux, Scott D.
Venue
Journal of Human Evolution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-02
Volume
56
Issue
2
Pages
161-174
ISSN
0047-2484 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2023541198
Cited by
51
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
7.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Human Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Keywords
infraorbital region, allometric scaling, Homo, Neanderthals, human, facial morphology, maxilla, zygomatic process, inferior orbital rim, canine fossa, geometric morphometrics, craniofacial evolution
MeSH terms
Africa, Animals, Arctic Regions, Asia, Australia, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Europe, Fossils, Humans, Maxilla, Orbit, Paleontology, Phylogeny, Weights and Measures, Hominidae

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review