Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKenyhercz, Michael W.
dc.date.accessioned2015-01-21T01:51:51Z
dc.date.available2015-01-21T01:51:51Z
dc.date.issued2014-12
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11122/4809
dc.descriptionThesis (Ph.D.) University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2014en_US
dc.description.abstractThe study of teeth has been a central tenet in biological anthropology since the inception of the field. Teeth have been previously shown to have a high genetic component. The high heritability of teeth has allowed researchers to use them to answer a myriad of anthropological questions ranging from human origins to modern variation due to microevolution. Traditionally, teeth have been studied either morphologically, through the assignment of nonmetric character states, or metrically, through mesiodistal and buccolingual crown measures. Increasingly, geometric morphometric techniques are being used to answer anthropological questions, especially dentally. However, regardless of analytical technique utilized, the biological affinity of modern U.S. individuals has often been limited to examination under a forensic lens (classification of either American Asian, black, Hispanic, or white) without consideration of parent populations. The current study uses geometric morphometric techniques on human molars for two main goals: 1) to examine biological affinity of each of the four largest population groups in regard to population history; and 2) examine the variation within and among the four modern groups as a means of classification. A total of 1,225 dentitions were digitized. Each of the four modern U.S. groups was compared to possible parental groups via discriminant function analysis (DFA). Additionally affinity was examined using Mahalanobis generalized distances (D²) wherein significance of distances between groups was calculated via permutation tests. Furthermore, the D² values were subjected to principal coordinate analysis, or classical multidimensional scaling, to visualize group similarity and dissimilarity. Each group demonstrated affinity with potential parental groups and geographically similar groups as expected given population histories; however, each was also significantly unique from the comparison groups. The four modern U.S. groups were then compared to one another using the same statistical tests. Total among-group correct classifications ranged from 33.9-55.5%, indicating a greater classification than random chance (25%). These classifications were negatively correlated with the reported intermarriage rates for each group: American whites and blacks have the lowest intermarriage rates, which resulted in the highest correct classifications. Conversely, American Asians and Hispanics have the highest intermarriage rates, which resulted in the lowest total correct classifications. Still, the DFA model created from the modern U.S. sample was able to accurately classify a holdout sample. Lastly, a comparison of the three most abundant groups in the U.S. (black, Hispanic, and white), achieved a total correct classification of 72.3%, which is comparable to other studies focusing on the same populations. Restricted gene flow through sociologically constructed barriers and positive assortative mating are the likely factors in the observed variation.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontentsChapter 1: Introductions -- 1.1 Dental development -- 1.1.1 Molar eruption timing -- 1.2.1 The field concept model -- 1.2.2 The clone model -- 1.2.3 The homeobox model -- 1.2.4 Combined models -- 1.3 Studies of dental morphology -- 1.4 Studies of odontometry -- 1.5 Studies of dental geometric morphometrics -- 1.6 Summary -- 1.7 Dissertation outline -- Chapter 2: Concept of race, biological affinity, social identity, and population histories in the United States -- 2.1 Modern U.S. population history -- 2.1.1 Population history of American whites -- 2.1.1.1 English -- 2.1.1.2 Irish -- 2.1.1.3 German -- 2.1.1.4 Jewish -- 2.1.1.5 Italian -- 2.1.2 Population history of American blacks -- 2.1.3 Population history of American Asians -- 2.1.3.1 Chinese -- 2.1.3.2 Japanese -- 2.1.3.3 Filipinos, Koreans, and Vietnamese -- 2.1.4 Population history of American Hispanics -- 2.1.4.1 Mexican -- 2.1.4.2 Puerto Rican -- 2.1.4.3 Cuban -- 2.2 Discussion -- 2.3 Summary -- Chapter 3: Materials and methods -- 3.1 Samples -- 3.1.1 Modern American -- 3.1.2 Historic parental groups -- 3.1.3 Modern comparison groups -- 3.2 Three-dimensional data collection -- 3.2.1 Geometric morphometrics -- 3.2.2 Data collection and preparation protocol -- 3.3 Statistics -- 3.3.1 Descriptive statistics -- 3.3.2 Principal components analysis -- 3.3.3 Discriminant function analysis -- 3.3.4 Principal coordinate analysis/classical multidimensional scaling -- 3.4 Data processing protocol summary -- 3.5 Discussion -- 3.6 Summary -- Chapter 4: Repeatability, sexual dimorphism, and asymmetry -- 4.1 Repeatability -- 4.2 Sexual dimorphism -- 4.3 Asymmetry -- 4.4 Discussion -- 4.5 Summary -- Chapter 5: Modern American Asian comparison -- 5.1 Maxillary first molar (M¹) -- 5.1.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 5.1.2 Principal components of shape -- 5.1.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 5.1.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 5.2 Maxillary second molar (M²) -- 5.2.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 5.2.2 Principal components of shape -- 5.2.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 5.2.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 5.3 Mandibular first molar (M¹) -- 5.3.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 5.3.2 Principal components of shape -- 5.3.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 5.3.4 principal components of ILDs -- 5.4 mandibular second molar (m2) -- 5.4.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 5.4.2 Principal components of shape -- 5.4.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 5.4.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 5.5 Combined molars -- 5.5.1 Discriminant function analysis -- 5.5.2 Principal coordinate analysis -- 5.6 Discussion -- 5.7 Summary -- Chapter 6: Modern American Black comparison -- 6.1 Maxillary first molar (M¹) -- 6.1.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 6.1.2 Principal components of shape -- 6.1.3 Interlandmark Distances (ILDs) -- 6.1.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 6.2 Maxillary second molar (M²) -- 6.2.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 6.2.2 Principal components of shape -- 6.2.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 6.2.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 6.3 Mandibular first molar (M¹) -- 6.3.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 6.3.2 Principal components of shape -- 6.3.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 6.3.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 6.4 Mandibular second molar (M²) -- 6.4.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 6.4.2 Principal components of shape -- 6.4.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 6.4.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 6.5 Combined molars -- 6.5.1 Discriminant function analysis -- 6.5.2 Principal coordinate analysis -- 6.6 Discussion -- 6.7 Summary -- Chapter 7: Modern american hispanic comparison -- 7.1 Maxillary first molar (M¹) -- 7.1.1 Descriptive Statistics of Principal Components of Shape -- 7.1.2 Principal Components of Shape -- 7.1.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 7.1.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 7.2 Maxillary second molar (M²) -- 7.2.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 7.2.2 Principal components of shape -- 7.2.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 7.2.4 Principal Components of ILDs -- 7.3 Mandibular first molar (M¹) -- 7.3.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 7.3.2 Principal components of shape -- 7.3.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 7.3.4 Principal components of the interlandmark distances -- 7.4 Mandibular second molar (M²) -- 7.4.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 7.4.2 Principal components of shape -- 7.4.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 7.4.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 7.5 Combined Molars -- 7.5.1 Discriminant function analysis -- 7.5.2 Principal coordinate analysis -- 7.6 Discussion -- 7.7 Summary -- Chapter 8: Modern American white comparison -- 8.1 Maxillary first molar (M¹) -- 8.1.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 8.1.2 Principal components of shape -- 8.1.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 8.1.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 8.2 Maxillary second molar (M²) -- 8.2.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 8.2.2 Principal components of shape -- 8.2.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 8.2.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 8.3 Mandibular first molar (M¹) -- 8.3.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 8.3.2 Principal components of shape -- 8.3.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 8.3.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 8.4.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 8.4.2 Principal components of shape -- 8.4.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 8.4.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 8.5 Combined molars -- 8.5.1 Discriminant function analysis -- 8.5.2 Principal coordinate analysis -- 8.6 Discussion -- 8.7 Summary -- Chapter 9: Comparison of modern American groups -- 9.1 Maxillary first molar (M¹) -- 9.1.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 9.1.2 Principal components of shape -- 9.1.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 9.1.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 9.2 Maxillary second molar (M²) -- 9.2.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 9.2.2 Principal components of shape -- 9.2.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 9.2.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 9.3 Mandibular first molar (M¹) -- 9.3.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 9.3.2 Principal components of shape -- 9.3.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 9.3.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 9.4 Mandibular second molar (M²) -- 9.4.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 9.4.2 Principal components of shape -- 9.4.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 9.4.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 9.5 Combined molars -- 9.6 Discriminant function analysis -- 9.7 Principal coordinate analysis -- 9.8 An applied example -- 9.9 Three group classification example -- 9.10 Discussion -- 9.11 Summary -- Chapter 10: Discussion -- 10.1 Repeatability, Sexual Dimorphism, and Asymmetry -- 10.1.1 Repeatability -- 10.1.2 Sexual dimorphism -- 10.1.3 Asymmetry -- 10.2 American Asian comparison -- 10.1.3 Asymmetry -- 10.2 American Asian comparison -- 10.3 American Black comparison -- 10.4 American Hispanic comparison -- 10.5 American White comparison -- 10.6 Comparison of modern American groups -- 10.6.1 Shape -- 10.6.2 Size -- 10.6.3 Shape and size -- 10.6.4 Individual molar variability -- 10.6.5 Comparison to other research in U.S. biological affinity -- 10.7. Biological affinity in the United States -- Chapter 11: Conclusions -- 11.1 Repeatability, sexual dimorphism, and asymmetry -- 11.2 American Asian population comparison -- 11.3 American Black population comparison -- 11.4 American Hispanic population comparison -- 11.5 American White population comparison -- 11.6 Comparison of modern American groups -- 11.7. Future implications -- References -- Appendices.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.titleMolar size and shape in the estimation of biological affinity: a comparison of relative cusp locations using geometric morphometrics and interlandmark distancesen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.type.degreephden_US
dc.identifier.departmentDepartment of Anthropologyen_US
dc.contributor.chairIrish, Joel D.
dc.contributor.committeeDruckenmiller, Patrick S.
dc.contributor.committeeHoover, Kara C.
refterms.dateFOA2020-03-05T09:04:49Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Kenyhercz_uaf_0006E_10251.pdf
Size:
23.23Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record