International Journal of Anthropology

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 133–146 | Cite as

Iconometrographics in evolutionary biology

  • W. D. Ross
Article
Received:
Accepted:
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

The essential dialogue between Apollinian and Dionysiac poles required for the advance of music and art was likened to the scientific debate between «justifiers» and «innovators». The use of ratios and simple algorithms was indicted as being retrogressive in terms of modern microcomputer technology and iconometrographic models. Three examples were used to illustrate the approach in the resolution of complex data sets comparing samples: (1) 45,XO with a 46,XY controls, (2) sexual dimorphism in young adults and (3) Black and White Olympic athletes. The iconometrographic approach was proposed as a primary orientation in human biology, particularly in secular trend studies concerned with the recognition and assessment of complex evolutionary trends.

Key words

Anthropometry BMI iconometrographics innovation justification ethnicity genetic syndromology microcomputer Phantom proportionality 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Brozek J., F. Grande J.T. Anderson & A. keys, 1960.Densitometric analysis of body composition: revisions of some quantitative assumptions. N.Y Acad. Sci., 110: 113–140.Google Scholar
  2. Boyd, E, 1980.Origins of the Study of Human Growth. B.S. Savara and J.F. Schlike (eds.) Portland: University of Oregon Health Sciences Center Foundation.Google Scholar
  3. Bray, G.A., 1978.Definitions, measurements and classification of syndromes of obesity. Int. J. Obes. 2: 99–112.Google Scholar
  4. Carter, J.E.L., 1976Proportionality characteristics of black and white Olympic runners and jumpers. A paper presented at the Am. Coll. Spt. Med. meeting. Anaheim, 6 May.Google Scholar
  5. Carter, J.E.L., W.D., Ross. S.P. Aubry, M. Hebbelinck, J. Borms.Anthropometry of Olympic athletes. In: J.E.L.Google Scholar
  6. Carter (Ed.), 1982.Physical Structure of Athletes Pt. 1, The Montreal Olympic Games Anthropological Project. Basel: Karger, 16: 25–42.Google Scholar
  7. Conant, J.B., 1947.On understanding Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Eiben, O.G., G. Sandor, J. Laszlo, 1977.The physique of patients suffering from Turner's syndrome. Growth and Development Physique Symp. Biol. Hung. 20: 479–486.Google Scholar
  9. Keys, A., F. Fidanza, M.J. Karvonen, M. Mimura, H.L. Taylor, 1972.Indices of relative weight and obesity. J. Chron. Dis. 25: 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Health and Welfare Canada, 1988a.Canadian Guidelines for Healthy Weights. cat. No. H39-134/1988E. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.Google Scholar
  11. Health and Welfare, Canada.Promoting Healthy Weights: A Discussion Paper. Cat. No. H39-131/1988E. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1988b.Google Scholar
  12. Kowalski, C.J., 1972.A commentary on the use of multivariate statistics in anthropological research. Am. J. phys. Anthrop. 36: 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Metropolitan Height and Weight Tables, 1983. Statistical Bulletin, 64: 2–9.Google Scholar
  14. Packhard, G.C. and T.J. Bordman, 1987.The misuse of ratios to scale physiological data that vary allometrically with body size. In: M.E. Feder, A.F. Bennett, W.W. Buggren (eds.) New Directions in Ecological Physiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, pp. 216–239.Google Scholar
  15. Packhard, G.C. & T.J. Bordman, 1988.The misuse of ratios, indices and percentages in ecophysiological research. Physiol. Zool. 61: 1–9.Google Scholar
  16. Quetelet, A., 1832.Recherche sur le Poids de l'Homme aux Differents Ages, Bruxelles:L'Academie Royale, pp. 36–38.Google Scholar
  17. Ross W.D. & Wilson N.C.,A stratagem for proportional growth assement. In: J. Borms and M. Hebbelinck (eds.) Children in Exercise. ACTA Paed. Bel. 28: 169–182, 1974.Google Scholar
  18. Ross W.D. 1978.Kinanthropometry: an emerging scientific technology. In: F. Landry and W.A.R. Orban (eds.). Biomechanics of Sport and Kinanthropometry. Miami: Symposia Specialists, 6: 269–282.Google Scholar
  19. Ross W.D.Sexual dimorphism and human proportionality, 1982. In: R. Hall (ed.) Sexual Dimorphism in Homo Sapiens. New York: Praeger, pp. 317–361.Google Scholar
  20. Ross W.D., Ward R., Sigmon B.A. & Leahy R.M., 1983. Anthropometric concomitants of X-Chromosome aneuploidy, In: A.V. Sandberg (ed.) The Cytogenetics of the Mammalian X-Chromosome. New York: Alan R. Liss, pp. 127–157.Google Scholar
  21. Ross W.D. & Ward R., 1984. Proportionality of Olympic athletes. In: J.E.L. Carter (ed) Physical Structure of Olympic Athletes. Pt.II Kinanthropometry of Olympic Athletes. Basel: Karger, 18: 110–143.Google Scholar
  22. Ross W.D., 1985. Phantom stratagem for proportional growth assessment: questions and answers. In: O.G. Eiben (ed.) Hum. Biol. Bud. 16: 153–157.Google Scholar
  23. Ross W.D., Crawford S.M., Kerr D.A., Ward R., Bailey D.A. & Mirwald R.L., 1988. Relationship of the body mass index with skinfolds, girths and bone breadths in Canadian men and women age 20–70 years, Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 77, 169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Seltzer C.C., 1966. Some re-evalutation of the Build and Blood Pressure Study, 1959 as related to the ponderal index and mortality. New Eng. J. Med., 274–259.Google Scholar
  25. Stratz C.H., 1909. Der Korper des Kindes und Seiner Pflege. Stuttgart. Von Ferdinand Enke.Google Scholar
  26. Tanner J.M., 1947. Fallacy of per-weight and per-surface area standards and their relation to spurious correlation. J. Appl. Physiol. 2, 1–15.Google Scholar
  27. Trefil J., 1989. Phenomena comments and notes. Smithonian, 30: 34–36.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Institute for the Study of Man 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. D. Ross
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Kinesiology Faculty of Applied SciencesSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations