International Journal of Anthropology

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 265–272 | Cite as

Is the complexity of the human sagittal suture related to the size of the temporal muscle?

  • P. H. Kanisius
  • D. A. Luke


We have tested the hypothesis that temporal muscle size determines the degree of interdigitation of the human sagittal suture by comparing male and female skulls of Europeans and Australian aborigines. Temporal muscle length, area of the temporal aperture and estimated muscle volume were greater in males than in females of each racial group. Sexual dimorphism of the complexity of the sagittal suture was not confirmed in either race. However, the suture was less complex in aborigines than Europeans despite the volume of the temporal muscle being larger in the former group. We conclude, therefore, that although the morphology of the sagittal suture is an epigenetic character, it is not mechanically influenced by muscle size. A simple quantitation of suture form may however be useful in assigning unknown skulls to a particular race.

Key words

anthropology gender race sagittal suture temporal muscle 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Berry A.C. and Berry R.J., 1967.Epigenetic variation in the human cranium. Journal of Anatomy, 101: 361–379.Google Scholar
  2. DuBrul E.L., 1988.Oral Anatomy, 8th edition, pp. 91–92. Ishiyaku EuroAmerica Inc. St. Louis, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  3. Enlow D.H., 1990.Handbook of Facial Growth, 3rd edition, pp. 78–80. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, London Toronto.Google Scholar
  4. Gottlieb K., 1978.Artificial cranial deformation and increased complexity of the lambdoid suture. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 48: 213–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Herring S.W., 1972.Sutures: a tool in functional cranial analysis. Acta Anatomica, 83: 222–247.Google Scholar
  6. Koski K., 1968.Cranial growth centres: facts or fallacies? American Journal of Orthodontics, 54: 566–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Limborgh J. van, 1972.The role of genetic and local environmental factors in the control of postnatal craniofacial morphogenesis. Acta Morphologica Neerlando-Scandinavica, 10: 37–47.Google Scholar
  8. Markens I.S. and Oudhof H.A.J., 1980.Morphological changes in the coronal suture after replantation. Acta Anatomica, 107: 289–296.Google Scholar
  9. Moss M.L., 1957.Experimental alteration of sutural area morphology. Anatomical Record, 127: 569–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moss M.L., 1961.Extrinsic determination of sutural area morphology in the rat calvaria. Acta Anatomica, 44: 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Wagemans P.A.H.M., Van de Velde J.P. and Kuijpers-Jagtman A.M., 1988.Sutures and forces: a review. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 94: 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Washburn S.L., 1947.The relation of the temporal muscle to the form of the skull. Anatomical Record, 99: 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Institute for the Study of Man 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. H. Kanisius
    • 1
  • D. A. Luke
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Anatomy & Cell BiologyUnited Medical and Dental SchoolsLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations