Sex and race differences in the relative lengths of metacarpals and metatarsals in human skeletons.
BACKGROUND
Previous research has revealed that the ratios of the lengths of various pairs of human fingers differ in males and females.


METHODS
In an attempt to determine whether parallel sex differences also exist in the relative lengths of human metacarpals and metatarsals, the lengths of the metapodials for both hands and both feet were measured in a collection of human skeletons. For each hand and each foot, all of the 10 possible pairwise ratios for length of the five metapodials were calculated.


RESULTS
For the skeletons of European/Caucasian extraction (Ns=89 males, 50 females), there were substantial sex differences for several of the metacarpal-length ratios, but the pattern was not identical with the pattern previously reported for human fingers. Namely, the largest sex differences were for the three ratios involving metacarpal 5 on the left hand, while the sex difference for the ratio comparing the second and fourth metacarpals (the comparison commonly showing the largest sex difference for fingers) was small and non-significant for both hands in these European-Americans. For the skeletons of African extraction (Ns=65 males, 55 females), no sex differences were found in any of the 20 metacarpal-length ratios. This outcome was unexpected because past research had shown sex differences in finger-length ratios for people of African extraction. For metatarsals, none of the 20 ratios exhibited a substantial sex difference for either group of skeletons.


CONCLUSIONS
A discrepancy apparently exists between the length ratios based on fingers and those based on metacarpals.
McFadden
Dennis
D
Department of Psychology and Center for Perceptual Systems, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 78712-0187, USA. mcfadden@psy.utexas.edu
Bracht
Mary S
MS
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000885:Anthropology, Physical; D044383:Black People; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D050279:Metacarpal Bones / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D008682:Metatarsal Bones / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D008875:Middle Aged; D012727:Sex Characteristics; D044465:White People; D055815:Young Adult
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Jul;85(1):179-88
12872893
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1992 Mar;87(3):263-75
1562058
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1975 Nov;43(3):327-32
1211429
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2006 Jan;129(1):143-50
16224778
Am J Hum Genet. 1952 Jun;4(2):72-89
14943709
Horm Behav. 2003 Feb;43(2):347-55
12694645
Ann Hum Biol. 1974 Apr;1(2):201-9
4415442
Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Feb 7;271(1536):239-44
15058433
Arch Sex Behav. 2002 Feb;31(1):123-7
11910785
Psychol Bull. 1992 Jul;112(1):155-9
19565683
Nature. 1997 Nov 6;390(6655):29
9363887
Anat Rec. 2002 Jul 1;267(3):231-4
12115273
Horm Behav. 2002 Dec;42(4):492-500
12488115
Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Jun;34(3):341-56
15971017
Laterality. 2000 Apr;5(2):121-32
15513137
Evol Hum Behav. 2000 Sep 1;21(5):333-345
11053694
Horm Behav. 2004 Apr;45(4):285-90
15053945
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2006 Feb 26;4:10
16504142
Arch Sex Behav. 2007 Apr;36(2):223-33
17373585
Horm Behav. 2005 Jan;47(1):99-111
15579271
Nature. 2000 Mar 30;404(6777):455-6
10761903
Early Hum Dev. 2006 Jul;82(7):469-75
16473482
Med Hypotheses. 2003 Mar;60(3):340-3
12581609
Horm Behav. 2002 Dec;42(4):380-6
12488105
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1979 Feb;50(2):215-36
443358
Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2003 Apr;28(3):288-303
12573297
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2002 Mar;117(3):195-208
11842399
Arch Sex Behav. 2006 Dec;35(6):739-42
16688484
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2002 Mar;117(3):209-17
11842400