Skip to main content
Log in

An evaluation of the M-statistic in human odontomorphometric distance analyses

  • Published:
International Journal of Anthropology

Abstract

The usefulness of the M-statistic in odontomorphometric distance analyses was evaluated against a battery of more traditional metrics, which included Mahalanobis' D2, Penrose's shape metric, the Manhattan distance and Delta. Odontometric data used for the analyses were derived from 202 Paraguayan Lengua Indians and 125 contemporary caucasoids. Efron's Bootstrap procedure was used to evaluate the statistical accuracy of the different metrics, when each was applied to the same populations. Additionally, metric stability in the face of reduced sample size, statistical bias resulting from over- and underestimation, and the effects of standardization, were investigated. Our results indicated that Penrose's shape metric rather that the recently introduced M-statistic was the most reliable metric evaluated. Penrose's shape remained the most reliable when sample size was artificially reduced and when raw data were used. Interestingly, Mahalanobis' generalized distance emerged as the least reliable statistics, especially when used on small sample sizes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson T.W., 1958.An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atchley W.R., 1980.M-statistics and morphometric divergence. Science 208: 1059–1060.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett M.S., 1965.Multivariate statistics. In: Theoretical and Mathematical Biology, pp. 201–224. New York: Blaisdell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyce A.J., 1969.Mapping diversity: a comparative study of some numerical methods. In (A.J. Cole, Ed.) Numerical Taxonomy, pp 1–31. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherry L.M., Case S.M. &Wilson A.C., 1978.Frog perspective on the morphological difference between humans and chimpanzees. Science 200: 209–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherry L.M., Case S.M., Kunkel J.G., Wyles J.S. &Wilson A.C., 1982.Body shape metrics and organismal evolution. Evolution 36: 914–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corruccini R.S., 1973.Size and shape in similarity coefficients based on metric characters. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 38: 743–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corruccini R.S., 1975.Multivariate analysis in biological anthropology: some considerations. Journal of Human Evolution, 4: 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaconis P. &Efron B., 1983.Computer intensive methods in statistics. Scientific American, 248: 96–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doran G.A. &Freedman L., 1974.Metrical features of the dentition and arches of populations from Goroka and Lufa, Papua New Guinea. Human Biology, 46: 583–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downie N.M. &Heath R.W., 1983.Basic Statistical Methods. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efron B., 1979.Computers and the theory of statistics: thinking the unthinkable. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Review, 21: 460–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efron B., 1982.The Jacknife, the Bootstrap and other resampling plans. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Monograph, 38.

  • Falk D. &Corruccini R.S., 1982.Efficacy of cranial versus dental measurements for separating human populations.American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 57:123–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farris J.S., 1972.Estimating phylogenetic trees from distance matrices. American Naturalist, 106: 645–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gingerich P.D. &Smith P.H., 1985.Allometric scaling in the dentition of primates and insectivores. In (W.L. Jungers, Ed.) Size and Scaling in Primate Biology, pp 257–272. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goose D.H., 1963.Dental measurement: an assessment of its value in anthropological studies. In (D.R. Brothwell, Ed.) Dental Anthropology, pp 125–148. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould S.J., 1967.Evolutionary patterns in Pelycosaurian reptiles: a factor-analytic study. Evolution, 21: 385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris E.F. &Nweeia M.T., 1980.Tooth size of Ticuna Indians, Columbia, with phenetic comparisons to other Amerindians. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 53: 81–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hotelling H., 1933.Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 25: 417–441; 498–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxley J.S., 1932.Problems of Relative Growth. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieser J.A. &Preston C.B., 1981.The dentition of the Lengua Indians of Paraguay. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 55: 485–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieser J.A., Groeneveld H.T. &Preston C.B., 1985 a.An odontometric analysis of the Lengua Indian dentition. Human Biology, 57: 611–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieser J.A., Groeneveld H.T. &Preston C.B., 1985 b.A metric analysis of the South African caucasoid dentition. Journal of the Dental Association of Africa, 40: 121–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieser J.A., Groeneveld H.T. &Preston C.B., 1985. c.Age related tooth size variation in the Lengua Indians of Paraguay. Zeitschrift fü Morphologie und Anthropologie, 75: 341–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski C.J., 1972.A commentary on the use of multivariate statistical methods in anthropometric research. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 36: 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunkel J.G., Cherry L.M., Case S.M. &Wilson A.C., 1980.M-statistics and morphometric divergence—reply to Atchley. Science, 208: 1060–1061.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahalanobis P.C., 1930.On tests and measures of group divergence. Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 26: 541–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahalanobis P.C., 1936.On the generalized distance in statistics. Proceedings of the National Institute of Science of India, 2: 49–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahalanobis P.C., Majumdar D.M. &Ras C.R., 1949.Anthropometric survey of the United Provinces, 1941: a statistical study. Sankhya, 9: 89–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosimann J.E., 1970.Size allometry: size and shape variables with characterization of the lognormal and generalized gamma distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65: 930–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxnard C.E., 1969.Mathematics, shape and function: a study in primate anatomy. American Scientist, 57: 75–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson K., 1926.The coefficient of racial likeness. Biometrika, 18: 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose L.S., 1954.Distance, size and shape. Annals of Eugenics, 18: 337–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perzigian A.J., 1984.Human odontometric variation: an evolutionary and taxonomic assessment. Anthropologie, 22: 193–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter R.H.Y., 1972.Univariate versus multivariate differences in tooth size according to sex. Journal of Dental Research, 51: 716–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter R.H.Y., Yu P.L., Dahlberg A.A., Merritt A.D. &Conneally P.M., 1968.Genetic studies of tooth size factors in Pima Indian families. American Journal of Human Genetics, 20: 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohlf F.J. &Sokal R.R., 1963.Coefficients of correlation and distance in numerical taxonomy. University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 45: 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard R.N., 1980.Multidimensional scaling: tree fitting and clustering. Science, 210: 390–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal R.R. &Sneath P.H.A., 1963.Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneath P.H.A. &Sokal R.R., 1973.Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman an sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasicek Z. &Jicin R., 1972.The problem of similarity of shape. Systematic Zoology, 21: 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Groeneveld, H.T., Kieser, J.A. An evaluation of the M-statistic in human odontomorphometric distance analyses. Int. J. Anthropol. 2, 29–36 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02442070

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02442070

Key words

Navigation