LITERATURE REVIEW – MORPHOLOGY OF THE HAND BONES

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

General introduction

Anatomy textbooks provide very little information regarding descriptions of individual bones of the human hand. The metacarpals are more readily described than the phalanges. This is because metacarpals are asymmetrical in their morphology which allows them to be easily distinguished from each other. The identification of phalanges, on the other hand, poses a problem in that they are symmetrical in their morphology which makes it almost impossible not only to distinguish them from each other, but also to side them. A further problem arises when looking at the morphology of the three phalangeal series of hand bones. Proximal and middle phalanges have similar morphological features while distal phalangeal bones differ from those of the proximal and middle rows in that they are not only relatively smaller, but the distal end has a non-articulating surface (Romanes 1991, Bass 1995, Moore & Dalley 2006).

Literature review

Before providing reviews on individual bones of the hand, it may be worthwhile mentioning the use of different anatomical terms for hand bones in textbooks. In general, anatomical terminologies have been standardised worldwide to maintain consistency in textbooks.Terms that are used to describe relationships of certain parts of the human body in the anatomical position, are usually arranged in pairs. An example of this includes the terms superior and inferior. Sometimes a combination of terms may relate to the intermediate positional arrangement of structures and these may include words such as inferomedial or superolateral. Terms such as proximal and distal indicate direction or position (Moore & Agur 2002). Terminologies of orientation in the hand, for example, may differ from one author to the next. Examples of this include the following: palmar (Williams et al. 1989, Romanes 1991) instead of volar (Scheuer & Black 2000), anterior (Moore & Dalley 2006) instead of palmar (Gray 1959, Williams et al. 1989), radial and ulnar (Hollinshead & Jenkins 1981, Williams et al. 1989) instead of lateral and medial (Moore & Dalley 1989) and superior (Gray 1959) instead of proximal (Romanes 1991).

Metacarpals

Naming of individual metacarpal bones differs slightly in the various textbooks. Generally, the five metacarpals (Figure 2.1) are commonly written down using Roman numerals, namely, metacarpal I, II, III, IV and V. Some anatomical textbooks simplify the naming system even further. For example, a textbook may refer to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth metacarpals (Williams et al. 1989). The numerous ways of naming metacarpals does not confuse the reader from knowing which bone is being described. To date, the most comprehensive description of the human hand is that of the developmental juvenile individual, where detailed descriptions of each metacarpal are given (Scheuer & Black 2000). While this detail is lacking in metacarpal descriptions of the human adult hand, numerous anatomy textbooks have attempted to describe or at least mention, certain visible landmarks on these bones.
On the other hand, descriptions on metacarpals are given in slightly greater depth than for the phalanges (Bass 1995, Romanes 1991). This is because each metacarpal has distinctly visible features, especially at the base, which allows them to be easily identified. Williams et al. (1989), in their 37th edition of Gray’s Anatomy, provides detailed descriptions of the metacarpals and phalanges. The latest issue of Gray’s Anatomy (2005), as is the case with many current anatomical texts (Moore & Dalley 2006), is more clinically based resulting in loss of detailed anatomical descriptions.

Studies on prehistoric material

Stature, in humans, has contributed to various aspects of hominid development (Pilbeam & Gould 1974, Blumenberg 1984). Regression equations established for modern populations have been used to estimate stature of fossil hominids. However, these have been shown to be unreliable, presenting with numerous problems (Musgrave & Harneja 1978, Himes & Roche 1982). Hens et al. (1998) encountered difficulties when attempting to predict stature or body length in a modern and fossil hominid sample using the same regression formulae. The inverse calibration method is used by researchers carrying out archaeological and forensic studies (Hens et al. 1998). In a sample where one assumes that equal allometries exists, it has been suggested that the classical calibration be used especially if extrapolating the study to larger or smaller animal (Hens et al. 1998).
In fossil studies, researchers are often faced with the problem of not knowing whether allometries between the reference sample and a sample of isolated or commingled bones does exist or not (Hens et al. 1998). Allometric techniques have been used to compare weight and stature in PlioPleistocene hominids and modern humans with the aim of being able to predict these parameters with a certain degree of accuracy (Aiello 1992). In such studies, the argument may arise as to which allometric technique would be the best to estimate the functional relationship between two variables under study. Studies by Trotter and Gleser (1951, 1952) were not excluded from prehistoric studies. Their regression equations for human populations have found their way into studies on Plio-pleistocene hominids (McHenry 1974).

Bones used to estimate stature

Ideally, a complete skeleton is preferred when determining stature. While this may not always be possible in many forensic cases, single intact or fragmented bones of the skeleton are used. Of all the bones available for the estimation of stature, the human femur, being the largest and most robust long bone in the skeleton, makes it the bone of choice when reconstructing stature (Trotter & Gleser 1958, Genoves 1967, Lundy 1985). Besides being the largest and most robust bone, the intact femur also has the highest correlation to stature and is thus widely used to derive regression equations (Bidmos 2008). Research has shown that the relationship of femoral length to stature is constant and population but not sex specific .

Methods used in estimating stature

The ideal stature to measure is that of a living individual. This is more useful than measuring skeletal or cadaveric stature, as it records the actual height of the living individual. Stature recorded on a drivers license (forensic stature), is one piece of information that contributes to data which can identify a living individual. However, its accuracy has been questioned (Ousley 1995). Willey and Falsetti (1991) showed that the heights recorded in a drivers license does not differ significantly from the measured heights. On the other hand, these authors suggested that the height in a driver’s license is not accurate, as it is not updated on a regular basis to account for subsequent growth changes. Giles and Hutchinson (1991) compared measured stature to self-reported stature and found that taller people often overestimate their stature. From these studies, Giles and Hutchinson concluded that forensic stature was not a precise measure. Numerous other studies have reported similar findings (Snow & Williams 1971, Musgrave & Harneja 1978, Sjøvold 2000).

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

• Page
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Abstract
• Opsomming
• Acknowledgements
• CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
  • 1.1 General introduction
  • 1.2 Aims
  • 1.3 Hypotheses
• CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW – MORPHOLOGY OF THE HAND BONES
  • 2.1 Introduction and general anatomical descriptions
  • 2.2 Literature review
    • 2.2.1 Metacarpals
    • 2.2.2 Phalanges
• CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW – STATURE DETERMINATION
  • 3.1 Introduction
  • 3.2 Literature review
    • 3.2.1 Historical background
    • 3.2.2 Studies on prehistoric material
    • 3.2.3 Bones used to estimate stature
    • 3.2.4 Methods used in estimating stature
    • 3.2.5 Effect of age on stature
    • 3.2.6 Living stature versus cadaver stature
    • 3.2.7 South African studies
• CHAPTER 4: LITERATURE REVIEW – SEX DETERMINATION
  • 4.1 Introduction
  • 4.2 Literature review
    • 4.2.1 Manifestation of sexual dimorphism in the skeleton
    • 4.2.2 Manifestation of sexual dimorphism in bones of the human hand
    • 4.2.3 Sexual dimorphism in the South African population
• CHAPTER 5: MATERIALS AND METHODS
  • 5.1 Materials
    • 5.1.1 Pretoria Bone Collection
  • 5.2 Methods
    • 5.2.1 Preparation of the dissected hand bones for identification and siding
    • 5.2.2 Problems which arose throughout the preparation of the dissected hand bones for identification and siding
    • 5.2.3 Measurements of the hand bones
    • 5.2.4 Measurements of the humerus, radius, ulna, femur and tibia
  • 5.3 Statistical analysis
    • 5.3.1 Stature determination
    • 5.3.2 Sex determination
• CHAPTER 6: RESULTS – MORPHOLOGY OF THE HAND BONES
  • 6.1 General introduction
  • 6.2 Morphology of the first metacarpal
    • 6.2.1 Introduction
    • 6.2.2 Shaft or body
    • 6.2.3 Head
    • 6.2.4 Base
    • 6.2.5 Siding
  • 6.3 Morphology of the second metacarpal
    • 6.3.1 Introduction
    • 6.3.2 Shaft or body
    • 6.3.3 Head
    • 6.3.4 Base
    • 6.3.5 Siding
  • 6.4 Morphology of the third metacarpal
    • 6.4.1 Introduction
    • 6.4.2 Shaft or body
    • 6.4.3 Head
    • 6.4.4 Base
    • 6.4.5 Siding
  • 6.5 Morphology of the fourth metacarpal
    • 6.5.1 Introduction
    • 6.5.2 Shaft or body
    • 6.5.3 Head
    • 6.5.4 Base
    • 6.5.5 Siding
  • 6.6 Morphology of the fifth metacarpal
    • 6.6.1 Introduction
    • 6.6.2 Shaft or body
    • 6.6.3 Head
    • 6.6.4 Base
    • 6.6.5 Siding
  • 6.7 Morphology of the first proximal phalanx
    • 6.7.1 Shaft or body
    • 6.7.2 Head
    • 6.7.3 Base
    • 6.7.4 Siding
  • 6.8 Morphology of the second proximal phalanx
    • 6.8.1 Shaft or Body
    • 6.8.2 Head
    • 6.8.3 Base
    • 6.8.4 Siding
  • 6.9 Morphology of the third proximal phalanx
    • 6.9.1 Shaft or body
    • 6.9.2 Head
    • 6.9.3 Base
    • 6.9.4 Siding
  • 6.10 Morphology of the fourth proximal phalanx
    • 6.10.1 Shaft or body
    • 6.10.2 Head
    • 6.10.3 Base
    • 6.10.4 Siding
  • 6.11 Morphology of the fifth proximal phalanx
    • 6.11.1 Shaft or body
    • 6.11.2 Head
    • 6.11.3 Base
    • 6.11.4 Siding
  • 6.12 Morphology of the second middle phalanx
    • 6.12.1 Shaft or body
    • 6.12.2 Head
    • 6.12.3 Base
    • 6.12.4 Siding
  • 6.13 Morphology of the third middle phalanx
    • 6.13.1 Shaft or body
    • 6.13.2 Head
    • 6.13.3 Base
    • 6.13.4 Siding
  • 6.14 Morphology of the fourth middle phalanx
    • 6.14.1 Shaft or body
    • 6.14.2 Head
    • 6.14.3 Base
    • 6.14.4 Siding
  • 6.15 Morphology of the fifth middle phalanx
    • 6.15.1 Shaft or body
    • 6.15.2 Head
    • 6.15.3 Base
    • 6.15.4 Siding
  • 6.16 Morphology of the first distal phalanx
    • 6.16.1 Shaft or body
    • 6.16.2 Head
    • 6.16.3 Base
    • 6.16.4 Siding
  • 6.17 Morphology of the second distal phalanx
    • 6.17.1 Shaft or body
    • 6.17.2 Head
    • 6.17.3 Base
    • 6.17.4 Siding
  • 6.18 Morphology of the third distal phalanx
    • 6.18.1 Shaft or body
    • 6.18.2 Head
    • 6.18.3 Base
    • 6.18.4 Siding
  • 6.19 Morphology of the fourth distal phalanx
    • 6.19.1 Shaft or body
    • 6.19.2 Head
    • 6.19.3 Base
    • 6.19.4 Siding
  • 6.20 Morphology of the fifth distal phalanx
    • 6.20.1 Shaft or body
    • 6.20.2 Head
    • 6.20.3 Base
    • 6.20.4 Siding
• CHAPTER 7: RESULTS – MEASUREMENTS
  • 7.1 Intra- and interobserver repeatability tests
• CHAPTER 8: RESULTS – DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS, PEARSON’S CORRELATION ANALYSIS AND STATURE DETERMINATION
  • 8.1 Introduction
    • 8.1.1 Descriptive statistics for hand bones of males and females
    • 8.1.2 Descriptive statistics for hand bones of South African whites and blacks
    • 8.1.3 Descriptive statistics for the humerus, radius, ulna, femur, tibia
  • 8.2 Determination of stature
    • 8.2.1 Pearsons correlation coefficient
      • 8.2.1.1 Correlation results for males
      • 8.2.1.2 Correlation results for females
  • 8.3 Regression analysis – direct and stepwise procedures
    • 8.3.1 Regression analysis in South African males
    • 8.3.1.1 Metacarpals
    • 8.3.1.2 Proximal phalanges
    • 8.3.1.3 Middle phalanges
    • 8.3.1.4 Distal phalanges
    • 8.3.2 Regression analysis in South African females
    • 8.3.2.1 Metacarpals
    • 8.3.2.2 Proximal phalanges
    • 8.3.2.3 Middle phalanges
    • 8.3.2.4 Distal phalanges
  • 8.4 Calculation of regression equations
• CHAPTER 9: RESULTS – SEX DETERMINATION
  • 9.1 Introduction
  • 9.2 Metacarpals
  • 9.3 Proximal phalanges
  • 9.4 Middle phalanges
  • 9.5 Distal phalanges
• CHAPTER 10: DISCUSSION
  • 10.1 Introduction
  • 10.2 Research sample
  • 10.2.1 Non-metric analysis
  • 10.2.2 Metric analysis
  • 10.3 Morphology of the hand bones
  • 10.4 Stature determination
  • 10.5 Sex determination
• CHAPTER 11: CONCLUSIONS
  • 11.1 Morphology of the hand bones
  • 11.2 Stature determination
  • 11.3 Sex determination
  • REFERENCES

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
SKELETAL MORPHOLOGY OF THE HUMAN HAND AS APPLIED IN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY