Harvati Katerina, Weaver Timothy D
Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.
Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol. 2006 Dec;288(12):1225-33. doi: 10.1002/ar.a.20395.
Cranial morphology is widely used to reconstruct evolutionary relationships, but its reliability in reflecting phylogeny and population history has been questioned. Some cranial regions, particularly the face and neurocranium, are believed to be influenced by the environment and prone to convergence. Others, such as the temporal bone, are thought to reflect more accurately phylogenetic relationships. Direct testing of these hypotheses was not possible until the advent of large genetic data sets. The few relevant studies in human populations have had intriguing but possibly conflicting results, probably partly due to methodological differences and to the small numbers of populations used. Here we use three-dimensional (3D) geometric morphometrics methods to test explicitly the ability of cranial shape, size, and relative position/orientation of cranial regions to track population history and climate. Morphological distances among 13 recent human populations were calculated from four 3D landmark data sets, respectively reflecting facial, neurocranial, and temporal bone shape; shape and relative position; overall cranial shape; and centroid sizes. These distances were compared to neutral genetic and climatic distances among the same, or closely matched, populations. Results indicate that neurocranial and temporal bone shape track neutral genetic distances, while facial shape reflects climate; centroid size shows a weak association with climatic variables; and relative position/orientation of cranial regions does not appear correlated with any of these factors. Because different cranial regions preserve population history and climate signatures differentially, caution is suggested when using cranial anatomy for phylogenetic reconstruction.
颅骨形态学被广泛用于重建进化关系,但其在反映系统发育和种群历史方面的可靠性受到了质疑。一些颅骨区域,特别是面部和脑颅,被认为受环境影响且容易趋同。其他区域,如颞骨,则被认为能更准确地反映系统发育关系。在大型遗传数据集出现之前,无法对这些假设进行直接检验。在人类群体中进行的少数相关研究得出了有趣但可能相互矛盾的结果,这可能部分归因于方法上的差异以及所使用的群体数量较少。在这里,我们使用三维(3D)几何形态测量方法来明确检验颅骨形状、大小以及颅骨区域的相对位置/方向追踪种群历史和气候的能力。分别从四个3D地标数据集计算了13个现代人类群体之间的形态距离,这些数据集分别反映面部、脑颅和颞骨形状;形状和相对位置;整体颅骨形状;以及质心大小。将这些距离与相同或密切匹配群体之间的中性遗传距离和气候距离进行了比较。结果表明,脑颅和颞骨形状追踪中性遗传距离,而面部形状反映气候;质心大小与气候变量的关联较弱;颅骨区域的相对位置/方向似乎与这些因素中的任何一个都不相关。由于不同的颅骨区域以不同方式保留了种群历史和气候特征,因此在使用颅骨解剖结构进行系统发育重建时建议谨慎行事。