Relethford J H
Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College, Oneonta, New York 13820.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1988 May;76(1):111-24. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330760110.
The analysis of anthropometric data often allows investigation of patterns of genetic structure in historical populations. This paper focuses on interpopulational anthropometric variation in seven populations in Ireland using data collected in the 1890s. The seven populations were located within a 120-km range along the west coast of Ireland and include islands and mainland isolates. Two of the populations (the Aran Islands and Inishbofin) have a known history of English admixture in earlier centuries. Ten anthropometric measures (head length, breadth, and height; nose length and breadth; bizygomatic and bigonial breadth; stature; hand length; and forearm length) on 259 adult Irish males were analyzed following age adjustment. Discriminant and canonical variates analysis were used to determine the degree and pattern of among-group variation. Mahalanobis' distance measure, D2, was computed between each pair of populations and compared to distance measures based on geographic distance and English admixture (a binary measure indicating whether either of a pair of populations had historical indications of admixture). In addition, surname frequencies were used to construct distance measures based on random isonymy. Correlations were computed between distance measures, and their probabilities were derived using the Mantel matrix permutation method. English admixture has the greatest effect on anthropometric variation among these populations, followed by geographic distance. The correlation between anthropometric distance and geographic distance is not significant (r = -0.081, P = .590), but the correlation of admixture and anthropometric distance is significant (r = 0.829, P = .047). When the two admixed populations are removed from the analysis the correlation between geographic and anthropometric distance becomes significant (r = 0.718, P = .025). Isonymy distance shows a significant correlation with geographic distance (r = 0.425, P = .046) but not with admixture distance (r = -0.052, P = .524). The fact that anthropometrics show past patterns of gene flow and surnames do not reflects the greater impact of stochastic processes on surnames, along with the continued extinction of surnames. This study shows that 1) anthropometrics can be extremely useful in assessing population structure and history, 2) differential gene flow into populations can have a major impact on local genetic structure, and 3) microevolutionary processes can have different effects on biological characters and surnames.
人体测量数据的分析常常有助于对历史人口的遗传结构模式进行研究。本文利用19世纪90年代收集的数据，重点关注爱尔兰七个群体之间的人体测量差异。这七个群体位于爱尔兰西海岸120公里范围内，包括岛屿和大陆隔离群体。其中两个群体（阿兰群岛和伊尼什博芬岛）在较早的几个世纪有已知的英国血统混合历史。对259名成年爱尔兰男性的十项人体测量指标（头长、头宽、头高、鼻长、鼻宽、颧宽、下颌角宽、身高、手长和前臂长）进行了年龄调整后的分析。使用判别分析和典型变量分析来确定组间差异的程度和模式。计算了每对群体之间的马氏距离测量值D2，并与基于地理距离和英国血统混合（一种二元测量，表明一对群体中的任何一个是否有历史上的血统混合迹象）的距离测量值进行比较。此外，姓氏频率被用于构建基于随机同名现象的距离测量值。计算了距离测量值之间的相关性，并使用曼特尔矩阵置换法得出其概率。在这些群体中，英国血统混合对人体测量差异的影响最大，其次是地理距离。人体测量距离与地理距离之间的相关性不显著（r = -0.081，P = 0.590），但血统混合与人体测量距离之间的相关性显著（r = 0.829，P = 0.047）。当从分析中去除两个有血统混合的群体时，地理距离与人体测量距离之间的相关性变得显著（r = 0.718，P = 0.025）。同名距离与地理距离显示出显著相关性（r = 0.425，P = 0.046），但与血统混合距离没有相关性（r = -0.052，P = 0.524）。人体测量学显示出过去的基因流动模式而姓氏却没有，这一事实反映了随机过程对姓氏的更大影响，以及姓氏的持续消亡。这项研究表明：1）人体测量学在评估群体结构和历史方面可能极其有用；2）不同的基因流入群体可能对当地遗传结构产生重大影响；3）微观进化过程对生物特征和姓氏可能有不同的影响。
