International Journal of Human Diversity and Evolution
Coverage: 1923-1941 (Vols. I-XIX) & 1962-2023 (Vols. 1-61)
ISSN 0323-1119 (Print)
ISSN 2570-9127 (Online)
Journal Impact Factor 0.2
News: Volume 62 Issue 2 is in progress.

SCImago Journal & Country Rank
Full text of article
'Kobyliansky E, 1982: Estimation of morphological differences within populations: a typological method. 2. Anthropologie (Brno) 20, 2: 105-131'.
Estimation of morphological differences within populations: A typological method. Part II. by E. Kobyliansky. Some 1700 individuals of diverse ethnic groups living in the USSR (Russians, Estonians, Georgians, Armenians and Azerbaydzhanians) were studied anthropometrically. 90 traits were measured and somatotyping was done according to the method of V. V. Bunak. The analyses also considered social and occupational factors. The discriminant analysis of anthropometric characteristic was made in order to elaborate an algorythmic criterion for the differentiation of the somatotype variants, allowing us to underline the following: 1. Two typologic variants, thoracic and abdominal, were noted. 2. The differentiation between thoracic and muscular, and muscular and abdominal types also occurred but there was considerable overlapping in the distributions. 3. Differences between the mean values of the discriminant functions among the groups are statistically significant at a 0.1% fiducial level, thereby illustrating possibilities of the discriminant method to make more objective the various typological methods of classification. An analysis of somatotype frequencies by occupation and ethnic group, respectively, gave the following results: 1. Observed differences between the various occupational groups concerning the somatotype frequencies were generally similar in the various ethnic groups. This fact appears to favour the view of occupational selection with regard to somatotype. 2. Substantial differences occurred in somatotype frequencies in the various ethnic groups, probably as a result of the modifying influences of climate, socioeconomic status and geographic factors on the somatotype and last but not least by differences in hereditary factors.

 Full text (PDF)

 Export citation

 Related articles