Long bone articular and diaphyseal structure in old world monkeys and apes. II

Estimation of body mass

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Body mass estimation equations are generated from long bone cross-sectional diaphyseal and articular surface dimensions in 176 individuals and 12 species of hominoids and cercopithecoids. A series of comparisons is carried out to determine the best body mass predictors for each of several taxonomic/locomotor groupings. Articular breadths are better predictors than articular surface areas, while cross-sectional shaft strengths are better predictors than shaft external breadths. Percent standard errors of estimate (%SEEs) and percent prediction errors for most of the better predictors range between 10-20%. Confidence intervals of equations using sex/species means are fairly representative of those calculated using individual data, except for sex/species means equations with very low %SEEs (under about 10%), where confidence intervals (CIs) based on individuals are likely to be larger. Given individual variability, or biological error, this may represent a lower limit of precision in estimating individual body masses. In general, it is much more preferable to determine at least broad locomotor affinities, and thus appropriate modern reference groups, before applying body mass estimation equations. However, some structural dimensions are less sensitive to locomotor distinctions than others; for example, proximal tibial articular M-L breadth is apparently "locomotor blind" regarding body mass estimation within the present study sample. In other cases where locomotor affiliation is uncertain, mean estimates from different reference groups can be used, while for some dimensions no estimation should be attempted. The techniques are illustrated by estimating the body masses of four fossil anthropoid specimens of Proconsul nyanzae, Proconsul heseloni, Morotopithecus bishopi, and Theropithecus oswaldi.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)16-37
Number of pages22
JournalAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology
Volume120
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2003

Fingerprint

Cercopithecidae
Hominidae
Pongidae
Joints
bones
Bone and Bones
Theropithecus
reference group
Confidence Intervals
confidence interval
confidence
Haplorhini
gender
grouping
surface area
fossils
prediction

Keywords

  • Body weight
  • Cercopithecoid
  • Hominoid
  • Posteranial
  • Skeleton

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Anthropology

Cite this

@article{ea08451a2fc64b41b4eec1584f629eef,
title = "Long bone articular and diaphyseal structure in old world monkeys and apes. II: Estimation of body mass",
abstract = "Body mass estimation equations are generated from long bone cross-sectional diaphyseal and articular surface dimensions in 176 individuals and 12 species of hominoids and cercopithecoids. A series of comparisons is carried out to determine the best body mass predictors for each of several taxonomic/locomotor groupings. Articular breadths are better predictors than articular surface areas, while cross-sectional shaft strengths are better predictors than shaft external breadths. Percent standard errors of estimate ({\%}SEEs) and percent prediction errors for most of the better predictors range between 10-20{\%}. Confidence intervals of equations using sex/species means are fairly representative of those calculated using individual data, except for sex/species means equations with very low {\%}SEEs (under about 10{\%}), where confidence intervals (CIs) based on individuals are likely to be larger. Given individual variability, or biological error, this may represent a lower limit of precision in estimating individual body masses. In general, it is much more preferable to determine at least broad locomotor affinities, and thus appropriate modern reference groups, before applying body mass estimation equations. However, some structural dimensions are less sensitive to locomotor distinctions than others; for example, proximal tibial articular M-L breadth is apparently {"}locomotor blind{"} regarding body mass estimation within the present study sample. In other cases where locomotor affiliation is uncertain, mean estimates from different reference groups can be used, while for some dimensions no estimation should be attempted. The techniques are illustrated by estimating the body masses of four fossil anthropoid specimens of Proconsul nyanzae, Proconsul heseloni, Morotopithecus bishopi, and Theropithecus oswaldi.",
keywords = "Body weight, Cercopithecoid, Hominoid, Posteranial, Skeleton",
author = "Ruff, {Christopher B}",
year = "2003",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/ajpa.10118",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "120",
pages = "16--37",
journal = "American Journal of Physical Anthropology",
issn = "0002-9483",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Long bone articular and diaphyseal structure in old world monkeys and apes. II

T2 - Estimation of body mass

AU - Ruff, Christopher B

PY - 2003/1/1

Y1 - 2003/1/1

N2 - Body mass estimation equations are generated from long bone cross-sectional diaphyseal and articular surface dimensions in 176 individuals and 12 species of hominoids and cercopithecoids. A series of comparisons is carried out to determine the best body mass predictors for each of several taxonomic/locomotor groupings. Articular breadths are better predictors than articular surface areas, while cross-sectional shaft strengths are better predictors than shaft external breadths. Percent standard errors of estimate (%SEEs) and percent prediction errors for most of the better predictors range between 10-20%. Confidence intervals of equations using sex/species means are fairly representative of those calculated using individual data, except for sex/species means equations with very low %SEEs (under about 10%), where confidence intervals (CIs) based on individuals are likely to be larger. Given individual variability, or biological error, this may represent a lower limit of precision in estimating individual body masses. In general, it is much more preferable to determine at least broad locomotor affinities, and thus appropriate modern reference groups, before applying body mass estimation equations. However, some structural dimensions are less sensitive to locomotor distinctions than others; for example, proximal tibial articular M-L breadth is apparently "locomotor blind" regarding body mass estimation within the present study sample. In other cases where locomotor affiliation is uncertain, mean estimates from different reference groups can be used, while for some dimensions no estimation should be attempted. The techniques are illustrated by estimating the body masses of four fossil anthropoid specimens of Proconsul nyanzae, Proconsul heseloni, Morotopithecus bishopi, and Theropithecus oswaldi.

AB - Body mass estimation equations are generated from long bone cross-sectional diaphyseal and articular surface dimensions in 176 individuals and 12 species of hominoids and cercopithecoids. A series of comparisons is carried out to determine the best body mass predictors for each of several taxonomic/locomotor groupings. Articular breadths are better predictors than articular surface areas, while cross-sectional shaft strengths are better predictors than shaft external breadths. Percent standard errors of estimate (%SEEs) and percent prediction errors for most of the better predictors range between 10-20%. Confidence intervals of equations using sex/species means are fairly representative of those calculated using individual data, except for sex/species means equations with very low %SEEs (under about 10%), where confidence intervals (CIs) based on individuals are likely to be larger. Given individual variability, or biological error, this may represent a lower limit of precision in estimating individual body masses. In general, it is much more preferable to determine at least broad locomotor affinities, and thus appropriate modern reference groups, before applying body mass estimation equations. However, some structural dimensions are less sensitive to locomotor distinctions than others; for example, proximal tibial articular M-L breadth is apparently "locomotor blind" regarding body mass estimation within the present study sample. In other cases where locomotor affiliation is uncertain, mean estimates from different reference groups can be used, while for some dimensions no estimation should be attempted. The techniques are illustrated by estimating the body masses of four fossil anthropoid specimens of Proconsul nyanzae, Proconsul heseloni, Morotopithecus bishopi, and Theropithecus oswaldi.

KW - Body weight

KW - Cercopithecoid

KW - Hominoid

KW - Posteranial

KW - Skeleton

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037216343&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037216343&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/ajpa.10118

DO - 10.1002/ajpa.10118

M3 - Article

VL - 120

SP - 16

EP - 37

JO - American Journal of Physical Anthropology

JF - American Journal of Physical Anthropology

SN - 0002-9483

IS - 1

ER -