Study of Prosopic (Facial) Index of Indian and Malaysian Students
For several generations physical anthropologists measured skulls in the belief that thereby they were likely to obtain results, this would enable them to trace the relationships between the races of mankind. It was believed that the form of the skull in particular remained constant in each race, and...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Lenguaje: | English |
| Publicado: |
Sociedad Chilena de Anatomía
2011
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-95022011000300060 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | For several generations physical anthropologists measured skulls in the belief that thereby they were likely to obtain results, this would enable them to trace the relationships between the races of mankind. It was believed that the form of the skull in particular remained constant in each race, and that different races typically showed different facial indices. Form of the head and face is now known to be subject to change through environmental influences. Measurement is necessary in order to obtain this kind of knowledge, and in order to be able to give as accurate a description of an individual or group of individuals as possible. The present study aimed at measuring facial index of both sex in Malaysian and Indian students. 300 students of both nations were measured for face length and face width and facial index was calculated. Malaysian males had a mean facial index of 85.72 and females had marginally higher value 87.71. Both belonged to Mesoprosopic face type and were statistically significant. Indian males had a mean facial index of 87.19 where as 86.75 in females. Both belonged to Mesoprosopic face type, and comparison of facial index was statistically not significant. Comparison between Indian and Malaysian subjects indicates that Indians (both sexes together) had a higher (87.04) mean facial index than Malaysians (86.76). However, this difference was statistically not significant. |
|---|