Genetically determined morphological integration directs the evolution of skull shape in humans. The study is based on the analysis of 390 skulls, decorated according to local tradition, from the ossuary in Hallstatt, Austria which houses an exceptionally valuable collection for anthropological research.
The more than 700 items of skeletal remains are famous for their painted decoration, depicting flowers, leaves and crosses, with the name of the deceased printed on the forehead of most of the skulls. By cross-referencing with local registers of births, deaths and marriages, experts have been able to use the collection to reconstruct the genealogical relationships of the population from as far back as the 17th century and make informed estimates of the influence of genes on skull shape.
Fascinating stuff! Click the link to read more…
How an Irish giant and an 18th-century surgeon could help people with growth disorders
Ireland is a land of giants, but could a genetic variation be behind the myth? And could it help people with growth disorders?
In April 1782, a real, live giant appeared in London. Charles Byrne was said to be a majestic 8ft 4in (2.54 metres) in height and able to light his pipe on street lamps. Now, the macabre events that took place after his death have finally allowed modern genetics to deliver a new twist to the story of the “Irish Giant” – and could change the lives of patients today.
From double-headed cows to eight-legged pigs, the Georgians paid handsomely to gawp at all manner of wondrous creatures, and also people afflicted by rare conditions: bearded women, dwarves and giants. After death, many found their way to John Hunter, the anatomist and founder of modern surgery, who was an obsessive collector of anatomical curiosities. It is almost certain that he met Byrne – perhaps one of the tallest men ever to have lived – and decided that he had to have his skeleton.
Photograph: Márta Korbonits, Brendan Holland in front of the skeleton of Charles Byrne preserved in the Hunterian Museum, London, Linda Nylind for the Guardian
Click through to read more!
![oldowan:
anthrolover79:
oldowan:
we-are-star-stuff:
‘Adventurous’ Woman Needed as Surrogate for Neanderthal Baby
Are you an adventurous human woman? Adventurous enough to be a surrogate mother for the first Neanderthal baby to be born in 30,000 years?
Harvard geneticist George Church recently told Der Spiegel he’s close to developing the necessary technology to clone a Neanderthal, at which point all he’d need is an “adventurous human woman” — einen abenteuerlustigen weiblichen Menschen — to act as a surrogate mother.
It’s not out of the question at all. As MIT Technology Review’s Susan Young points out, scientists cloned an extinct subspecies of ibex in 2009. It died immediately, sure. But they still cloned it.
What would that entail? According to a 2008 study of a Neanderthal infant skeleton (from which the above image is taken), “the head of the Neanderthal newborn was somewhat longer than that of a human newborn because of its relatively robust face,” and Neanderthal women generally had a wider birth canal than human women. Neanderthal birth was simpler than human birth, because Neanderthal infants didn’t have to rotate to get to the birth canal, but otherwise the processes were very similar. (Even so, I imagine all but the most adventurous of human women would opt for a C-section in this case.)
Once the baby’s out, though, you’re in good shape — Neanderthal babies are thought to have grown much more quickly than their human counterparts. And Church seems to think that there’ll be a Neanderthal craze, as he told Bloomberg Businessweek last year:
“We have lots of Neanderthal parts around the lab. We are creating Neanderthal cells. Let’s say someone has a healthy, normal Neanderthal baby. Well, then, everyone will want to have a Neanderthal kid. Were they superstrong or supersmart? Who knows? But there’s one way to find out.”
[Der Spiegel via MIT Technology Review]
This already has a shed load of notes, but I cannot ignore it.
Ok I just spent an hour trying to access the original source for it and failed. We don’t know if Church really said this, and if that were to be the case in what context. Is concerning these are the type of post that gather more attention, over others with more important information. Fellow anthropologists, please let’s blog critically!
Reblogging for his/her astute commentary and time spent searching for the primary source. Dedication such as this I do not have. But I’ll always reblog anything as ridiculous as this. I learnt the hard way and sadly accept that there’s little chance of bringing science to tumblr anthro. There’s no audience for it. It will take a better blogger than I. ( ;](http://25.media.tumblr.com/5937f01df0903f277914a565ea74cc81/tumblr_mguku0AgAV1qcbrp0o1_500.jpg)
