Figure 7 shows the stages of facial reconstruction

It appears teeth 13, 15, 16, 24, 27, 31, 36, 42, and 46 were removed at a little while before death as they have had time to heal over.

These forensic age estimation methods conclude that this individual could be anywhere between 25 and 48.1 years old. Nonetheless, after combining all results and analysing their accuracy and validity, it’s likely that this individual is between 32 and 43 years old.

Facial reconstruction

During facial reconstruction, 16 osteometric points were measured and attached to the skull, then, facial muscles, features, fat and skin were created from wax to produce a potential antemortem model of this individual- see figure 7. After completion, it was clear that this individual was a male with a very prominent jaw and forehead which links to previous conclusions.

C

B

A

Figure 7 shows the stages of facial reconstruction. A) shows the skull with osteometric points in place, B) shows the addition of some facial muscles, eyeball and nose, and C) shows the final, completed facial reconstruction.

Despite this, as this is an artistic interpretation completed by a group of untrained individuals without any soft tissue or portrait to get results alongside, this method is very subjective and so not very reliable at recreating an individual’s morphological traits for identification. Therefore, this could be improved using computerised 3D facial reconstruction.

DNA profiling

Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP), a highly reproducible DNA profiling technique, was carried out to spot the common D1S80 variable nucleotide tandem repeat within this individual’s DNA sample and compared to those of 7 missing people. Nonetheless, absence of any bands in this individual’s DNA sample, shown in figure 10, prevents matching to known genotypes. This could be due to poor primer specificity or synthesis or inadequate, faulty DNA in the sample (McPherson, Quirke & Taylor, 1992).

Figure 10 shows the results from 2% agarose gel electrophoresis of the PCR products. Lane 1 and 12 – 100bp ladder; 2- water control; 3- DNA sample A; 4- DNA sample B; 5- DNA sample C; 6- this individuals DNA sample; 7- DNA sample D; 8- DNA sample E; 9- DNA sample F;   10- DNA sample G; 11- water.

Therefore, to find a match, AFLP should be repeated ensuring there was adequate, unfragmented DNA along with an appropriate, high specificity primer. Primer dimers at the bottom of lane 9 suggests the primer concentration was too high, therefore, to avoid allelic dropout which might assume homozygosity, lower concentrations should be used when repeating.

AFLP requires high quality and amount of DNA to prevent allelic dropout, nonetheless, it’s likely that this can not be achieved using this DNA sample. Therefore, DNA-17 may provide better results because it requires less DNA due to improved sensitivity and discrimination between profiles (Crown Prosecution Service, 2019).

Conclusion

After analysing all results, it’s possible to estimate this was a European male aged between 32 and 43 who was 174cm tall, living with acromegaly. The likely cause of death is co-morbidity associated with acromegaly progression. Unfortunately, these conclusions can not be confirmed through DNA fingerprinting which reduces validation and reliability, therefore, further analysis to confirm this individual’s identity could include more reliable methods involving molecular biology and bone chemistry.

References

  • Albanese, J., (2003).  A Metric Method for Sex Determination Using the Hipbone and the Femur. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 48(2), 2001378. Available from: doi:10.1520/jfs2001378.
  • Bass, W., (1978). Human osteology. Columbia, Mo., Missouri Archaeological Society, 196-208.
  • Black, T., (1978). Sexual dimorphism in the tooth-crown diameters of the deciduous teeth. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 48(1), 77-82. Available from: doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330480111.
  • Brooks, S. and Suchey, J., (1990). Skeletal age determination based on the os pubis: A comparison of the Acsádi-Nemeskéri and Suchey-Brooks methods. Human Evolution. 5(3), 227-238. Available from: doi:10.1007/bf02437238.
  • Carr, L., (1962). Eruption ages of permanent teeth. Australian Dental Journal. 7(5), 367-373. Available from: doi:10.1111/j.1834-7819.1962.tb04884.x.
  • Chapman, I., (2017). Gigantism and Acromegaly – Hormonal and Metabolic Disorders – MSD Manual Consumer Version. [Online]. 2017. MSD Manual Consumer Version. Available from: https://www.msdmanuals.com/en-gb/home/hormonal-and-metabolic-disorders/pituitary-gland-disorders/gigantism-and-acromegaly [Accessed: 27 April 2019].
  • Church, MS., (1995). Determination of Race from the Skeleton through Forensic Anthropological Methods. Forensic Science Review. 7(1), 1-39
  • Crown Prosecution Service., (2019). DNA-17 Profiling. [Online]. 2019. Crown Prosecution Service. Available from: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/dna-17-profiling [Accessed: 5 May 2019].
  • Ferembach, D., (1980). Tips for age and sex diagnoses of skeletons. Journal of Human Evolution. 9(7), 517-549. Available from: doi:10.1016/0047-2484(80)90061-5.
  • Giles, E. and Elliot, O., (1963). Sex determination by discriminant function analysis of crania. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 21(1), 53-68. Available from: doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330210108
  • Giles, E., (1970). Discriminant function sexing of the human being skeleton. Personal Identification in Mass Disasters. In Stewart TD (ed.)99-107.
  • Krogman, W., (1962). The human being skeleton in forensic medicine. American Journal of Orthodontics. 49(6), 474. Available from: doi:10.1016/0002-9416(63)90175-1.
  • McPherson, M., Quirke, P. & Taylor, G., (1992). PCR: a practical approach. Oxford, IRL.
  • Meindl, R. and Lovejoy, C., (1985). Ectocranial suture closure: A revised method for the determination of skeletal age at death based on the lateral-anterior sutures. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 68(1), 57-66. Available from: doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330680106.
  • Miles, A., (1963). Dentition in the Estimation of Age. Journal of Dental Research. 42(1), 255-263. Available from: doi:10.1177/00220345630420012701
  • Molleson, T and Cox, M., (1993). The Spitalfields Project, Vol. 2: The Anthropology. The Middling Sort, Research Report 86. Council for British Archaeology: York.
  • NIDDK., (2012). Acromegaly | NIDDK. [online] National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Available at: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/endocrine-diseases/acromegaly [Viewed 21 April 2019].
  • Phenice, T., (1969). A newly developed visual method of sexing the os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 30(2), 297-301. Available from: doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330300214.
  • Rissech, C., Estabrook, G., Cunha, E. and Malgosa, A., (2006). Using the Acetabulum to Estimate Age at Death of Adult Males*. Journal of Forensic Sciences.  51(2), 213-229. Available from: doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00060.x
  • Scheuer, L. & Black, S., (2004). The juvenile skeleton. London, Elsevier Academic Press.
  • Sutherland, L. and Suchey, J., (1991) Use of the Ventral Arc in Pubic Sex Determination. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 36(2), 13051J. Available from: doi:10.1520/jfs13051j.
  • Todd, T., (1921). Age changes in the pubic bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 4(1), 1-70. Available from: doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330040102
  • Trotter, M., (1970). Estimation of stature from intact long limb bones, in Stewart, T.D. (ed.), Personal Identification in Mass Disasters: National Museum of Natural History, Washington, 71-83.

ib extended essay viva voce questions biology

Appendices

Appendix A

Feature

Measurement (mm)

Cranial length

187.22

Cranial breadth

111.47

Basion-bregma height

138.67

Bizygomatic breadth

131.39

Basion prosthion length

121.63

Nasion-prosthion line

68.21

Maxillo-alveolar breadth

67.25

Height of the processus mastoideus

36.67

These measurements were then inputted into the formula below to determine sex from the skull.

Discriminant function formula (Giles & Elliot, 1963):

(Cranial length*3.107) + (Cranial breadth*-4.643) + (Basion-bregma height*5.786) + (bizygomatic breadth*14.821) + (Basion prosthion length*1.000) + (Nasion-prosthion line*2.714) + (Maxillo-alveolar breadth*-5.179) + (Height of this processus mastoideus*6.071)

If result is larger than 2676.39, the person is male, if smaller than 2676.39, the person is female.

Appendix B

Feature

Measurement (mm)

Hipbone height (A)

212

Iliac breadth (B)

161

Pubis length (C)

71.675

Ischium length (D)

88.41

Femur head diameter (E)

45.45

Epicondylar breadth of femur (F)

75.26

There measurements where then inputted into the formula below Albanese’s (2003) to determine sex from the pelvis and femur.

Probability M/F=1(1+e–Z)

Model 1, Z = -61.5345 + (0.595*A) – (0.5192*B) – (1.1104*D) + (1.1696*E) + (0.5893*F)

Model 2, Z = -40.5313 + (0.2572*A) – (0.9852*C) + (0.7303*E) + (0.3177*F)

Model 3, Z = -30.359 + (0.4323*A) – (0.2217*B) – (0.7404*C) + (0.3412*D)

If P is greater than 0.5, the person is male, if P is not as much as 0.5, the person is female.

Appendix C

List of corresponding states and ages for each of the 7 acetabulum variables Rissech’s (2006)

  1. Acetabular groove
    • State 1 – predicted age: 41.6
  2. Acetabular rim shape
    • State 3 – predicted age: 45.9
  3. Acetabular rim porosity
    • State 2 – predicted age: 39
  4. Apex activity
    • State 1 – predicted age: 38.2
  5. Activity on the outer edge of the acetabular fossa
    • State 2 – predicted age: 32.3
  6. Activity of the acetabular fossa
    • State 3 – predicted age: 48.1
  7. Porosities of the acetabular fossa Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp  

nonetheless, cranial suture closure is considered unreliable and inaccurate because it frequently under‐ages older adults and over‐ages sub-adults (Molleson and Cox 1993). Moreover, this individual’s acromegaly caused excessive outgrowth of bone around the sutures, potentially affecting their closure and, thus, impacting age determination. As a result, a more reliable method of ageing the skull involves considering dentition.

Teeth are the least destructible part of the body, making them excellent for age estimation. No deciduous dentition and evidence of tooth 8 alveolar processes indicate this individual was at least 18 years old (Carr, 1962). Dental wear analysis provides more accurate age determination than those previously mentioned because it examines enamel which can not be remodelled. a widely used method involves analysing of mandibular molar wear (Miles 1963), however, as shown in figure 5 and 6, excessive ante- and postmortem tooth loss means only two mandibular molars are present, preventing any valid age estimation.

 

Figure 5, photographs showing mandibular (A) and maxillary (B) dentition. 1) identifies the sites of postmortem tooth loss, 2) shows antemortem tooth loss, 3) indicates alveolar processes of molar 3 and 4) indicates areas of decay.

Figure 6, using the University of Sheffield dental chart, shows which teeth are present, which have been extracted and any fractures seen. It appears teeth 13, 15, 16, 24, 27, 31, 36, 42, and 46 were removed at a little while before death as they have had time to heal over.

These forensic age estimation methods conclude that this individual could be anywhere between 25 and 48.1 years old. Nonetheless, after combining all results and analysing their accuracy and validity, it’s likely that this individual is between 32 and 43 years old.

Facial reconstruction

During facial reconstruction, 16 osteometric points were measured and attached to the skull, then, facial muscles, features, fat and skin were created from wax to produce a potential antemortem model of this individual- see figure 7. After completion, it was clear that this individual was a male with a very prominent jaw and forehead which links to previous conclusions.

C

B

A

Figure 7 shows the stages of facial reconstruction. A) shows the skull with osteometric points in place, B) shows the addition of some facial muscles, eyeball and nose, and C) shows the final, completed facial reconstruction.

Despite this, as this is an artistic interpretation completed by a group of untrained individuals without any soft tissue or portrait to get results alongside, this method is very subjective and so not very reliable at recreating an individual’s morphological traits for identification. Therefore, this could be improved using computerised 3D facial reconstruction.

DNA profiling

Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP), a highly reproducible DNA profiling technique, was carried out to spot the common D1S80 variable nucleotide tandem repeat within this individual’s DNA sample and compared to those of 7 missing people. Nonetheless, absence of any bands in this individual’s DNA sample, shown in figure 10, prevents matching to known genotypes. This could be due to poor primer specificity or synthesis or inadequate, faulty DNA in the sample (McPherson, Quirke & Taylor, 1992).

Figure 10 shows the results from 2% agarose gel electrophoresis of the PCR products. Lane 1 and 12 – 100bp ladder; 2- water control; 3- DNA sample A; 4- DNA sample B; 5- DNA sample C; 6- this individuals DNA sample; 7- DNA sample D; 8- DNA sample E; 9- DNA sample F;   10- DNA sample G; 11- water.

Therefore, to find a match, AFLP should be repeated ensuring there was adequate, unfragmented DNA along with an appropriate, high specificity primer. Primer dimers at the bottom of lane 9 suggests the primer concentration was too high, therefore, to avoid allelic dropout which might assume homozygosity, lower concentrations should be used when repeating.

AFLP requires high quality and amount of DNA to prevent allelic dropout, nonetheless, it’s likely that this can not be achieved using this DNA sample. Therefore, DNA-17 may provide better results because it requires less DNA due to improved sensitivity and discrimination between profiles (Crown Prosecution Service, 2019).

Conclusion

After analysing all results, it’s possible to estimate this was a European male aged between 32 and 43 who was 174cm tall, living with acromegaly. The likely cause of death is co-morbidity associated with acromegaly progression. Unfortunately, these conclusions can not be confirmed through DNA fingerprinting which reduces validation and reliability, therefore, further analysis to confirm this individual’s identity could include more reliable methods involving molecular biology and bone chemistry.

References

  • Albanese, J., (2003).  A Metric Method for Sex Determination Using the Hipbone and the Femur. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 48(2), 2001378. Available from: doi:10.1520/jfs2001378.
  • Bass, W., (1978). Human osteology. Columbia, Mo., Missouri Archaeological Society, 196-208.
  • Black, T., (1978). Sexual dimorphism in the tooth-crown diameters of the deciduous teeth. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 48(1), 77-82. Available from: doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330480111.
  • Brooks, S. and Suchey, J., (1990). Skeletal age determination based on the os pubis: A comparison of the Acsádi-Nemeskéri and Suchey-Brooks methods. Human Evolution. 5(3), 227-238. Available from: doi:10.1007/bf02437238.
  • Carr, L., (1962). Eruption ages of permanent teeth. Australian Dental Journal. 7(5), 367-373. Available from: doi:10.1111/j.1834-7819.1962.tb04884.x.
  • Chapman, I., (2017). Gigantism and Acromegaly – Hormonal and Metabolic Disorders – MSD Manual Consumer Version. [Online]. 2017. MSD Manual Consumer Version. Available from: https://www.msdmanuals.com/en-gb/home/hormonal-and-metabolic-disorders/pituitary-gland-disorders/gigantism-and-acromegaly [Accessed: 27 April 2019].
  • Church, MS., (1995). Determination of Race from the Skeleton through Forensic Anthropological Methods. Forensic Science Review. 7(1), 1-39
  • Crown Prosecution Service., (2019). DNA-17 Profiling. [Online]. 2019. Crown Prosecution Service. Available from: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/dna-17-profiling [Accessed: 5 May 2019].
  • Ferembach, D., (1980). Tips for age and sex diagnoses of skeletons. Journal of Human Evolution. 9(7), 517-549. Available from: doi:10.1016/0047-2484(80)90061-5.
  • Giles, E. and Elliot, O., (1963). Sex determination by discriminant function analysis of crania. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 21(1), 53-68. Available from: doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330210108
  • Giles, E., (1970). Discriminant function sexing of the human being skeleton. Personal Identification in Mass Disasters. In Stewart TD (ed.)99-107.
  • Krogman, W., (1962). The human being skeleton in forensic medicine. American Journal of Orthodontics. 49(6), 474. Available from: doi:10.1016/0002-9416(63)90175-1.
  • McPherson, M., Quirke, P. & Taylor, G., (1992). PCR: a practical approach. Oxford, IRL.
  • Meindl, R. and Lovejoy, C., (1985). Ectocranial suture closure: A revised method for the determination of skeletal age at death based on the lateral-anterior sutures. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 68(1), 57-66. Available from: doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330680106.
  • Miles, A., (1963). Dentition in the Estimation of Age. Journal of Dental Research. 42(1), 255-263. Available from: doi:10.1177/00220345630420012701
  • Molleson, T and Cox, M., (1993). The Spitalfields Project, Vol. 2: The Anthropology. The Middling Sort, Research Report 86. Council for British Archaeology: York.
  • NIDDK., (2012). Acromegaly | NIDDK. [online] National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Available at: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/endocrine-diseases/acromegaly [Viewed 21 April 2019].
  • Phenice, T., (1969). A newly developed visual method of sexing the os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 30(2), 297-301. Available from: doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330300214.
  • Rissech, C., Estabrook, G., Cunha, E. and Malgosa, A., (2006). Using the Acetabulum to Estimate Age at Death of Adult Males*. Journal of Forensic Sciences.  51(2), 213-229. Available from: doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00060.x
  • Scheuer, L. & Black, S., (2004). The juvenile skeleton. London, Elsevier Academic Press.
  • Sutherland, L. and Suchey, J., (1991) Use of the Ventral Arc in Pubic Sex Determination. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 36(2), 13051J. Available from: doi:10.1520/jfs13051j.
  • Todd, T., (1921). Age changes in the pubic bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 4(1), 1-70. Available from: doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330040102
  • Trotter, M., (1970). Estimation of stature from intact long limb bones, in Stewart, T.D. (ed.), Personal Identification in Mass Disasters: National Museum of Natural History, Washington, 71-83.

Appendices

Appendix A

Feature

Measurement (mm)

Cranial length

187.22

Cranial breadth

111.47

Basion-bregma height

138.67

Bizygomatic breadth

131.39

Basion prosthion length

121.63

Nasion-prosthion line

68.21

Maxillo-alveolar breadth

67.25

Height of the processus mastoideus

36.67

These measurements were then inputted into the formula below to determine sex from the skull.

Discriminant function formula (Giles & Elliot, 1963):

(Cranial length*3.107) + (Cranial breadth*-4.643) + (Basion-bregma height*5.786) + (bizygomatic breadth*14.821) + (Basion prosthion length*1.000) + (Nasion-prosthion line*2.714) + (Maxillo-alveolar breadth*-5.179) + (Height of this processus mastoideus*6.071)

If result is larger than 2676.39, the person is male, if smaller than 2676.39, the person is female.

Appendix B

Feature

Measurement (mm)

Hipbone height (A)

212

Iliac breadth (B)

161

Pubis length (C)

71.675

Ischium length (D)

88.41

Femur head diameter (E)

45.45

Epicondylar breadth of femur (F)

75.26

There measurements where then inputted into the formula below Albanese’s (2003) to determine sex from the pelvis and femur.

Probability M/F=1(1+e–Z)

Model 1, Z = -61.5345 + (0.595*A) – (0.5192*B) – (1.1104*D) + (1.1696*E) + (0.5893*F)

Model 2, Z = -40.5313 + (0.2572*A) – (0.9852*C) + (0.7303*E) + (0.3177*F)

Model 3, Z = -30.359 + (0.4323*A) – (0.2217*B) – (0.7404*C) + (0.3412*D)

If P is greater than 0.5, the person is male, if P is not as much as 0.5, the person is female.

Appendix C

List of corresponding states and ages for each of the 7 acetabulum variables Rissech’s (2006)

  1. Acetabular groove
    • State 1 – predicted age: 41.6
  2. Acetabular rim shape
    • State 3 – predicted age: 45.9
  3. Acetabular rim porosity
    • State 2 – predicted age: 39
  4. Apex activity
    • State 1 – predicted age: 38.2
  5. Activity on the outer edge of the acetabular fossa
    • State 2 – predicted age: 32.3
  6. Activity of the acetabular fossa
    • State 3 – predicted age: 48.1
  7. Porosities of the acetabular fossa Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp  

Teeth are the least destructible part of the body, making them excellent for age estimation. No deciduous dentition and evidence of tooth 8 alveolar processes indicate this individual was at least 18 years old (Carr, 1962). Dental wear analysis provides more accurate age determination than those previously mentioned because it examines enamel which can not be remodelled. a widely used method involves analysing of mandibular molar wear (Miles 1963), however, as shown in figure 5 and 6, excessive ante- and postmortem tooth loss means only two mandibular molars are present, preventing any valid age estimation.

 

Figure 5, photographs showing mandibular (A) and maxillary (B) dentition. 1) identifies the sites of postmortem tooth loss, 2) shows antemortem tooth loss, 3) indicates alveolar processes of molar 3 and 4) indicates areas of decay.

Figure 6, using the University of Sheffield dental chart, shows which teeth are present, which have been extracted and any fractures seen. It appears teeth 13, 15, 16, 24, 27, 31, 36, 42, and 46 were removed at a little while before death as they have had time to heal over.

These forensic age estimation methods conclude that this individual could be anywhere between 25 and 48.1 years old. Nonetheless, after combining all results and analysing their accuracy and validity, it’s likely that this individual is between 32 and 43 years old.

Facial reconstruction

During facial reconstruction, 16 osteometric points were measured and attached to the skull, then, facial muscles, features, fat and skin were created from wax to produce a potential antemortem model of this individual- see figure 7. After completion, it was clear that this individual was a male with a very prominent jaw and forehead which links to previous conclusions.

C

B

A

Figure 7 shows the stages of facial reconstruction. A) shows the skull with osteometric points in place, B) shows the addition of some facial muscles, eyeball and nose, and C) shows the final, completed facial reconstruction.

Despite this, as this is an artistic interpretation completed by a group of untrained individuals without any soft tissue or portrait to get results alongside, this method is very subjective and so not very reliable at recreating an individual’s morphological traits for identification. Therefore, this could be improved using computerised 3D facial reconstruction.

DNA profiling

Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP), a highly reproducible DNA profiling technique, was carried out to spot the common D1S80 variable nucleotide tandem repeat within this individual’s DNA sample and compared to those of 7 missing people. Nonetheless, absence of any bands in this individual’s DNA sample, shown in figure 10, prevents matching to known genotypes. This could be due to poor primer specificity or synthesis or inadequate, faulty DNA in the sample (McPherson, Quirke & Taylor, 1992).

Figure 10 shows the results from 2% agarose gel electrophoresis of the PCR products. Lane 1 and 12 – 100bp ladder; 2- water control; 3- DNA sample A; 4- DNA sample B; 5- DNA sample C; 6- this individuals DNA sample; 7- DNA sample D; 8- DNA sample E; 9- DNA sample F;   10- DNA sample G; 11- water.

Therefore, to find a match, AFLP should be repeated ensuring there was adequate, unfragmented DNA along with an appropriate, high specificity primer. Primer dimers at the bottom of lane 9 suggests the primer concentration was too high, therefore, to avoid allelic dropout which might assume homozygosity, lower concentrations should be used when repeating.

AFLP requires high quality and amount of DNA to prevent allelic dropout, nonetheless, it’s likely that this can not be achieved using this DNA sample. Therefore, DNA-17 may provide better results because it requires less DNA due to improved sensitivity and discrimination between profiles (Crown Prosecution Service, 2019).

Conclusion

After analysing all results, it’s possible to estimate this was a European male aged between 32 and 43 who was 174cm tall, living with acromegaly. The likely cause of death is co-morbidity associated with acromegaly progression. Unfortunately, these conclusions can not be confirmed through DNA fingerprinting which reduces validation and reliability, therefore, further analysis to confirm this individual’s identity could include more reliable methods involving molecular biology and bone chemistry.

References

  • Albanese, J., (2003).  A Metric Method for Sex Determination Using the Hipbone and the Femur. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 48(2), 2001378. Available from: doi:10.1520/jfs2001378.
  • Bass, W., (1978). Human osteology. Columbia, Mo., Missouri Archaeological Society, 196-208.
  • Black, T., (1978). Sexual dimorphism in the tooth-crown diameters of the deciduous teeth. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 48(1), 77-82. Available from: doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330480111.
  • Brooks, S. and Suchey, J., (1990). Skeletal age determination based on the os pubis: A comparison of the Acsádi-Nemeskéri and Suchey-Brooks methods. Human Evolution. 5(3), 227-238. Available from: doi:10.1007/bf02437238.
  • Carr, L., (1962). Eruption ages of permanent teeth. Australian Dental Journal. 7(5), 367-373. Available from: doi:10.1111/j.1834-7819.1962.tb04884.x.
  • Chapman, I., (2017). Gigantism and Acromegaly – Hormonal and Metabolic Disorders – MSD Manual Consumer Version. [Online]. 2017. MSD Manual Consumer Version. Available from: https://www.msdmanuals.com/en-gb/home/hormonal-and-metabolic-disorders/pituitary-gland-disorders/gigantism-and-acromegaly [Accessed: 27 April 2019].
  • Church, MS., (1995). Determination of Race from the Skeleton through Forensic Anthropological Methods. Forensic Science Review. 7(1), 1-39
  • Crown Prosecution Service., (2019). DNA-17 Profiling. [Online]. 2019. Crown Prosecution Service. Available from: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/dna-17-profiling [Accessed: 5 May 2019].
  • Ferembach, D., (1980). Tips for age and sex diagnoses of skeletons. Journal of Human Evolution. 9(7), 517-549. Available from: doi:10.1016/0047-2484(80)90061-5.
  • Giles, E. and Elliot, O., (1963). Sex determination by discriminant function analysis of crania. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 21(1), 53-68. Available from: doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330210108
  • Giles, E., (1970). Discriminant function sexing of the human being skeleton. Personal Identification in Mass Disasters. In Stewart TD (ed.)99-107.
  • Krogman, W., (1962). The human being skeleton in forensic medicine. American Journal of Orthodontics. 49(6), 474. Available from: doi:10.1016/0002-9416(63)90175-1.
  • McPherson, M., Quirke, P. & Taylor, G., (1992). PCR: a practical approach. Oxford, IRL.
  • Meindl, R. and Lovejoy, C., (1985). Ectocranial suture closure: A revised method for the determination of skeletal age at death based on the lateral-anterior sutures. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 68(1), 57-66. Available from: doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330680106.
  • Miles, A., (1963). Dentition in the Estimation of Age. Journal of Dental Research. 42(1), 255-263. Available from: doi:10.1177/00220345630420012701
  • Molleson, T and Cox, M., (1993). The Spitalfields Project, Vol. 2: The Anthropology. The Middling Sort, Research Report 86. Council for British Archaeology: York.
  • NIDDK., (2012). Acromegaly | NIDDK. [online] National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Available at: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/endocrine-diseases/acromegaly [Viewed 21 April 2019].
  • Phenice, T., (1969). A newly developed visual method of sexing the os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 30(2), 297-301. Available from: doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330300214.
  • Rissech, C., Estabrook, G., Cunha, E. and Malgosa, A., (2006). Using the Acetabulum to Estimate Age at Death of Adult Males*. Journal of Forensic Sciences.  51(2), 213-229. Available from: doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00060.x
  • Scheuer, L. & Black, S., (2004). The juvenile skeleton. London, Elsevier Academic Press.
  • Sutherland, L. and Suchey, J., (1991) Use of the Ventral Arc in Pubic Sex Determination. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 36(2), 13051J. Available from: doi:10.1520/jfs13051j.
  • Todd, T., (1921). Age changes in the pubic bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 4(1), 1-70. Available from: doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330040102
  • Trotter, M., (1970). Estimation of stature from intact long limb bones, in Stewart, T.D. (ed.), Personal Identification in Mass Disasters: National Museum of Natural History, Washington, 71-83.

Appendices

Appendix A

Feature

Measurement (mm)

Cranial length

187.22

Cranial breadth

111.47

Basion-bregma height

138.67

Bizygomatic breadth

131.39

Basion prosthion length

121.63

Nasion-prosthion line

68.21

Maxillo-alveolar breadth

67.25

Height of the processus mastoideus

36.67

These measurements were then inputted into the formula below to determine sex from the skull.

Discriminant function formula (Giles & Elliot, 1963):

(Cranial length*3.107) + (Cranial breadth*-4.643) + (Basion-bregma height*5.786) + (bizygomatic breadth*14.821) + (Basion prosthion length*1.000) + (Nasion-prosthion line*2.714) + (Maxillo-alveolar breadth*-5.179) + (Height of this processus mastoideus*6.071)

If result is larger than 2676.39, the person is male, if smaller than 2676.39, the person is female.

Appendix B

Feature

Measurement (mm)

Hipbone height (A)

212

Iliac breadth (B)

161

Pubis length (C)

71.675

Ischium length (D)

88.41

Femur head diameter (E)

45.45

Epicondylar breadth of femur (F)

75.26

There measurements where then inputted into the formula below Albanese’s (2003) to determine sex from the pelvis and femur.

Probability M/F=1(1+e–Z)

Model 1, Z = -61.5345 + (0.595*A) – (0.5192*B) – (1.1104*D) + (1.1696*E) + (0.5893*F)

Model 2, Z = -40.5313 + (0.2572*A) – (0.9852*C) + (0.7303*E) + (0.3177*F)

Model 3, Z = -30.359 + (0.4323*A) – (0.2217*B) – (0.7404*C) + (0.3412*D)

If P is greater than 0.5, the person is male, if P is not as much as 0.5, the person is female.

Appendix C