MALES
------------------------------------------------
Right
--------------+-------+-------------+-----------
Number of |Length,|Diameters at | Index
adult humeri |maximum| middle[48] | of shaft
| +------+------+ (b × 100)
| |Major |Minor | ————————
| |(_a_) | (_b_)| a
--------------+-------+------+------+-----------
Average: | _cm._ | _cm._ |_cm._|
Paired (13) | 32.5 | 2.24| 1.65 | 73.6
Total present| | | |
(14) | 32.5 | 2.25| 1.65 | 73.4
Minimum: | | | |
Total present| | | |
(14) | 31.1 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 65.2
Maximum: | | | |
Total present| | | |
| | | |
(14) | 34.4 | 2.6 | 1.85 | 81.6
--------------+-------+------+------+-----------
Left
--------------+-------+------+------+-----------
Average: | _cm._ | _cm._ |_cm._|
Paired (13) | 32.6 | 2.2 | 1.64 | 74.6
Total present| | | |
(13) | 32.6 | 2.2 | 1.64 | 74.6
Minimum: | | | |
Total present| | | |
(13) | 31. | 1.85 | 1.4 | 65.2
Maximum: | | | |
Total present| | | |
| | | |
(13) | 34.7 | 2.55 | 1.95 | 81.4
--------------+-------+------+-------+-----------
FEMALES
-------------------------------------------------
Right
--------------+-------+-------------+-----------
Number of |Length,|Diameters at | Index
adult humeri |maximum| middle[49] | of shaft
| +------+------+ (b × 100)
| |Major |Minor | ————————
| |(_a_) |(_b_) | a
--------------+-------+-------------+-----------
Average: | _cm._ | _cm._|_cm._ |
Paired (12) | 30.6 | 2.09 | 1.43 | 68.4
Total present| | | |
(15) | 30.7 | 2.08 | 1.41 | 67.7
Minimum: | | | |
Total present| | | |
(15) | 28.5 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 61.9
Maximum: | | | |
Total present| | | |
(15) | 32.3 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 77.3
--------------+-------+------+------+-----------
Left
--------------+-------+------+-----+-----------
Average: | _cm._ | _cm._|_cm._|
Paired (12) | 30.2 | 2.01 | 1.4 | 69.8
Total present| | | |
(12) | 30.2 | 2.01 | 1.4 | 69.8
Minimum: | | | |
Total present| | | |
(12) | 28.5 | 1.75 | 1.25| 63.6
Maximum: | | | |
Total present| | | |
(12) | 31.9 | 2.2 | 1.7 | 77.3
--------------+-------+------+-----+-----------
[48] Diameter major = parallel to the flat, anterior surface; diameter
minor = at a right angle to the preceding.
[49] Diameter major = parallel to the flat, anterior surface; diameter
minor = at a right angle to the preceding.
The averages are in no way exceptional. Reference to the writer’s
report on the Indian skeletal remains from Arkansas and Louisiana[50]
will show that the humeri of that collection had practically the same
dimensions.
[50] _Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila._, XIV, 1909, pp. 211-212.
The relation of the average of paired female humeri to that of paired
male humeri is as 94.2 to 100, which is somewhat higher than existed
among the Arkansas and Louisiana Indians (91.34 for 86 humeri), among
Indians in general (91.2 for 602 humeri), and also among whites (91.8
for 2,700 humeri), but is lower than in the American negro (94.6 for
164 humeri). As no error in the sexual identification entered into
the present series, the disparity here shown is difficult to explain,
except perhaps by the result of some peculiar local occupational
differences in the two sexes or a local hereditary multiplication of an
individual peculiarity.
The right and left humeri are of practically the same length in the
males, while in the females the average of the left bones is slightly
inferior to that of the right, as is usual in most Indian tribes and
also among the white and other races. The equal length of the arm bones
in the males indicates probably a lack of specialized occupation.
The dimensions of the shaft of the humerus at the middle and their
percental relation or index are interesting in several respects, as
shown by the following data:
XL. COMPARISON IN DIMENSIONS OF MUNSEE
WITH OTHER RACIAL HUMERI
---------------------+---------------------------------
| Males
+-------+--------+--------+-------
| Whites|American| Munsee | Other
| |negroes | |Indians
---------------------+-------+--------+--------+-------
Number of humeri | | | |
(both sides) |(1,930)| (112) | (26) | (348)
---------------------+-------+--------+--------+-------
Length, cm. | 32.53 | 32.7 | _32.55_| 31.67
---------------------+-------+--------+--------+-------
Mean diameter of | | | |
shaft at middle, cm.| 2.02 | 2.09 | _1.93_| 1.91
---------------------+-------+--------+--------|-------
Index of shaft | 83 | 84.1 | 74.1 | 73.1
---------------------+-------+--------+--------+-------
| Females
---------------------+-------+--------+--------+-------
Number of humeri | | | |
(both sides) | (770)| (52) | (24) | (254)
---------------------+-------+--------+--------|-------
Length, cm. | 29.8 | 30.9 |_30.4_ | 28.9
---------------------+-------+--------+--------+-------
Mean diameter of | | | |
shaft at middle, cm.| 1.83| 1.89 | _1.78_ | 1.69
---------------------+-------+--------+--------+-------
Index of shaft | 79.3 | 79.2 | 69.1 | 70.3
---------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------
In the first place it will be seen that although the Munsee arm
bones are practically of the same average length as those of the
miscellaneous American whites, their strength in both sexes, and
especially in the males, is greater in the whites. It will further be
noted that the disproportion is especially pronounced in the thickness
of the bone, the humerus of whites, both male and female, being the
stouter, as a result of which the shaft index is decidedly higher in
the whites than in the Indians—the Munsee humerus, in other words, is
more platybrachic. Much the same distinction exists between the Munsee
humeri and those of the American negro; while on the other hand it will
be noted that in this respect there is close harmony between the Munsee
and other Indians.
Referring again to the table on page 53, and contrasting the bones
of the two sides, it will be observed that the left humerus in both
sexes is on the average weaker, though the difference is quite small;
also that the shaft index in both sexes is larger on the left side.
Exactly the same conditions have been observed by the writer on the
several series of arm bones of whites and negroes, and also on other
Indians, as are presented in preceding tables, which fact shows that we
are dealing with no accidental phenomena. The difference in the index
between the two sides is due exclusively to the relatively greater
breadth (i. e., the antero-posterior diameter) of the right bone, the
thickness of the humerus being very nearly the same on the two sides of
the body.
[Illustration: BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 62 PLATE 23
SUPRACONDYLOID PROCESS IN A FEMUR, AND A SPURIOUS SUPRACONDYLOID
FORAMEN IN A HUMERUS OF THE MUNSEE]