|
|
Sexual dimorphism of the face and changes during senescence
Mydlová, Miriama ; Velemínská, Jana (advisor) ; Blažek, Vladimír (referee)
The human face shape is constantly changing during human life, even after one`s development stop (Hennessy a Moss, 2001; Williams a Slice, 2010). This work applies geometric morphometry method on study of sexual dimorphism of human face through ageing. Sexual dimorphism can be defined as a systematic difference in form between individuals of different sex of the same kind (Samal et al., 2007). Morphological changes, related to the process of ageing of human face, were analysed on data obtained from 3D surface models of human faces using methods of geometric morphometry (Dense Correspondence Analysis, Principal Component Analysis, Shell-to-Shell Deviation) and multivariatel statistics (Scree Plot, Hotelling`s Tš-test, permutational test, MANOVA). The work results indicates that the form (size with shape) and shape of men and women faces significantly change through ageing. Individuals aged between 20-40 years differ in form of the face, however the oldest men aged between 61-82 years differ from women only in shape of the face. The biggest differences in sexual dimorphism are in the middle age category (41-60 years), where there are significant differences not only in form, but also considering shape alone. Key words: ageing, form and shape, geometric morphometry, human face, sexual dimorphism 7
|
|
|
The Role of Aggression in Human Evolution, 1963-2000. Authors, theories, contexts
Mydlová, Miriama ; Stella, Marco (advisor) ; Hroníková, Linda (referee)
Presented work is an overview of contemporary evolutionary biological theories of aggression, since the breakthrough works of Robert Ardrey and Konrad Lorenz from the 1960s and ending with contemporary evolutionary ethics of Robert Wright and Frans de Waal and also evolutionary anthropology, represented for example by Richard Wrangham. Work is highlighting the continuity of development of the theories and their placement into the context of evolutionary biology. In addition, it is dealing with critical analysis (in terms of discourse analysis) of these theories and their language, taking into account sociocultural influences acting on authors during their formation. It is the analysis of patterns of thinking, argumentation elements and strategies of authors, who deal with issues of the evolutionary background of the origin of human aggression. However, ambition of the second part is not the deconstruction of the theories. Contrarily it strives for positive, integrative approach. By categories of class, gender, race, etc. conditional misrepresentation (bias) of acquried data (e.g. by observation), their interpretation by authors themselves and their popularization, will be understood there as a factor entering into the assessment of theories, but it is not a priori considered as evidence of...
|
|
| |
guest ::
