Anatomically the female pelvis because of its reproductive function is broader than that of the male. The female, being genetically shorter than the male, has a shorter femur which, combined with the broad pelvis, results in a comparatively smaller collo-diaphyseal angle than the male. When relevant literature was reviewed mixed results were seen which appear to have been settled by this study. By the adoption of anatomical landmarks for measuring the angle as against the conventional methods this study guarantees comparable results.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BreathnachA. S. (1958) Frazer's Anatomy of the Human Skeleton. 5th ed. London, J. A. Churchill Ltd, pp. 5, 75 and 121–2.
2.
BrinckmannP.HoefertH.ThJongen H. (1981) Sex differences in the skeletal geometry of the human pelvis and hip joint. J. Biomech.14, 427–30.
3.
ComasJ. (1960) Manual of Physical Anthropology. Springfield, Illinois, Charles C Thomas.
4.
DavivongsV. (1963) The femur of Australian aborigines. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop.21, 457–67.
5.
GervenD. P. V. (1972) The contribution of size and shape variation to patterns of sexual dimorphism of human femur. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop.37, 49–60.
6.
GodyckiM. (1957) Sur la certitude de détermination de sexe d'après le fémur, le cubitus, et l'humerus. Bull, et Mem. de la Soc. d'Anthrop. de Paris. T.8, ser. 10, Paris, Masson, 405–10.
7.
GrahamT. M.YarbroughJ. D. (1968) Anthropometric studies of the long bones of the ‘Shell Mound’ Indians. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop.28, 85–92.
8.
HoaglundV. T.LowW. D. (1980) Anatomy of the femoral neck and head, with comparative data from Caucasians and Hongkong Chinese. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.152, 10–16.
9.
IngallsN. W. (1924) Studies on the femur. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop.7, 207–55.
10.
KateB. R. (1967) The angle of the femoral neck in Indians. Eastern Anthrop.20, 54–60.
11.
KrogmanW. M.IscanM. Y. (1986) The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine, 2nd edn. Illinois, USA, Charles C. Thomas, pp. 200 and 259.
12.
LastR. J. (1978) Anatomy — Regional and Applied, 6th edn.Churchill Livingstone Longman Group, pp. 77–8, 85 and 95.
13.
LöfgrenL. (1956) Some anthropometric-anatomical measurements of the femur of Finns from the view point of surgery. Acta Chir. Scand.110, 477–84.
14.
MartinR. (1928) Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. Vols I, II and III. Jena, Verlag Von Gustav Fischer.
15.
MartinR.SallerK. (1957) Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. Vols I and II. Stuttgart, Gustav Fischer Verlag.
16.
ParsonsF. G. (1913/1914) The character of English thigh bone: I. J. Anat. Physiol.48, 238–67.
17.
ParsonsF. G. (1914/1915a) The character of English thigh bone: II. The difficulty of sexing. J. Anat. Physiol.49, 335–61.
18.
ParsonsF. G. (1914/1915b) Measurement of medieval English femur. Nature94, 643.
19.
PearsonK.BellJ. (1917/1919) A study of the long bones of the English skeleton. 1: The femur. In: Draper's Co. Research Memorandum. University of London. Chap. 1–4. Biom. Series, X.
20.
PurkaitR. (1989) Determination of sex from human long bones of Madhya Pradesh, India. PhD Thesis, Delhi University, India.
21.
SchofieldG. (1959) Metric and morphologic features of the femur of New Zealand Maori. J. Roy. Anthrop. Inst.89, 89–105.
22.
SinghI. P.BhasinM. K. (1989) Anthropometry. Delhi, Bharati Bhawan Educational Publishers and Book Sellers, p. 142.
23.
SinghS. P.SinghS. (1975) Collo-diaphyseal angle of femur in North India. Indian Med. Gaz.15, 11–14.
24.
WilliamP. L.WarwickR. (1980) Gray's Anatomy. 36th edn.Edinburgh, Churchill Livingstone, pp. 388, 389, 462 and 477.
