Saratov JOURNAL of Medical and Scientific Research

Somatic sex determination of an adult by bone remains (review)


The article presents a comprehensive osteoscopic approach based on the visual identification of high- quality semi-diagnostic signs on the bones. The differences in the bones of the skeleton in this approach are determined by the greater development of the muscles in men as compared with women, as well as the performance of a fertility function by the woman. On the pelvic bones, differences are functional in nature: the structure of the male pelvis is determined only by supporting and motor functions, and the structure of the female pelvis must also ensure the function of delivery. An osteometric approach is described to determine the somatic sex from the pelvic bones of a person, the basis of which is the use of the instrumental method of determining the properties of objects, fixed in numerical values. It has been shown that almost all bones of the skeleton have the signs of sexual dimorphism, however, they are most clearly expressed in the bones of the pelvis and skull. Determining the gender of bone remains requires a complete examination of the bones presented. It depends on the number of objects, their state, the completeness of the methods used, as well as on the preparation of the expert. A careful analysis of the greatest number of signs revealed on the bones will allow us to arrive at the most reliable result, which is important when establishing the identity of an unidentified corpse.

1 Glybochko PV, Pigolkin Yul, Nikolenko VN, et al. Forensic diagnosis of age. Moscow: Publishing House of Sechenov First MSMU, 2016; 318 p.
2 Nikolaev VG, Medvedeva NN, Nikolenko VN, et al. Essays on integrative anthropology. Krasnoyarsk: KrasSMU, 2015; 326 p.
3 Speransky VS. Fundamentals of medical craniology. Moscow: Medicine, 1988; 288 p.
4 Speransky VS, Zaichenko Al. The shapeand design of the skull. Moscow: Medicine, 1980; 280 p.
5 Ivanov GF. Fundamentals of a normal human anatomy: in 2 volumes. Moscow: Medgiz, 1949; 752 p.
6 Gaivoronsky IV, Fandeeva ОМ, Nichiporuk Gl. Comparative method for determining the somatic sex of an adult by the skull. Bulletin of the Russian Military Medical Academy 2018; (3): 207-14.
7 Bystrov АР. The past, the present, the future of man. Moscow: Medgiz, 1957; 315 p.
8 Zvyagin VN. Technique of cranioscopic diagnostics of the human sex. Forensic examination 1983; (3): 15-7).
9 Tomilin VV, ed. Medical forensic identification: The handbook of the medical examiner. Moscow: NORMA- INFRA, 2000; 472 p.
10 Garmus AK. Forensic medical criteria for the identification of a skeleton pelvis: PhD abstract. Leningrad, 1990; 20 p.
11 Bytheway JA. A geometric morphometric approach to sex determination of the human adult os coxa. Journal of forensic sciences 2010; 55 (4): 859-64.
12 Jigora ST. On sexual dimorphism of the clavicle. Forensic medical examination 1962; (1): 16-9.
13 Laptev ZL. Sexual characteristics of the clavicles according to osteometry. Forensic medical examination 1977; XX (1): 43-6.
14 Pashkova VI, Reznikov BD. Forensic identification of a person by bone remains. Saratov: Publishing House of Sarat. Univ., 1978; 320 p.
15 TurovtsevAI. Comprehensive methods for studying the features of the ribs for forensic identification of the person: DSc abstract. Voronezh, 1970; 36 p.
16 Chertovskikh АА, Tuchik ES. On sexual dimorphism of the scapula. Bulletin of Forensic Medicine 2017; 6 (4): 10-4.
17 Laptev ZL. Determination of sex and length of the body according to the parameters of the blades. Forensic medical examination 1978; XXI (3): 7-11.
18 Nainis YV Forensic osteological methods of identification byproximal bones of limbs: DSc abstract. Tartu, 1966; 35 p.
19 Nikolenko VN, Fomicheva ОА, Zhmurko RS, et al. Individual and typological features of the proximal femur morphogeometry Saratov Journal of Medical Scientific Research 2010; 6 (1): 36-9.
20 Nynis YV, Anusyavichene OW. Some anatomical and anthropological features of the forearm bones. Archive of Anatomy Histology and Embryology1984; LXXXVI (3): 60-8.
21 BikbaevaTS, NeklyudovYuA, Nikolenko VN. Variability of the width and height of the body of the middle phalanges of ll-V fingers of the adult hand. Morphology 2008; 133 (2): 18-9.
22 Bikbaeva TS, Aleshkina OYu, Nikolenko VN, Fomkina OA. Sexual variability of the lengths of the proximal phalanges of 2-5 fingers and their interconnections in people of 2-nd mature age period. Fundamental Studies 2015; (1-10): 2015-8.
23 Bikbaeva TS, Aleshkina OYu, Nikolenko VN. The human hand as an object of morphological research. Modern problems of science and education 2016; (2): 154
24 Ostrofsky KR, Churchill SE. Sex determination by discriminant function analysis of lumbar vertebrae. Journal of forensic sciences 2015; 60 (1): 21 -8
25 Kolesnikov VL, Swedes SYu. The study of sexual dimorphism of the patellae using discriminant functions. Forensic medical examination 1979; XXII (2): 15-7.
26 Steele DG, Bramblett СА. The anatomy and biology of the human skeleton. Austin: TexasA&M University Press, 1988; 304 p.
27 Bass WM. Human osteology: A laboratory and field manual. Columbia: Missouri archaeological society, 2005; 365 p.
28 Phenice T.W. A newly developed visual method of sexing the os pubis. American journal of physical anthropology 1969; 30: 297-302. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa. 1330300214
29 Buikstra JE, et al. Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains: proceedings of a seminar at the field museum of natural history (Arkansas archeological report research series). Arkansas archeological survey research series 1994; (40): 218 p.

2019_03_683-690.pdf752.21 KB

No votes yet