An Investigation of the Possibility of Correlation Between Human Handedness and Differences In' Length of Arm and Leg Long Bones, with a Genetic Interpre Tation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This dissertation has been 65—1183 microfilmed exactly as received HARTMAN, Donald George, 1909— AN INVESTIGATION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF CORRELATION BETWEEN HUMAN HANDEDNESS AND DIFFERENCES IN' LENGTH OF ARM AND LEG LONG BONES, WITH A GENETIC INTERPRE TATION. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1964 B otan y University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan AN INVESTIGATION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF CORRELATION BETWEEN HUMAN HANDEDNESS AND DIFFERENCES IN LENGTH OF ARM AND LEG LONG BONES, WITH A GENETIC INTERPRETATION DISSERTATION Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University by Donald George Hartman, B. Sc., M. A. The Ohio State University 1964 Approved by A dviser Department of Botany and Plant Pathology acknowledgments I should like to express my appreciation to Dr. Elton Paddock, whose advice, criticism and encouragement have been of inestimable value in the preparation of this dissertation. Many college students have helped in giving the questionnaires and taking measurements, among idiom are Patricia Davis, Marjorie Jenkins, Ton Wilson and Leonard Levine. My wife, Charlotte, has helped immeasurably in the writing of the dissertation. ii CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. THE PRGBU34............................................................................................... 1 I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.........................................................................5 Sociological Explanations ................................................................ 5 Anatomical E xplanations ...................................................... 7 Genetic Explanations ................................................................................ 10 Varying Conditions of Handedness ..................................................... 12 Infant Handedness .................................................................................. 13 S t u t t e r i n g .....................................................................................................15 Eye Dominance ..............................................................................................17 Mirror Reading and W riting ...................................................................18 I I I . THE QUESTIONNAIRES AND MEASUREMENTS U S E D .................................20 Objectives of the Investigation . ‘. ..........................................20 The Q uestionnaire .....................................................................................21 Measurements .................................................................................................. 25 Measurement P rocedure ..........................................................................27 Classification of Respondents ....................................................... 28 IV. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION............................................................29 The Respondents ......................................................................................... 29 The Handedness in F am ilies ................................................................ 31 Measurements of the Long Bones ............................................. 44 Arithmetic Means of Long Bone L en g th s ........................................56 Osteograms .......................................................................................60 Statistical Analysis of H eritability ......................................... 80 Conclusions .................................................................................................. 84 iii CHAPTER PAGE V. GENETIC EXPLANATIONS OF HANDEDNESS................................................ 88 The Use of Twins ...................................... ................................ 89 The Hardy-Weinberg Principle ..........................................................91 Handedness Proportions ........................................................................ 92 VI. SUMMARY........................................................................................................... 99 APPENDIX.................................................................................................................... L02 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................... 112 AUTOBIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................US iv TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Numbers of Respondents .........................................................................30 2. Distribution of Left-Handed Relatives ............................32 3. Child-Parent Relationship in Handedness ................. 34 4. Child-Parent Relationship by Handedness Groups .... 36 5. Handedness of Relatives Reported ................................... 38 6. Analysis of Respondents ...........................................................39 7* Postural Analysis of Shoulder H eights ...................... 43 6. Comparison of Differences between Bone Lengths .... 45 9, Contingency Tables of Longer Bone Lengths ...................... 46 10, Analysis of 264 Humerus-Radius Osteograms ................... 49 11, Arithmetic Means of Long Bone L engths ...................... 58 12, Variance, Standard Deviation, Standard Error, Arm Bones 83 13* Standard Error of Difference between Means ............. 85 14, Measurements of Left-Handed A d u lts ............................................102 15, Measurements of Right-Handed Women .............................................. 103 16, Measurements of Right-Handed M en .................................................105 17, Measurements of Am bidexters ........................................................... 106 18, Measurements of C hildren ..................................................................107 19* Measurement C h e c k s ................................................................................108 20, Calculations of Heritability Estim ates .................... 110 v FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Questionnaire Used in the Investigation ......................................22 2. Example of Mirror W riting .......................................................................24 3. Bony Landmarks Used as Referral P oints ........................................ 26 4. Percentages of Eyedness, Footedness, Age and Left Kin • 40 5. Comparison of Differences in Lengths of Humerus/Radius 52 6. Numbers and Amounts of Variation in Bone Lengths . • 53 7. Frequency Distribution of Humerus and Radius, Alone . * 54 8. Frequency D istribution of Humerus-Radium and Fesnur-Fibula 55 9. Bone Length Frequency D istribution ...................................... 57 10. Osteogram Explanation ...............................................................................6 l 11. Oateograms of Arithmetic Means .................................................... 62 12. Osteograms of 22 Right-Handed Children ....................................65 13* Osteograms of 24 Left-Handed C hildren ...................................*66 14* Osteograms of Two Sets of Triplets .......... 68 15* Osteograms of Three Sets of Twins .................................................... 70 16* Bone Length Analysis of Three Seta of Twins 71 17* Osteograms of Members of Three Families .............................. 7 5 18. Osteograms of Members of Four Families ....................................76 19. Osteograms of 8 Seta of Twins and Triplets ...... .79 vi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM A right-handed majority exists* with the general assumption that right-handedness is normal and proper. In spite of the difficulties In a world set up for right-handers* and in spite of strong cultural forces* there persists a minority of somewhat less than one in ten who continue to be left-handed. Left handedness in history has often been associated with ill luck. "Gauche" and "sinister" both carry unpleasant connota tions to most people, and both are terms meaning left. In a genetic consideration of handedness* there are a number of questions to be considered. (1) What is the cause of the majority of right handedness in the population? (2) How is hand dominance acquired by each individual? (3) Why do same individuals bow to social pressures and oeccme right-handers* while others resist a ll efforts to maks them change from le ft handedness? (U) How many of the right-handed popula tion would have been left-handers if they had not been forced to change? Differences in the roles played by the environment and the genome are exceedingly difficult to identify in handedness studies. (5) How do the environmental forces differ in their control of relative growth or function? (6) Does the environment act through or upon developmental pathways* augmenting or diminishing gene action* as suggested by Go Id sc hm idt ? ^ The search for correlative confirmation of native handedness is beset with difficulties. (7) What are the significant activities, questions* observations or measurements that might help locate those in the population that have been changed front left-handedness? (8) If 1 handedness arises front a morphological structure, what genetic factors are responsible for the transmission of handedness from one generation to another? No one investigation can answer all of these questions, but the present study is oriented to gain information in respect to some of them. A means of obtaining information regarding an individual's hand prefer ence for various acts as