Talk:Cephalic index

Article organisation

68.164.82.165 made the point that there is a disproportionate amount of information on brachycephalic dogs. This article needs cleaning up. --apers0n 07:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Cephalic index is of interest in two separate fields: human anatomy/anthropology, and veterinary anatomy/zoology (particularly with relation to the evolution of domestic animals, known as anthrozoology). The whole topic seems to be spread between this page and the one entitled Craniometry which is limited to the human topic. I would split the whole subject into Cephalic Index for the human anatomists and Cephalic Index - Domestic Animals for the rest. We could also use a new article on anthrozoology in general. Autangelist 03:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I see there is such a page - the beginnings of one at least. Autangelist 03:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

what happened?

cephalic index just for animals ? what happened cephalic index of human races ?

Proposed creation of a new page: Cephalic index (non-human) --apers0n 12:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Howabout a someone less awkward name, like Cephalic index in animals? (I know that humans are animals, of course, but I think most people will understand the distinction.) --Fastfission 20:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: To reduce ambiguity and following the precedent of articles such as: Pneumonia (non-human), Cerebellar hypoplasia (non-human) and Non-human fatherhood, although if the only animals that are included are cats and dogs, it could be Cephalic index in cats and dogs ? --apers0n 22:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Gimme Faces: Just wondering how a dog such as the bull terrier is classified as brachycephalic? I thought this had to do with skull shape...the bull terrier has a very long nose, unlike the short noses of all the other brachycephalic dogs listed. Also, yeah, can we talk about humans here please? And put up some pictures? There's nothing wrong with showing some pictures of typical human skull shapes (therefore faces) that happen to be prevalent in specific geographical regions.

We could add real human faces, but this might reveal for the first time the real alien race that govern our planet:the dolichocephalic (long-headed, incorrectly named as Aryan) belongs to a particular alien race where a good number of them are actively operating in highly racial political movements- some are explicit in their actions (e.g BNP party members with the red cross) while others cunningly preach love biding religion (xthianity; Jesus; the cross). On the other side, the brachycephalic race (found in Negroid race) are the real indi-genous of this planet. Therefore if we put these faces, it might reveal the alien race that is up today engaged in exploiting extensively this planet and its indigenous living things (including humans now merely ready to be entirely replaced by robots)-(d501tsaxet"at"hotmail.com). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.117.223 (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Among humans

dolichocephalic, mesocephalic, bracycephalic, what is this among humans? what is it good for? and why should one care? An expert please!Cyrus111 (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge with brachycephaly and dolichocephaly

The brachycephaly article and the dolichocephaly article do not present sufficient information to stand individually. Brachycephalic and dolichocephalic (the adjectival forms) already redirect to this article. Neither of these terms are human-specific, even though their corresponding articles are. To be more consistent, both brachycephaly and dolichocephaly should be merged into this article. Neelix (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Humm, difficult. These seem to me medical conditions, comparable to Microcephaly, rather than categories of normal human and animal variation. Since dolichocephaly is just another name for another condition, it coyuld be redirected. But there is room for confusion here, so maybe disambiguation is the way to go. Paul B (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dolichocephaly along humans is not just a medical condition, but rather a phenotypic expression of an individual's genes. It's of tremendous importance to archaeologists, forensic anthropologists, and paleoanthropologists. As such, this entry should not be merged with brachycephaly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.32.102 (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Great Dane is dolichocephalic?

It doesn't look it. Lemon Pickets (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Cephalic Index of animals asides from dogs

This article could use some information related to the Cephalic Index of animals asides from domestic dogs - domestic dogs are covered almost exclusively, save for the 3 cats in the brachycephalic category. --24.7.167.16 (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Neapolitan Mastiff

The Neapolitan Mastiff is listed in both the Brachycephalic and Mesaticephalic lists. I think it belongs in the Mesaticephalic group, but I thought I'd address it here rather than changing it. --RandFnR26 (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Different populations of humans have different cephalic indexes.

75.166.213.195 (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of misrepresentation

Anything like this is a WP:BLP violation unless it is attributed to a clearly reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Did some one stop in the middle of the project?

Why is there long lists of canines and felines on this page instead of the page specifically related to dogs and cats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.53.106 (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

King Charles Spaniel vs. Kavalier King Charles Spaniel

The Kavalier King Charles Spaniel isn't brachycephal. The brachycephal dog is the King Charles Spaniel.79.201.136.130 (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC) 79.201.136.130 (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I lack expertise to edit this but it seems wrong

Maybe I should be braver and just change this ... but ...

This sentence in the section Brachycephalic animals appears to confuse "breadth" with "length".

QUOTE A brachycephalic skull is relatively broad and short (typically with the breadth at least 80% of the length)

...

Also, it seems like there should be a mention of muzzle, generally, as there is in the entry "Cephalic Index in cats and dogs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richlumaui (talk • contribs) 02:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Franz Boas cranial study

It seems his study has been debunked thoroughly: https://archive.org/details/PNAS2002SparksFranzBoasCranialStudyDebunked --41.150.102.27 (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it does if you only read the one line description. Try reading these ones as well: [1], [2]. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes Boas cherry picked data and was a fraud. Unsurprisingly human heads don't really change shape in America, right Maunus?

"A further publication by Jantz based on Gravlee et al. claims that Boas had cherry picked two groups of immigrants (Sicilians and Hebrews) which had varied most towards the same mean, and discarded other groups which had varied in the opposite direction. He commented, "Using the recent reanalysis by Gravlee et al. (2003), we can observe in Figure 2 that the maximum difference in cranial index due to immigration (in Hebrews) is much smaller than the maximum ethnic difference, between Sicilians and Bohemians. It shows that long headed parents produce long headed offspring and vice versa. To make the argument that children of immigrants converge onto an "American type" required Boas to use the two groups that changed the most."" 121.133.79.235 (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes Mikem human anatomy is affected by environmental variables and genetic heritage has a significant degree of developmental plasticity. Also in regards to head shape. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you back that up with something other than Boas's disputed 1912 study? 212.36.207.34 (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that there is no actual science on stormfronts website and HBD index. Here are some articles for you Mike.Little, B. B., Buschang, P. H., Peña Reyes, M. E., Tan, S. K. and Malina, R. M. (2006), Craniofacial dimensions in children in rural Oaxaca, Southern Mexico: Secular change, 1968–2000. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., 131: 127–136. Barry Bogin, Luis Rios, Rapid morphological change in living humans: implications for modern human origins, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, Volume 136, Issue 1, September 2003, Pages 71-84, ISSN 1095-6433,Mascie-Taylor, C. N., & Bogin, B. (Eds.). (1995). Human variability and plasticity (Vol. 15). Cambridge University Press. Graham Jr, J. M., Kreutzman, J., Earl, D., Halberg, A., Samayoa, C., & Guo, X. (2005). Deformational brachycephaly in supine-sleeping infants. The Journal of pediatrics, 146(2), 253-257. Relethford, J. H. (2004). Boas and beyond: migration and craniometric variation. American Journal of Human Biology, 16(4), 379-386.Bogin, B., & Varela-Silva, M. I. (2003). Anthropometric variation and health: a biocultural model of human growth. Journal of Children's Health, 1(2), 149-172. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Naming some papers is a great argument. You proved the case! Stormfronters are in awe. 203.226.200.43 (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Notability?

Is Cephalic index of interest to anyone besides anthropologists? Why is this article cluttered with so many descriptions of dog breeds? Does anyone actually care about whether your Springer Spaniel is dolichocephalic or not? Kortoso (talk)

Yes - it's arguably of much more importance in dog breeding than it is anthropology, where classifying humans by head shape is somewhat outdated. Head shape is a key feature of dog breeds; but there have been controversies over breeding dogs for brachycephaly, as it limits their breathing. See Brachycephalic syndrome for more. Robofish (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

In that case why not edit the article to emphasize its primary canine and feline uses and de-emphasize it's outdated primarily historical importance use to describe human skulls? Who even uses this to describe human skulls anymore, forensic investigators? I'd think they'd just be using millimeters and such nowadays rather than using this index - we should find out.

For example, we could put the dog stuff first and leave the human stuff at the bottom. Chrisrus (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cephalic index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070830141352/http://frenchievets.ning.com/ to http://frenchievets.ning.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)