Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:31:42.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biology and social structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

G. Olivier  and
G. Devigne
G. Olivier
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Biological Anthropology, School of Human Ecology, University of Paris
G. Devigne
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Biological Anthropology, School of Human Ecology, University of Paris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

At military recruitment centres in France, data were collected from some 40,000 subjects on their social environment, the amount of education received and occupation, and measurements were taken on height, weight, and performance in tests of mental and physical ability.

The secular increase in mean stature is continuing. Offspring of consanguineous unions are of lower mean stature and mental capacity, and it seems that the effect is most marked among those already below average. There is an independent effect of endogamy, but the effect of heterosis seems to be less than previously thought. Family size and composition affect stature, weight and mental capacity, and this effect is independent of socio-professional status.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , October 1983 , pp. 379 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Billy, G. (1971) Influence de l'exogamie sur les modifications céphaliques et staturales des populations actuelles. Biom. hum. 6, 73.Google Scholar
Billy, G. (1979) Modifications phénotypiques contemporaines et migrations matrimoniales. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 6, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billy, G. & Schreider, E. (1974) A propos de quelques changements diachroniques. Consanguinité ou alimentation? Biom. hum. 9, 82.Google Scholar
Iagolnitzer, E.R., Poitevineau, J. & Olivier, G. (1977) L'accroissement de la stature en France. Analyse multivariee. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 4, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivier, G. (1977) L'accroissement de la stature en France. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 4, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivier, G. (1978a) Biométrie d'adults consanguins. Population, 3, 722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivier, G. (1978b) Exogamie, rayon marital et hétérosis. Anthropologie, Paris, 82, 431.Google Scholar
Olivier, G. (1979) Sur la répartition des notes de tests. Biom. hum. 14, 51.Google Scholar
Olivier, G. (1980a) The increase of stature in France. J. hum. Evol. 9, 645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivier, G. (1980b) Consanguinity and endogamy. J. hum. Evol. 9, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivier, G. (1980c) Variations du developpement physique selon la composition de la famille. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 7, 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivier, G. (1980d) La venue d'un 3e enfant: dimension de la famille, milieu social et notes de tests. Anthropologie, Paris, 84, 422.Google Scholar
Olivier, G. (1980e) La stature des Parisiens. Archs suisses Anthrop. gén. 44, 143.Google Scholar
Olivier, G. (1981a) Dimension de la famille, milieu social, Q.I. et anthropometrie. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Sud-Ouest, 16, 67.Google Scholar
Olivier, G. (1981b) Catégories socio-professionnelles et biométrie humaine. Biom. hum. 16, 9.Google Scholar
Olivier, G. (1981c) Milieu social et réussite scolaire. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Sud-Ouest, 16, 183.Google Scholar
Penrose, L.S. (1949) The Biology of Mental Defect, p. 285. London.Google Scholar
Schreider, E. (1969) Inbreeding, biological and mental variations in France. Am. J. phys. Anthrop. 30, 215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schreider, E. (1976) Consanguinité et variations biologiques chez l'homme. Population, 31, 341.Google Scholar
Susanne, C. (1971) Relations entre un indice global de l'état de sante et le niveau intellectuel ou le degré d'instruction des sujets. Bull. Soc. beige Anthrop. prehist. 82, 171.Google Scholar