Objectives: In comparative analyses of hominine hind limb diaphyseal structure, homologous cross sections are located according to half bone length (midshaft). Here, we address three questions. First, how accurately must midshaft be defined to yield comparable data? Second, does variation in midshaft location due to different ways of measuring length fall within error ranges such that data gathered using different metrics are comparable? Third, do error ranges and length metric effects differ between elements or taxa such that certain bones or species are more prone to issues of comparability?
Materials and methods: Femora and tibiae of Homo, Pan, and Gorilla were CT-scanned longitudinally and error ranges for multiple structural parameters (CSA, J, Imax /Imin ) were calculated around midshafts.
Results: Distances proximally and distally from midshaft where structural values differ significantly from midshaft values vary between bones, species, and structural traits. Femoral error ranges are typically larger than tibial ranges. In the femur, error ranges are generally largest for chimpanzees and smallest for gorillas. A similar taxonomic pattern is not evident in the tibia. No structural trait consistently displays larger or smaller error ranges across both elements and all species. Variation in midshaft locations stemming from different length definitions is small and falls within observed error ranges defined by any one metric.
Discussion: Incorporating fragmentary specimens (e.g., fossils) for which midshaft location is unknown in comparisons of diaphyseal structure necessitates evaluation on a case-by-case basis, with thought to element, taxon, and structural traits of interest. Midshaft data recorded from distinct length measurements are generally comparable.
Keywords: ape; chimpanzee; cortical bone; cross-sectional geometry; femur; gorilla; lower limb; tibia.
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.