This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gary (talk | contribs) at 05:08, 10 February 2008 (Semi-automated clean up. Problems?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:08, 10 February 2008 by Gary (talk | contribs) (Semi-automated clean up. Problems?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | It has been suggested that this article be merged into Supraorbital ridge. (Discuss) Proposed since October 2007. |
 | This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. Please help improve the article by providing more context for the reader. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Much of the groundwork for the Spatial model was laid down by Schultz (1940). He was the first to document that at later stages of development (after age 4) the growth of the orbit would outpace that of the eye. Consequently, he proposed that facial size is the most influential factor in orbital development, with orbital growth being only secondarily affected by size and ocular position.
Weindenreich (1941) and Biegert (1957, 1963) argued that the supraorbital region can best be understood as a product of the orientation of its two components, the face and the neurocranium.
The most composed articulation of the spatial model was presented by Moss and Young (1960), who stated that “the presence… of supraorbital ridges is only the reflection of the spatial relationship between two functionally unrelated cephalic components, the orbit and the brain” (Moss and Young, 1960, p282). They proposed (as first articulated by Biegert in1957) that during infancy the neurocranium extensively overlaps the orbit, a condition that prohibits brow ridge development. As the splanchocranium grows, however, the orbits begin to advance, thus causing the anterior displacement of the face relative to the brain. Brow ridges then form as a result of this separation.
To put it simply, the Spatial model proposes that supraorbital torus development can be best explained in terms of the disparity between the anterior position of the orbital component relative the neurocranium.
References
Schultz, AH (1940) The size of the orbit and eye in primates. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 26:389-408.
Categories: