Frontal sinus anatomy of the noble Swéerts‐Sporck family and verification of their biological relationships using similarity analysis

Abstract

The evaluation of frontal sinus similarity is one way to detect biological relationships, especially in small groups, including families of historically known personalities. However, possibilities for studying this issue are currently limited. This contribution deals with the frontal sinuses of a rare osteological sample with known genealogical data, members of the noble Swéerts‐Sporck family from the 17th to 20th centuries. The aim is to verify whether the frontal sinuses reflect documented family relationships. Basic dimensions of the frontal sinus such as total surface area and volume, and maximum height and width, and also morphology and anatomical features were evaluated using computed tomography scans. The portions of the frontal sinus above the “external supraorbital line” were analyzed. The degree of similarity between biologically related individuals was determined for each variable and compared with their known biological distance. The degree of similarity based on dimensions was evaluated using both the unadjusted measured data and standardized data adjusted to size. For the unadjusted dimensions, a positive correlation between morphological similarity and biological relatedness was apparent. On the other hand, no positive correlation was apparent for most of the standardized data. Only total volume showed a very weak indication of a positive trend in the standardized data, but this was weaker than in the original values. A positive quantifiable relationship between morphological patterns and biological distance is not clearly indicated. However, nonmetric features do support the documented relationships of the individuals.

When DNA can't help: The osteobiographical profile and stable isotope analysis as auxiliary tools for refining genealogical relationships, on the example of the Swéerts‐Sporck family

“…Last but not least, it is important that the data presented in previous publications dealing with the relationship between skeletal morphology and biological relatedness of the personalities mentioned here (Cvrček, Dobisíková, Jor, et al, 2021; Cvrček, Velemínský, Dupej, et al, 2021; Cvrček, Velemínský, Jor, et al, 2021) have been refined, and that the results of these studies are not in any way challenged by the new discoveries presented in this work in terms of the methods used and the interpretation of the previous results (e.g., the calculation of coefficients of relationships between individuals).…”

Does sternal body shape reflect family relationships? A study on a genealogically documented Central European osteological sample (19th–20th centuries)

“…On the other hand, genealogically documented material is rare worldwide (Gavrus‐Ion et al, 2017), especially given the even rarer incidence of inbred individuals. In this context, even such a limited sample is important (Cvrček, Velemínský, et al, 2021b).…”

“…However, it is not suitable for sternal non‐metric traits. (b) Sufficient data is needed to successfully calculate heritability, while many genealogically documented osteological samples include an insufficient number of individuals (e.g., Cvrček, Velemínský, et al, 2021b; Spence, 1996; Strouhal, 1992). Research on living people is not an entirely appropriate alternative to solve this problem, because there is an ethical limitation especially in terms of doses of X‐rays without medical indication (Kjaer et al, 2012).…”

“…On the other hand, it is clear that the degree of similarity of individuals can also be determined on the basis of shape by simple visual assessment. We proceed analogously from the methodology for evaluating the degree of similarity between individuals based on frontal sinuses (Cvrček, Velemínský, et al, 2021b): even in this case, sinus morphology can be evaluated not only by defined morphological features, dimensions, and outline analysis (e.g., Prossinger, 2008;Yoshino et al, 1987), but also by their overall character, which can be divided into several types (Szilv assy, 1986). Essentially, a simple "visual" morphological analysis may not be as subjective or unreliable as is often assumed at present (Asherson, 1963), when compared with "more objective" statistical methods using dimensional and shape evaluation using computer technology.…”