吉岡氏の批判2に対する回答--明石寛骨の形態と復原 (ふたたび明石人寛骨の形態について--遠藤・馬場論文批判-2-)

概要

論文の詳細を見る
B. ENDO and the author had concluded that the morphological characters of the Akashi innominate were modern in every repect (cf. Fig. 5), in a previous report dealing with the Pleistocene innominates in Japan (ENDO and BABA 1982). Later on, NAORA (1983) and YOSHIOKA (1983) criticized our conclusions. We replied that their arguments were based on various misunderstandings (ENDO and BABA 1984).Recently, YOSHIOKA (1984) again criticized our previous report and reply to him. The auther discussed about the problems of errors in measurements and restoration of the specimens criticized by him. Other problems are dicussed by ENDO.As Figs. 1 and 2 show, however the errors in measurements made by the author are negligibly small relative to the difference between the values of the specimens for comparison. Moreover, his restoration on the anterior border of ilium could be false as explained in Figs.3 and 4. Other miscellaneous arguments of him are also completely inappropriate because of his insufficiency of expert knowledge about morphology. Finally, our previous conclusions need no amendment.
日本人類学会の論文