{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034505640345056404, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019243530192435302, 'mean_word_length': 5.362869198312236, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Functional morphology in the pages of the AJPA.

“Functional morphology,” in its broadest sense, is simply the study of relationships between biological form and its functions. “Function” can include many different aspects of an organism’s biological adaptations, but in this context, and as most often used in physical anthropology, I will concentrate on mechanical function. There is a very long history of interest in the mechanical significance of anatomical variation (Galilei, 1638). Engineering principles were applied to the human skeleton by anatomists and orthopedic surgeons in the 1800s, most famously by Wolff (1892), whose name became associated with the concept of bone functional adaptation (i.e., “Wolff’s Law”), despite many problems with the original formulation of the concept (Ruff, Holt, & Trinkaus, 2006). Comparative anatomists and anthropologists were aware of this work (Keith, 1918; Morton, 1924). However, the actual application of mechanical principles to the interpretation of extant and fossil humans and other primates was relatively rare during the early history of physical anthropology. Today, functional morphological studies make up a significant and expanding component of research in our field, due to many conceptual and technical advances over the past 100 years, particularly during the past 50 years. In this article, I review these developments, focusing in particular on the role of the AJPA as an outlet for encouraging and presenting new research in this area.