解剖学报

解剖学报 ›› 2018, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (1): 113-117.doi: 10.16098/j.issn.0529-1356.2018.01.019

• 人类学 • 上一篇    下一篇

藏族和汉族青年人群掌指形态特征分析

钟铧1* 张海龙2 席焕久2 李幼琼3 昂旺格桑4 于泽明4   

  1. 1.西藏大学医学院人体解剖学教研室，拉萨 850000; 2.锦州医科大学生物人类学研究所，辽宁 锦州 121000;3. 吉林大学白求恩医学部人体解剖学教研室，长春 130021; 4. 西藏大学医学院2014级临床医学班， 拉萨 850000
  • 收稿日期:2017-02-06 修回日期:2017-04-07 出版日期:2017-02-06 发布日期:2018-02-06
  • 通讯作者: 钟铧 E-mail:lhasa-zhonghua@hotmail.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金资助项目;中华医学会资助项目;2016年西藏自治区高校青年教师创新支持计划项目;自治区级大学生创新创业训练计划项目;西藏大学珠峰学者人才发展支持计划资助

Analysis of morphological characteristics of the palms and fingers of Tibetan and Han youths

ZHONG Hua 1* ZHANG Hai-long2 XI Hua-jiu2 LI You-qiong3 ANGWANG Ge-sang4 YU Ze-ming4   

  1. 1. Department of Anatomy, Tibet University Medical College, Lhasa 850000, China; 2.Institute of Biological Anthropology, Liaoning Medical University, Liaoning Jinzhou 121000, China; 3.Department of Human Anatomy, Norman Bethune College of Medicine, Jilin University, Changchun 130031, China; 4.Grade 2014 of clinical medicine undergraduate class, Tibet University Medical College, Lhasa 850000,China
  • Received:2017-02-06 Revised:2017-04-07 Online:2017-02-06 Published:2018-02-06
  • Contact: ZHONG Hua E-mail:lhasa-zhonghua@hotmail.com

PDF

摘要：

目的 探讨西藏地区常人的手掌长度、宽度和厚度等特征，为补充体育科学、体质人类学基础资料和相关临床（行为）评估提供参考数据。 方法 利用活体测量法，选择拉萨市自愿参加的大学生为研究对象。有效调查对象216例，年龄18～24岁，平均年龄（22.12±3.06）岁，其中男性136例（藏族64例，汉族72例），女性80例（藏族40例，汉族40例）。采用电子游标卡尺测量被试者左侧手长、指长和掌长等27项直接测量指标；通过手长和手宽计算手长宽指数和手面积等2项间接指标。 结果 藏族男性与汉族男性比较，手长、掌厚和手长宽指数差异存在显著性（P＜0.05，0.01）；藏族女性与汉族女性比较，手长、手背长、手宽、掌长、掌宽、拇指长、示指长、中指长、环指长、小指长、拇指指关节宽、中指近侧指关节宽、中指远侧指关节宽、环指近侧指关节宽、中指近侧指关节厚和手面积差异存在显著性（P＜0.05，0.01）。藏族青年掌指形态不同性别间比较，除掌厚、掌尺侧厚和手长宽指数外（P＞0.05），其他测量指标值均为男性大于女性（P＜0.05，0.01）；汉族青年掌指形态不同性别间比较，除掌宽和手长宽指数外（P＞0.05），其他测量指标值均为男性大于女性（P＜0.05，0.01）。 结论 藏族男青年的掌指形态较汉族呈现出手掌较厚和手长略短的特点，藏族女青年的掌指形态在长度、宽度和厚度上小于汉族女青年。女性掌指形态在长度、宽度和厚度上均小于男性。

关键词: 手长, 指长, 掌长, 民族, 性别, 活体测量, 青年人

Abstract:

Objective To explore the characteristics of length, width and thickness of the palms in Tibet, and to provide reference data for supplementary sport science, anthropology and clinical or behavior assessments. Methods This study selected young college students who voluntarily participated in Lhasa as the research objects. There were 216 males (64 in Tibetan, 72 in Han) and 80 females (40 in Tibetan and 40 in Han), with an average age of (22.12±3.06) years. The electronic vernier caliper was used to measure the left hand length, finger length and palm length of the subjects, such as 27 direct measurement indicators. The hand area was calculated by hand length and hand width. Results There were significant differences in hand length, thickness at metacarpale and hand index between Tibetan and Han（P＜0.05, 0.01). There was a significant difference（P＜0.05,0.01) between Tibetan female and Han female in comparison of the hand length, back of hand length, hand breadth at metacarpale, palm length, palm breadth, finger Ⅰ length, finger Ⅱ length,finger Ⅲ length, finger Ⅳ length,finger Ⅴ length, fingerⅠbreadth,maximum finger Ill breadth,finger Ⅲ breadth,maximum finger Ⅳ breadth,maximum finger Ⅲ breadth, maximum finger Ⅳ breadth,maximum finger Ⅲ thickiness and hand area. When Tibetan palm finger shape was compared between the different genders, in addition to thickness at metacarpale, thickness at hypothenar and hand index, other indicators were more in males than in females（P＜0.05,0.01). When Han palm finger shape was compared between different sexes, in addition to palm breadth and hand index, other indicators were more in males than in females（P＜0.05, 0.01).Conclusion The palms and fingers morphological features of the Tibetan men are more than those of the Han. The length, width and thickness of palms and fingers of Tibetan women are all smaller than those of Han. The palms and fingers morphological features of females are less than that of males in length, width and thickness.

Key words: Hand length, Finger length, Metacarpal length, Nationality, Gender, Somatometry, Youth