J Forensic Sci, July 2013, Vol. 58, No.

4
doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12133
TECHNICAL NOTE Available online at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com

ANTHROPOLOGY

Richard M. Thomas,1 Ph.D.; Douglas H. Ubelaker,2 Ph.D.; and John E. Byrd,3 Ph.D.

Tables for the Metric Evaluation of

Pair-Matching of Human Skeletal Elements*

ABSTRACT: A common task in forensic anthropology involves pair-matching of left and right skeletal elements. This can be achieved
through visual pair-matching by evaluating similarities in morphology, and through osteometric sorting, a quantitative technique. To simplify
the process of osteometric sorting, this article explains the use of a statistic (M), which captures the amount of size variation found between
homologous bones from single individuals. A database of skeletal measurements for all major paired postcranial bones is used to calculate val-
ues of M from a variety of sources. The maximum value and the 90th and 95th percentiles of M are provided in tabular format, and values of
M from forensic cases can be compared to these tables as an objective means for determining whether homologous bones could have originated
from the same individual. This simple technique can be combined with visual pair-matching to be particularly effective in cases involving com-
mingling of skeletons.

KEYWORDS: forensic science, forensic anthropology, pair-matching, osteometric sorting, commingling, bilateral asymmetry

A common task in forensic anthropology involves pair-match-
ing of left and right skeletal elements, especially in cases involv-
ing commingling of skeletons from multiple graves, mass
graves, or disaster scenes. However, pair-matching on a smaller
scale is used to determine whether two homologous bones found
at different sites or at different times could have originated from
a single individual. There are two methods of pair-matching:
visual pair-matching, a subjective technique that uses gross
visual evaluation of similarities in bone morphology and taphon-
omy to match pairs; and osteometric sorting, a quantitative tech-
nique that allows statistical evaluation of size similarities
between homologs to evaluate possible matches (1).
This article uses standard skeletal measurement data to statisti-
cally evaluate possible pair matches. The data are from a data-
base developed to aid the metric assessment of skeletal elements
by producing statistical tests to resolve commingling (2,3). These
previously published tests can be used for pair-matching pur-
poses, but also apply to osteometric sorting of other skeletal ele-
ments and therefore are more laborious for use in matching
single pairs. These tests also require multiple measurements for
each bone, which may be impossible in the case of fragmentary
1
Laboratory Division, Trace Evidence Unit, Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion, 2501 Investigation Parkway, Quantico, VA.
2
Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum
of Natural History, Washington, DC.
3
Central Identification Laboratory, Joint POW-MIA Accounting Com-
mand, 310 Worchester Avenue, Hickam AFB, HI.
*Disclaimer: Names of commercial manufacturers are provided for identi-
fication purposes only, and inclusion does not imply endorsement of the
manufacturer or its products or services by the FBI. The views expressed are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or posi-
tion of the FBI or the U.S. Government.
Received 3 June 2011; and in revised form 23 April 2012; accepted 6
May 2012.
952 Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the U.S.A.
remains. Another study developed a simple formula for identify-
ing pairs, but focused on nonhuman bones (4).
Research in the areas of asymmetry, including bilateral, direc-
tional, or fluctuating asymmetry, has long focused on metric dif-
ferences between the right and left side of an organism (59).
Simple formulae to measure asymmetry have been developed as
a part of these studies, but they have explored asymmetry with
relationship to handedness and growth and development and
did not discuss the use of these formulae for the purpose of
pair-matching.
The reference data tables presented here show the maximum
value, as well as the 90th and 95th percentiles of a statistic (M),
which is similar to previous measures of asymmetry and is
designed to capture the range of variability between the left and
right elements within human individuals. These values of M are
shown for a number of standard skeletal measurements for paired
elements and can be easily used to metrically test the null hypothesis
that homologous bones originated from the same individual.
Methods
The reference set of measurement data utilized in this study
were compiled for osteometric sorting methods and come from
several skeletal collections and databases, including the Forensic
Data Bank and William M. Bass Donated Skeletal Collection at
the University of Tennessee, Knoxville; the Robert J. Terry Ana-
tomical Skeletal Collection at the Smithsonian Institutions
National Museum of Natural History Department of Anthropol-
ogy; the Hamann-Todd Osteological Collection at the Cleveland
Museum of Natural History; the International Commission on
Missing Persons, Bosnia and Herzegovina; the Peabody Museum
of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University; and the
Central Identification Laboratory, Joint POW/MIA Accounting
Command. The sample used here includes 108 women and 283
2013 American Academy of Forensic Sciences

Measurement
Clavicle Maximum Length
Clavicle Sagittal Diameter at Midshaft
Clavicle Vertical Diameter at Midshaft
Scapula Height
Scapula Breadth
Scapula Maximum Height of
the Glenoid Fossa
Scapula Maximum Breadth of
the Glenoid Fossa
Humerus Maximum Length
Humerus Epicondylar Breadth
Humerus Capitulum-Trochlea Breadth
Humerus Maximum Vertical
Head Diameter
Humerus Maximum A-P Head Breadth
Humerus Maximum Diameter at Midshaft
Humerus Minimum Diameter at Midshaft
Humerus Minimum Diameter of Diaphysis
Radius Maximum Length
Radius Sagittal Diameter at Midshaft
Radius Transverse Diameter at Midshaft
Radius Maximum Diameter at the
Radial Tuberosity
Radius Maximum Diameter of the
Diaphysis Distal to Radial Tuberosity
Radius Minimum Diameter of the
Diaphysis Distal to the Radial Tuberosity
Ulna Maximum Length
Ulna Dorso-Volar Diameter
Ulna Transverse Diameter
Ulna Physiological Length
Ulna Minimum Diameter along the
Interosseous Crest
Ulna Minimum Diameter
Os Coxa Height
Os Coxa Iliac Breadth
Os Coxa Maximum Thickness at
the Sciatic Notch
Os Coxa Maximum Diameter of
the Acetabulum
Femur Maximum Length
Femur Epicondylar Length
Femur Epicondylar Breadth
Femur Maximum Head Diameter
Femur A-P Subtrochanteric Diameter
THOMAS ET AL. . PAIR-MATCHING TABLES 953
TABLE 1List of postcranial measurements used in this study.
Measure # Description
35 The maximum length of the clavicle taken on the osteometric board.
36 The anteriorposterior diameter of the clavicle taken at midshaft. Usually the maximum diameter
at midshaft.
37 The diameter of the clavicle from the cranial to the caudal surface taken at midshaft.
38 The direct distance from the most superior point of the cranial angle to the most inferior point on
the caudal angle.
39 Distance from the midpoint on the dorsal border of the glenoid fossa to midway between the two
ridges of the scapular spine on the vertebral border. Project a line through the obtuse angle of
a triangle formed by the vertebral border and the two ridges of the spine, dividing it into two
equal halves. The medial measuring point is located where this line intersects the vertebral border.
39A* The greatest distance along the rim of the glenoid fossa in the vertical plane. Care should be
taken to take the measurement from the rim of the glenoid fossa.
39B* Place one surface of the jaw of the calipers on the anterior side of the glenoid fossa and place
the flat surface of the other jaw on the posterior side with both jaws oriented parallel to the
long axis of the bone.
40 The maximum length of the humerus taken on the osteometric board.
41 The maximum breadth of the distal humerus taken on the osteometric board.
41A* The breadth of the capitulum and trochlea at the distal humerus. One end of the sliding
calipers is positioned parallel to the flat, spool-shaped surface of the trochlea, and the other
end is moved until it comes into contact with the capitulum.
42 Place the point of the fixed jaw of the sliding calipers on the most superior point of the head
of the humerus on the perimeter of the articular surface. Place the movable jaw so as to find
the maximum diameter without moving the fixed jaw from its position.
42A* The maximum breadth of the humeral head taken in the anteriorposterior direction on the
articular surface. This measurement is taken perpendicular to the vertical diameter of the
humeral head.
43 The maximum diameter of the humerus at midshaft, taken with sliding calipers.
44 The minimum diameter of the humerus at midshaft, taken with sliding calipers.
44B* The minimum diameter of the humeral diaphysis taken in any direction perpendicular to the
shaft. This measurement should be taken on the oval part of the shaft, superior to the flattening
observed around the olecranon fossa and the lateral supercondylar ridge. Often it is found
near midshaft.
45 The maximum length of the radius taken on the osteometric board.
46 The anteriorposterior diameter of the diaphysis taken at midshaft with sliding calipers.
47 The maximum mediallateral diameter of the diaphysis taken at midshaft with sliding calipers.
47A* The maximum shaft diameter on the radial tuberosity. Position the calipers around the tuberosity
and rotate the bone until the maximum diameter is obtained.
47B* The maximum shaft diameter distal to the radial tuberosity, positioned along the interosseous
crest. The bone should be rotated to find the maximum distance.
47C* The minimum shaft diameter anywhere distal to the radial tuberosity. The bone should be
rotated to find the minimum distance.
48 The maximum length of the ulna taken on the osteometric board.
49 The diameter taken perpendicular to the transverse diameter at the same position along the diaphysis.
50 The diameter taken in the transverse dimension at the maximum expression of the
interosseous crest.
51 The distance between the deepest point on the surface of the coronoid process and the
lowest point on the inferior surface of the distal head of the ulna. Do not include the
styloid process or the groove between the styloid process and the distal surface of the head.
51A* Locate the minimum diameter of the diaphysis along the portion of the bone that includes
the interosseous crest. This measurement may not necessarily include the interosseous crest,
but should be taken on that part of the shaft that exhibits the crest.
51B* Minimum diameter taken on the diaphysis. This measurement will be found near the distal
epiphysis of the ulna. The bone should be rotated to locate the minimum distance.
56 The distance from the most superior pint on the iliac crest to the most inferior point on the
ischial tuberosity.
57 The distance from the anterior superior iliac spine to the posterior superior iliac spine.
59A* The maximum thickness of the ilium at the sciatic notch. Place the fixed jaw of the sliding
calipers on the anterior surface of the ilium adjacent to, but not on, the apex of the auricular
surface. Close the flat surface of the movable jaw onto the posterior surface.
59E* The maximum diameter of the acetabulum. Move the jaws of the sliding calipers around the
perimeter of the acetabulum to find the maximum value along the rim.
60 The maximum length of the femur taken on the osteometric board. Place the medial condyle
against the vertical endboard while applying the movable upright to the femoral head.
61 The distance from the most superior point on the head of the femur to a plane drawn along
the inferior surfaces of the distal condyles. Place the bone on the osteometric board resting
on its posterior surface. Place both distal condyles against the vertical endboard while
applying the movable upright to the femoral head.
62 The breadth of the epicondylar region of the distal femur taken on the osteometric board.
63 The maximum diameter of the femur head taken with sliding calipers.
64 The anteriorposterior diameter of the femur taken in the subtrochlear region.
954 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

TABLE 1Continued.

Measurement Measure # Description

Femur Transverse Subtrochanteric
Diameter
Femur A-P Diameter at Midshaft
Femur S-I Neck Diameter
Tibia Maximum Length
Tibia Maximum Breadth of the
Proximal Epiphysis
Tibia Maximum Breadth of the
Distal Epiphysis
Tibia Maximum Diameter at
Nutrient Foramen
Tibia Transverse Diameter at
Nutrient Foramen
Tibia Maximum A-P Diameter
Distal to Popliteal Line
Tibia Minimum A-P Diameter
Distal to Popliteal Line
Fibula Maximum Length
Fibula Maximum Diameter at Midshaft
Fibula Minimum Diameter of Diaphysis
Calcaneus Length
Calcaneus Middle Breadth
*All measurement descriptions are taken from Moore-Jensen et al. (10) except those with an asterisk (see 2, 3).
65 The transverse diameter of the femur taken in the subtrochlear region.
66 The anteriorposterior diameter of the femur taken at midshaft.
68D* The superiorinferior diameter of the neck taken as a minimum. Place the fixed jaw of the
caliper in the saddle of the neck and close the moveable jaw to find the minimum.
69 The distance from the superior articular surface of the lateral condyle of the tibia to the tip
of the medial malleolus. Do not include the intercondylar eminence.
70 The maximum breadth of the proximal tibia taken on the osteometric board.
71 The maximum breadth of the distal tibia taken on the osteometric board.
72 The maximum diameter of the tibia at the nutrient foramen taken with sliding calipers.
73 The transverse diameter of the tibia at the nutrient foramen taken with sliding calipers.
74A* Locate the largest anteriorposterior distance at any point on the tibial shaft. This point is
typically immediately inferior to the popliteal line.
74B* Locate the smallest anteriorposterior distance at any point on the tibial shaft. This
measurement is typically found at the distal end of the diaphysis.
75 The maximum length of the fibula taken on the osteometric board.
76 The maximum diameter of the fibula at midshaft, taken with sliding calipers.
76B* Rotate the diaphysis inside the jaws of the caliper to find the minimum. This measurement is
found in varying locations in different individuals, but typically the same area in paired bones.
77 The maximum length of the calcaneus, taken with sliding calipers.
78 The distance between the most laterally projecting point on the dorsal articular facet and the
most medial point on the sustentaculum tali. These two points are projected in both
dimensions. Span the calcaneus from behind with the blunt arms of the calipers so that the
calipers are positioned in a flat and transverse plane across the bone.

men of Black (48 men, 32 women), White (215 men, 68
women), Asian (13 men, 4 women), Hispanic/Mexican (5 men,
3 women), and other (2 men, 1 female) descent. A sample of
Vietnamese men was excluded due to the measurements having
been collected for one side only. A more detailed description of
the reference set can be found in previous publications (2,3). An
attempt was made in the development of this database to incor-
porate diversity in terms of ancestry and sex in hopes that the
statistical assessments would be conservative in the following
sense: greater diversity creates higher variance that reduces the
likelihood of erroneous segregations. Of course, this conserva-
tism comes at a cost of power in cases where the ancestry and
sex are known in advance. It is important to note that the bilat-
eral measurements were not available for every individual in the
database. In some instances, only a subset of the measurements
could be obtained. Thus, the reported sample sizes vary for each
measurement. The test described below makes no assumptions
regarding population affinity or sex, and the user must take heed
of the appropriateness of the reference sample when interpreting
results.
The database consists of standard postcranial skeletal measure-
ments (10) as well as additional measurements added by Byrd (3)
and Byrd and Adams (2) designed for use with fragmented bones.
All 51 measurements used in this study are described in Table 1.
Interobserver variation was tested on a difficult subset of these
measurements and was found to show only modest error rates
(generally <3%) and, thus, high reliability (11, p. 1199).
The statistic (M) used in this study can be expressed as
follows:
M jL  Rj=L R=2
where L and R are the measurements of the left and the right
bone, respectively, and the expression (L+R)/2 gives the average
of L and R. Thus, the statistic M expresses the difference in val-
ues between left and right homologs as a proportion of the aver-
age value of the two bones. Left and right homologs with the
same measurement will have an M-value of zero. M is similar to
the measure of standardized asymmetry developed by Van Valen
(5), which has been used in several papers discussing asymmetry
and handedness (69). However, M is unrelated to previously
described osteometric sorting statistics and was not utilized in
previous osteometric sorting papers (24).
Values of M were calculated for all samples in the database
where the appropriate measurements were available. Individual
measurements were evaluated for inclusion in the current refer-
ence tables and suspected data errors were excluded. Measure-
ments applying to paired elements were included unless there
was inadequate sample size (total n < 45). The 90th and 95th
percentiles of M for each measurement were calculated using
Microsoft Excel (Redmond, WA), which uses an algorithm that
conducts linear interpolation between data points and is therefore
capable of returning percentile values that are not present in the
original data set (12). These percentiles are reported in Table 2,
along with the maximum value of M from the data set for each
measurement.
Results and Discussion
Table 2 includes the 90th and 95th percentiles, and the maxi-
mum M-value for men and women separately, as well as for the
sexes combined, a situation that may be more reflective of an
actual forensic case where sex may be undeterminable. The val-
ues of M for men and women were subjected to a t-test to deter-
mine whether there were differences between the two sexes with
regard to this statistic. When evaluated (a = 0.05), three mea-
surements showed a statistically significant difference in mean
values between men and women: the physiological length of the
 THOMAS ET AL. . PAIR-MATCHING TABLES 955

TABLE 2Maximum values and the 90th and 95th percentiles for the statistic M. Measurements in bold show a statistically significant difference in mean
values between men and women (a = 0.05).

Female Male Total

Measurement # n 90th 95th Max M n 90th 95th Max M n 90th 95th Max M
Clavicle Max Length 35 26 0.040 0.045 0.047 78 0.053 0.058 0.081 104 0.049 0.056 0.081
Clavicle A-P Diameter Midshaft 36 26 0.191 0.200 0.222 67 0.113 0.151 0.194 93 0.182 0.154 0.222
Clavicle M-L Diameter Midshaft 37 26 0.236 0.250 0.353 66 0.148 0.184 0.200 92 0.180 0.200 0.353
Scapula Height 38 31 0.028 0.034 0.050 71 0.032 0.040 0.077 102 0.031 0.039 0.077
Scapula Breadth 39 35 0.028 0.036 0.053 80 0.033 0.038 0.064 115 0.032 0.040 0.064
Scapula Maximum Height Glenoid Fossa 39A 12 0.033 0.040 0.048 55 0.057 0.061 0.092 67 0.050 0.061 0.092
Scapula Maximum Breadth Glenoid Fossa 39B 12 0.053 0.055 0.058 56 0.052 0.058 0.082 68 0.054 0.058 0.082
Humerus Maximum Length 40 38 0.020 0.021 0.023 114 0.023 0.030 0.071 152 0.021 0.026 0.071
Humerus Epicondylar Breadth 41 35 0.037 0.050 0.057 100 0.034 0.044 0.079 135 0.034 0.047 0.079
Humerus Capitulum-Trochlea Breadth 41A 9 0.022 0.028 0.034 48 0.025 0.055 0.067 57 0.039 0.052 0.067
Humerus Head Diameter 42 30 0.028 0.037 0.047 98 0.040 0.041 0.089 128 0.040 0.043 0.089
Humerus A-P Head Breadth 42A 10 0.022 0.030 0.038 36 0.038 0.039 0.043 46 0.034 0.038 0.043
Humerus Maximum Diameter Midshaft 43 33 0.059 0.102 0.133 85 0.091 0.097 0.160 118 0.091 0.099 0.160
Humerus Min Diameter Midshaft 44 38 0.069 0.074 0.162 100 0.082 0.105 0.162 138 0.074 0.101 0.162
Humerus Min Diameter Diaphysis 44 14 0.039 0.042 0.047 61 0.069 0.081 0.101 75 0.066 0.079 0.101
Radius Length 45 29 0.024 0.031 0.032 105 0.016 0.026 0.064 134 0.019 0.029 0.064
Radius A-P Diameter Midshaft 46 25 0.101 0.105 0.105 79 0.080 0.090 0.154 104 0.089 0.098 0.154
Radius M-L Diameter Midshaft 47 25 0.078 0.092 0.143 79 0.106 0.118 0.139 104 0.097 0.117 0.143
Radius Maximum Diameter at Radial Tuberosity 47A 9 0.035 0.042 0.049 48 0.064 0.078 0.096 57 0.057 0.079 0.096
Radius Maximum Diameter of Diaphysis 47B 9 0.032 0.040 0.047 47 0.081 0.107 0.167 56 0.075 0.106 0.167
Distal to Radial Tuberosity
Radius Minimum Diameter of Diaphysis Distal 47C 13 0.056 0.062 0.070 59 0.068 0.076 0.091 72 0.068 0.073 0.091
to Radial Tuberosity
Ulna Length 48 33 0.024 0.027 0.039 96 0.020 0.025 0.041 129 0.022 0.026 0.041
Ulna Dorso-Volar Diameter 49 34 0.122 0.188 0.400 82 0.133 0.158 0.533 116 0.129 0.186 0.533
Ulna Transverse Diameter 50 38 0.089 0.128 0.182 94 0.117 0.202 0.375 132 0.116 0.160 0.375
Ulna Physiological Length 51 26 0.023 0.027 0.039 59 0.018 0.026 0.032 85 0.022 0.027 0.039
Ulna Min Diameter Osseous Crest 51A 8 0.078 0.090 0.102 40 0.069 0.086 0.091 48 0.071 0.087 0.102
Ulna Min Diameter 51B 8 0.044 0.049 0.053 42 0.065 0.082 0.095 50 0.062 0.081 0.095
Os Coxa Height 56 32 0.013 0.022 0.035 101 0.019 0.023 0.051 133 0.019 0.023 0.051
Os Coxa Iliac Breadth 57 35 0.021 0.023 0.048 97 0.025 0.031 0.077 132 0.025 0.030 0.077
Os Coxa Maximum Thickness at Sciatic Notch 59A 9 0.076 0.098 0.120 59 0.091 0.116 0.158 68 0.092 0.118 0.158
Os Coxa Maximum Diameter of Acetabulum 59E 6 0.034 0.040 0.046 40 0.031 0.033 0.037 46 0.031 0.035 0.046
Femur Maximum Length 60 27 0.014 0.015 0.019 82 0.013 0.015 0.020 109 0.014 0.015 0.020
Femur Epicondylar Length 61 25 0.012 0.014 0.015 74 0.014 0.016 0.021 99 0.014 0.015 0.021
Femur Epicondylar Breadth 62 23 0.028 0.040 0.063 85 0.013 0.024 0.026 108 0.022 0.025 0.063
Femur Head Diameter 63 25 0.025 0.025 0.048 97 0.028 0.037 0.045 122 0.026 0.037 0.048
Femur A-P Subtrochlear Diameter 64 37 0.076 0.092 0.118 103 0.069 0.094 0.129 140 0.071 0.095 0.129
Femur Transverse Subtrochlear Diameter 65 34 0.063 0.072 0.102 92 0.069 0.097 0.163 126 0.066 0.094 0.163
Femur A-P Diameter Midshaft 66 27 0.064 0.071 0.083 52 0.041 0.055 0.071 79 0.053 0.067 0.083
Femur S-I Neck Diameter 68D 5 0.058 0.059 0.061 48 0.056 0.065 0.082 53 0.056 0.063 0.082
Tibia Length 69 28 0.012 0.014 0.033 108 0.014 0.016 0.028 136 0.014 0.015 0.033
Tibia Maximum Breadth of the Prox Epiphysis 70 22 0.031 0.031 0.041 82 0.025 0.027 0.041 104 0.026 0.031 0.041
Tibia Maximum Breadth of the Dist Epiphysis 71 22 0.044 0.057 0.078 79 0.040 0.046 0.059 101 0.042 0.051 0.078
Tibia Maximum Diameter at Nutrient Foramen 72 34 0.085 0.097 0.127 104 0.069 0.090 0.126 138 0.073 0.095 0.127
Tibia Transverse Diameter at Nutrient Foramen 73 31 0.095 0.154 0.424 91 0.080 0.092 0.251 122 0.083 0.097 0.424
Tibia Maximum A-P Diameter Distal to 74A 7 0.044 0.045 0.046 40 0.062 0.077 0.090 47 0.060 0.073 0.090
Popliteal Line
Tibia Min A-P Diameter Distal to Popliteal Line 74B 6 0.028 0.028 0.029 43 0.074 0.090 0.094 49 0.074 0.086 0.094
Fibula Length 75 22 0.014 0.020 0.031 85 0.013 0.016 0.041 107 0.013 0.016 0.041
Fibula Maximum Diameter Midshaft 76 19 0.100 0.119 0.133 56 0.087 0.109 0.133 75 0.092 0.118 0.133
Fibula Minimum Diameter of Diaphysis 76B 8 0.052 0.057 0.127 50 0.108 0.124 0.149 58 0.108 0.128 0.149
Calcaneus Length 77 16 0.024 0.026 0.029 57 0.029 0.038 0.056 73 0.029 0.033 0.056
Calcaneus Middle Breadth 78 15 0.046 0.051 0.054 51 0.045 0.048 0.085 66 0.045 0.050 0.085

ulna; the anteriorposterior diameter of the clavicle at midshaft;
and the anteriorposterior diameter of the femur at midshaft.
These measurements are shown in bold in Table 2. It should be
noted that when performing 51 tests with a = 0.05, there is a
greater than 80% probability of obtaining three significant results
by chance alone. Thus, the reader should consider the differ-
ences between the sexes as generally of minor consequence in
osteometric sorting, and given the small sample size for women
for certain measurements, it is suggested that the percentile val-
ues with the sexes combined be used.
The reference tables presented here provide a simple tool for
use in the metric assessment of possible skeletal pair matches.
Analysts can test the null hypothesis that two homologs are from
the same individual by calculating the value of M for each mea-
surement for the bones in question and comparing it to the 90th
and 95th percentiles or the maximum value of M from the data-
base to make a statistical evaluation of the difference in size
between the left and right elements. If the value of M is greater
than that for the percentile chosen, the null hypothesis can be
rejected, providing evidence that it is unlikely that the two bones
956 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
originated from the same individual. However, the reverse is not
necessarily true; failure to reject the null hypothesis is not suffi-
cient to conclude that the elements are from the same individual.
Additional analyses, such as visual pair-matching, would com-
plement this metric assessment. Investigators utilizing this
method are encouraged to consider the results in conjunction
with other lines of evidence when sorting commingled remains.
Acknowledgments
The following institutions provided skeletal collections for the
measurement database: Central Identification Laboratory, Joint
POW/MIA Accounting Command; Forensic Anthropology Cen-
ter, University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Department of Anthro-
pology, Smithsonian Institution; Cleveland Museum of Natural
History; International Commission on Missing Persons, Bosnia-
Herzegovina; and Peabody Museum, Harvard University. We
also thank FBI Laboratory personnel and anonymous reviewers
for reviewing earlier drafts of the manuscript.
References
1. Byrd JE, Adams BJ. Analysis of commingled human remains. In: Blau
S, Ubelaker DH, editors. Handbook of forensic anthropology and archae-
ology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2009;17486.
2. Byrd JE, Adams BJ. Osteometric sorting of commingled human remains.
J Forensic Sci 2003;48:71724.
3. Byrd JE. Models and methods for osteometric sorting. In: Adams BJ,
Byrd JE, editors. Recovery, analysis, and identification of commingled
human remains. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 2008;199220.
4. Lyman RL. Identifying bilateral pairs of deer (Odocoileus sp.) bones:
how symmetrical is symmetrical enough? J Archaeol Sci 2006;33:
125665.
5. Van Valen L. A study of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution 1962;16:
12542.
6. Steele J, Mays S. Handedness and directional asymmetry in the long
bones of the human upper limb. Int J Osteoarchaeol 1995;5:3949.
 T, Leben-Seljak P, Stefan
7. Cuk  cic M. Lateral asymmetry of human long
bones. Variability and Evolution 2001;9:1932.
8. Auerbach BM, Ruff CB. Limb bone bilateral asymmetry: variability and
commonality among modern humans. J Hum Evol 2006;50:20318.
9. Blackburn A. Bilateral asymmetry of the humerus during growth and
development. Am J Phys Anthropol 2011;145:63946.
10. Moore-Jansen PH, Ousley SD, Jantz RL. Data collection procedures for
forensic skeletal material. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee,
Department of Anthropology, 1994;Report of Investigations No. 48.
11. Adams BJ, Byrd JE. Interobserver variation of selected postcranial skele-
tal measurements. J Forensic Sci 2002;47:1193202.
12. Hyndman RJ, Fan Y. Sample quantiles in statistical packages. Am Stat
1996;50:3615.
Additional information and reprint request:
Richard M. Thomas, Ph.D.
FBI Laboratory Trace Evidence Unit
2501 Investigation Parkway
Quantico, VA 22135
E-mail: richard.m.thomas@ic.fbi.gov