http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=516480
This is the article. Of course, a lot of it is over my head, but I get the general meaning (I think).
This is the article. Of course, a lot of it is over my head, but I get the general meaning (I think).
From the conclusion: Both population history/structure and natural selection appear to have shaped the among-region differences observed in the modern human cranium, as represented in these 10 populations taken from Howells' data set. Population history and structure seem to predominate in shaping among-region differences among the nine non-Siberian (Buriat) modern human populations. This is in close agreement with Relethford's (11, 12, 33) analyses. However, when the Siberian (Buriat) population is included in the analysis, cold-mediated natural selection appears to be primarily responsible for the large differences observed between the Siberian (Buriat) sample and the rest of the world. Another analysis by Relethford has also noted associations of craniometric variation with temperature controlling for geographic distance, further bolstering the secondary effect of natural selection on the global distribution of cranial variation (34). This raises the intriguing question of the limits of human cultural buffering when facing the challenges of extreme environments [emphasis added].
You read correctly. From this article it looks like this one population (the Buriat of Siberia) goes against the global pattern and does indeed have cranial differences which are attributed to cold weather.
Nasal shape differences are well-known, but in this case there seems to be an increase primarily in cranial breadth, and to a lesser degree in other cranial measurements.
Half of the statistics are over my head too, but I did a lot of cranial measurements and some different multivariate statistics in grad school, so I can follow the general idea.
Very interesting!
Now, somebody needs to figure out why this one group differs from the rest of the world.