Criticizing the trial and error transparency method for
Criticizing the trial and error transparency method for orienting the skull used by Glaister and Brash, Chandra Sekharan  illustrated correlating changes in the horizontal relationship of the eye angle and the tragus in the human face in profile view and recommended using that AZD 1480 relationship to orient the skull. The fact that the relationship between the tragus and the eye angle changes with the extent of forward or backward tilt of the face is well recognized , and these changes influence the height of the face-image . Austin Smith and Maples  used the distance between the tragus and the eye angle when verifying a match as acceptable. Authors using the video superimposition method rely on anatomical landmarks in the front (eye) and rear (ear) planes of the face to orient the skull , , , , ,  and . The eye angle-tragus relationship is useful only as a guideline during skull orientation and cannot yield precise measurements for orientation. Chandra Sekharan assumed the auditory meatus to lie on the same horizontal plane as the extreme point of the tragus , and Fedosyutkin and Naynis considered the tragus to correspond with the upper rim of the auditory meatus . Apart from the unpredictable visibility of tragus in face-images, the wide range of variations in size and shape of the tragus further constrains its precise alignment with the auditory meatus. Nevertheless, the relationship between the tragus and the auditory meatus being anatomical, hemophilia is unacceptable to allow the auditory meatus in the skull to misalign with the tragus in a face-image.