The Vitruvian Man on X-rays

Far from being finished, a new, some questions arise:
  • Why Marcus Vitruvius Pollio did not il­lus­trate what he in­ten­ded, a­like any ar­chi­tec­tur­al plan and pro­ject in his great “De Ar­chi­tec­tura”?
  • To which race and age and sex did he re­fer to, spec­i­fy­ing so ac­cu­rate de­tails, down to the smallest pha­lanx of fin­gers and toes? men are all dif­fer­ent, for co­un­tries, cli­mate, life ha­bits and needs which de­vel­op them in so ma­ny modes.
  • Is there a model that could be taken as op­ti­mal, dis­card­ing all oth­ers from the Cre­ative Uni­ver­sal In­tel­li­gence?
I wondered if the definition written by Vitruvius was literature, but not scien­ce, since the human arms and bodies don't match a square in a lot of cases. Shall we restrict the standard to the terrestrial Roman Empire civ­i­li­sa­tion, or the Tuscany over times? it would be a meaningless dream, although with the signature by Leonardo Da Vinci.

But, looking further, even­tu­al­ly the extended arms width of peo­ple that make strongly use of them, like gymnasts and Olympic cham­pi­ons, it cor­re­sponds to their height, prov­ing these to­day's sam­ples that Vi­tru­vi­us was reliable!
Nonetheless, if the squ­are by he­ight/width of the man might not be likely ques­tioned, the cir­cle drawn by Leonardo be­trays a tech­ni­cal mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tion, for two main reasons.