DOCSLIB.ORG

367 Anatomical Study for the Skull Bones in the Turkey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
367 Anatomical Study for the Skull Bones in the Turkey Bas.J.Vet.Res.Vol.19, No.1, 2020. ANATOMICAL STUDY FOR THE SKULL BONES IN THE TURKEY (Meleagris gallopavo) Sawsan Gafoori Ahmed* Fawzi S.al-Asadi** *Middle technicial University,Technicial Medical Institute,Baghdad,Iraq **Department of Anatomy,College of Veterinary medicine,University of Basrah,Basrah,Iraq (Received 10 October 2019 ,Accepted 1 December 2019) Key words: Meleagris gallopavo, Skull anatomy, Turkey . Corresponding Author: [email protected] ABSTRACT The domestic turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) is a large poultry, one of the two species in the sex Meleagris and the same as the wild turkey .The present study was conducted on heads of adult turkey (meleagris gallopoavo), The acquired skull were purchased from market in city. all skull were used to obsereved the osteological morphology of the turkey skull INTRODUCTION The domestic turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) is a large poultry, one of the two species in the sex Meleagris and the same as the wild turkey [1]. Domestic turkey is a popular form of poultry, and it is raised throughout moderate parts of the world, partly because industrialized farming has made it very cheap for the amount of meat it produces [2]. most characteristic feature of the bird skulls is that they have several shapes and variable dimensions [3]. Bird skull is structurally and functionally composed of the rostrum, the orbits and the braincase [4]. skull bones in birds are classically divided into neurocranium and splanchnocranium[5,6)]. 367 Bas.J.Vet.Res.Vol.19, No.1, 2020. MATERIALS AND METHODS The present study was load out on the heads of turkey. The acquired heads were purchased from market in Basrah. city . all heads were used to observe the osteological morphology of the turkey skull. Directly killing, removing soft tissues and brain from the heads, then putting in potassium hydroxide solution ( 5%) until one day until maceration and remnants of the soft tissue were removed. The skull were put in a solution of H2O2 (10% )for 30 minutes. After this time, the bones were washing in running water and the parts were dried in the sun light for two days depending on the method of [7,8]. The acquired skulls were observed by dissecting microscope and images were processed on the computer. RESULTS The results showed that turkey skull has pyramidial shape with Semi stenosic rounded apex while the base was wide rounded. The skull consist of the craniul bones and the facial bones. the bones of the cranium are occipitall, sfenoid , ethmoide ,temporall ,pariettal and frontal. The bones of face are mandiblle, vomeer ,hyoid bones, quadrate, lacrimall, nasal bone, pramaxilla, maxilla, Zygomatice, palattine bone and ptterygoid bones(fig1,2). The occipital bone is consist of basioccipitale, paired exooccipitale and supraoccipital that surrounded a rounded Foramen magnum.there is single occipital condyle cranial to this foramen(fig-3) The sphenoid bone is occupy the major thickest of the floor of the cranium. It is divided into basisphenoid (body and wings)and presphenoid parts(body, two orbital wings and parashenoid wings)(fig-4). The ethmoidal bone has horizontal and verticaldelicate bony plates. The parietal bone is very simple. The frontal bone occupied the most part of the cranium and consist of frontal,orbital and nasal part(fig-5). The temporal bone forms of ear capsule which has rounded cavity and squamous part which has large zygomatic process(fig-5). The quadrate bone is quadrilateral in shape and has two process(mandibular and otic) and two condyle(lateral and medial)(fig-6).the lacrimal bone is very small.the nasal bone is connected with frontal process forming the upper beak. also the maxilla and the zygomatic bone are small(fig-7) .the palatine bone and pterygoid bone are 368 Bas.J.Vet.Res.Vol.19, No.1, 2020. quadrilateral in shape. The vomer bone is long. the mandible of the turkey is V curved shaped(fig-8). The orbital cavity bounded by frontal bone roofely,by pterygoid bone ventrally,by frontal bone and interorbital septum medially and by the frontal bone,temporal fossa, sguamous part of temporal bone caudally. Fig-1- 1-Nasal process 2-Intermaxillary process 3-Frontal process 4-Nasal frontal hinge 5- Nasal part 6-Frontal part 7-Orbital part 8-Orbital Process9-Zygomatic process 10- Lateral process11-Maxillary process 12- Lacrimal process Fig-2-1-Foramen magnum 2-Baci-occipital 3-Postsphenoid 4-Presphenoid 5- Vomer 6- Palatine 7- Distal end of palatine process 8- Pterygoid 9- Quadrate 5. Orbital cavity 6.Lacrimal bone 7.Maxilla 8.Premaxilla 369 Bas.J.Vet.Res.Vol.19, No.1, 2020. Fig-3-1-Foramen magnum 2-Raised area 3-Lateral occipital 4-Quadrate bone 5- Occipital condyle 6-Quadrato-temporal joint 7-Supra occipital part Fig-4-Ventral view of turkey skull showing:1- premaxillare,2- Vomer ,3- sphenoidale ,4- basioccipitale ,5- maxillare ,6- Sinus frontalis ,7- pterygoideum, 8-exoccipitale ,9- Condylus occipital 370 Bas.J.Vet.Res.Vol.19, No.1, 2020. Fig-5- 1-Earcapsule 2-Quadratotemporal articulation3-Optic foramen 4- Ethmoid bone 5- Zygomatic process 6- Squamous part 7-Orbital cavity Fig-6 -1-Orbital process2-Oticprocess 3-Lateral condyle 4-Articular fossa. 5-Sulcus intercondylaris 6- Medial condyle 7- Tubercle 8-Pneumatic foramen 371 Bas.J.Vet.Res.Vol.19, No.1, 2020. Fig-7- lateral view of turkey skull showing: 1-parietale ,2- frontale , 3-nasale ,4- lacrimale bone,5- Maxillaries ,6- Zygomatic bone 7- Foramen opticum Fig-8- showing the mandible of the turkey is V curved shaped DISCUSSION The results showed that turkey skull has pyramidial shape with Semi stenotic, rounded apex and wide rounded base. The skull consist of the cranial bones and the the facial bones. this result convention with[9]. Skull of birds like that of mammals is consist of cranial and facial bones. the bones of the cranium are occipittal, sfenoid , 372 Bas.J.Vet.Res.Vol.19, No.1, 2020. ethmoide,temporall,parietall and frontall. The bones of face are mandiblle, vomere ,hyoid bones, quadratte, lacrimall, nasal bone, premaxilla, maxilla, Zygomatic, palatine bone and pterygoid bones The latter completely agreed with that reported by [10,11]. The occipital bone is consist of basioccipitalle, paired exooccipitalle and supraoccipitall that surrounded a rounded Foramen magnum. there is single occipitall condyle cranial to this foramen. this result agreement with [12,13] while studying avian skull morphology observed a possible relation between the positions of foramen magnum with the head posture. The sphenoid bone is occupy the most thickest of the floor of the cranium. It is divided into basisfenoid (body and wings)and presphenoid parts(body, two orbital wings and parasfenoid wings). this result agreement with. [14] added well developed mandibular processes were present at the junction of basisphenoid and presphenoid. except, [10] in goose and duck mentioned that basispenoid has distinct muscular processes and grooves .The ethmoidal bone has horizontal and verticaldelicate bony plates. The last completely agreed with that reported by [10,11]. The parietal bone is very simple. this result agreement with [15].Interparietal bone in birds is reported to be absent as observed in the current study. The frontal bone occupied the most part of the cranium and consist of frontal,orbital and nasal part. this result agreed with that shown by [11] in goose. The temporal bone forms of ear capsule which has rounded cavity and squamous part which has large zygomatic process. this result agreed with [10] introduce an orbital process of the squamous temporal bone above the temporal fossa which is stout and long in duck and geese, more slim in fowl and elementary in pigeons. The latter authors noticed that the orbital process in fowl fused with the zygomatice process of temporal bone. The quadratte bone is quadrilateral in shape and has two process(mandibular and otic) and two condele(lateral and medial). the lacrimall bone is very small. the nasal bone is connected with frontal process forming the upper beak. this result agreed with [16, 17] in ostrich and [18] in Baryphthenguse ruficapilluse. also the maxilla and the zygomatice bone are small. The present work conflicted with [10,11] that revealed a connection of maxilla with nasal bone. the palatine bone and pterygoid bone are quadrilateral in shape.The present work differed with [10,11] that shown a shape of 373 Bas.J.Vet.Res.Vol.19, No.1, 2020. palatine bone in fowl and pigeon is rod like that differs from the present research. The vomer bone is long. this result differ with the [10] The vomer is rudimentary in fowl and pigeon. the mandible of the turkey is V curved shaped. that is correlated with that revealed by [19] in the the rock pigeon. The orbital cavity bounded by frontal bone roofely,by pterygoid bone ventrally,by frontal bone and interorbital septum medially and by the frontal bone,temporal fossa, sguamous part of temporal bone caudally. this result agreed with [10] introduce an orbital process of the squamous temporal bone above the temporal fossa, which is stout and long in duck and geese. دراﺳﺔ ﺗﺸﺮﯾﺤﯿﺔ ﻟﻌﻈﺎم اﻟﺠﻤﺠﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺪ ﺟﺎج اﻟﺮوﻣﻲ ﺳﻮﺳﻦ ﻏﻔﻮري اﺣﻤﺪ * ﻓﻮزي ﺻﺪام ﻣﺤﺴﻦ ** اﻟﻜﻠﯿﮫ اﻟﺘﻘﻨﯿﮫ اﻟﻄﺒﯿﮫ،ھﯿﺌﺔ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﯿﻢ اﻟﺘﻘﻨﻲ اﻟﻄﺒﻲ ، ﺑﻐﺪاد ،اﻟﻌﺮاق. ﻓﺮع اﻟﺘﺸﺮﯾﺢ ،ﻛﻠﯿﺔ اﻟﻄﺐ اﻟﺒﯿﻄﺮي ،ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﺒﺼﺮه ،اﻟﺒﺼﺮه ،اﻟﻌﺮاق. اﻟﺨﻼﺻﺔ ﯾﻌﺪ اﻟﺪﺟﺎج اﻟﺮوﻣﻲ ﻣﻦ اﻧﻮاع اﻟﺪﺟﺎج اﻟﻜﺒﯿﺮة اﻟﺤﺠﻢ.ﺻﻤﻤﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﯿﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺸﺮة رؤؤس ﻣﻦ اﻟﺪﺟﺎج اﻟﺮوﻣﻲ اﻟﺒﺎﻟﻎ واﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺟﻠﺒﮭﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻻﺳﻮاق اﻟﻤﺤﻠﯿﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺒﺼﺮة.ﺗﻢ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﺗﻠﻠﻚ اﻟﺮؤؤس ﻟﻠﺪراﺳﺔ اﻟﺘﺸﺮﯾﺤﯿﺔ اﻟﻮﺻﻔﯿﺔ. اوﺿﺤﺖ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺑﺎن ﻋﻈﺎم اﻟﺠﻤﺠﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺪﺟﺎج اﻟﺮوﻣﻲ ﺗﺘﻤﯿﺰ ﺑﺼﻔﺎت ﺗﻤﯿﺰھﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻏﯿﺮھﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻧﻮاع اﻟﺪﺟﺎج اﻻﺧﺮى. REFERENCES 1.UF researchers discover earliest(2012). use of Mexican turkeys by ancient Maya". EurekAlert!. 2.Webster's II New College Dictionary.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Ear in Mammal-Like Reptiles and Early Mammals
    Acta Palaeontologica Polonica Vol. 28, No. 1-2 pp, 147-158 Warszawa, 1983 Second Symposium on Mesozoic T erre stial Ecosystems, Jadwisin 1981 KENNETH A. KERMACK and FRANCES MUSSETT THE EAR IN MAMMAL-LIKE REPTILES AND EARLY MAMMALS KERMACK, K . A. a nd MUSS ETT, F.: The ear in mammal-like r eptiles an d early mammals. Acta Palaeont. P olonica , 28, 1-2, 147-158, 1983. Th e early m embers of the Theropsida lacked a tympanic membrane. In the later theropslds, the Therapsid a, a tym p an ic membrane develop ed from thc skin on the lateral side of th e lower jaw. The tympanum is not homologous In the Therapsida and ' t he Sauropslda. The ther apsid ea r w as a poor receiver of airborne sound, both In hi gh frequency r esp onse and In the r ange of frequencies encompassed. With the radiation of the Sauropsida in the Triassic the large therapsids became extinct, the small therap si ds evolv ed In to the mammal s and became nocturnal. High frequency hearin g w as essen tial for the nocturn al mode of life; quadrate and arttcutar became diss ociated from the jaw hinge to become the m ammali an au di tory ossi cles . I n the Theria the cochlea became coil ed. The spiral cochlea could n ot have existed until there w as a middle ear w ith the n ec essary h ig h f re q uency r esp onse. This m ay n ot have been until the Cretace ous.
    [Show full text]
  • The Skull O Neurocranium, Form and Function O Dermatocranium, Form
    Lesson 15 ◊ Lesson Outline: ♦ The Skull o Neurocranium, Form and Function o Dermatocranium, Form and Function o Splanchnocranium, Form and Function • Evolution and Design of Jaws • Fate of the Splanchnocranium ♦ Trends ◊ Objectives: At the end of this lesson, you should be able to: ♦ Describe the structure and function of the neurocranium ♦ Describe the structure and function of the dermatocranium ♦ Describe the origin of the splanchnocranium and discuss the various structures that have evolved from it. ♦ Describe the structure and function of the various structures that have been derived from the splanchnocranium ♦ Discuss various types of jaw suspension and the significance of the differences in each type ◊ References: ♦ Chapter: 9: 162-198 ◊ Reading for Next Lesson: ♦ Chapter: 9: 162-198 The Skull: From an anatomical perspective, the skull is composed of three parts based on the origins of the various components that make up the final product. These are the: Neurocranium (Chondocranium) Dermatocranium Splanchnocranium Each part is distinguished by its ontogenetic and phylogenetic origins although all three work together to produce the skull. The first two are considered part of the Cranial Skeleton. The latter is considered as a separate Visceral Skeleton in our textbook. Many other morphologists include the visceral skeleton as part of the cranial skeleton. This is a complex group of elements that are derived from the ancestral skeleton of the branchial arches and that ultimately gives rise to the jaws and the skeleton of the gill
    [Show full text]
  • Mammalogy Lecture 2 - Origin of Mammals I
    Mammalogy Lecture 2 - Origin of Mammals I. There are three major living (extant) groups of mammals A. Monotremes - egg laying mammals B. Metatherians - marsupial mammals C. Eutherians - Placental mammals These are related by the following evolutionary tree or phylogeny Monotremes Metatherians (Marsupials) Eutherians (Placentals) Node - Divergence Event Branch - Common Ancestor Marsupials and placentals share an ancestor not shared by monotremes. II. A. In order to understand the origin of mammals, we have to look farther back, into the Paleozoic (350 MYA), and look at relationships among the tetrapod vertebrates. So we’ll start by going deeper in time, and work our way back up to this level in the phylogeny. Amp hibians Mamm als Tur tles Squ amates Crocodylians Dino1 Birds Dino 2 Synaps ida Stem Rep tiles - Captor hino mo rp hs Am n ion Trans ition to land We can mark evolutionary changes along this phylogeny; the evolution of limbs, the evolution of the amnion, etc. It’s this lineage labeled Synapsida that we’ll examine in order to understand the origin of mammals. We need to understand the situation just prior to this in the “stem reptiles,” the ancestors to mammals, birds, turtles, and other reptiles. Captorhinomorphs. B. In the Carboniferous, ca. 350 MYBP, the captorhinomorphs evolved, and the synapsid lineage diverged from the stem reptiles 30 MY later 320 MYA, and it’s this lineage that will eventually lead the modern mammals. Synapsid - “together arch” describes a skull condition that is unique to this lineage. The word “synapsid” is also used to refer to the group of organisms that exhibit this condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Jaw Suspension
    JAW SUSPENSION Jaw suspension means attachment of the lower jaw with the upper jaw or the skull for efficient biting and chewing. There are different ways in which these attachments are attained depending upon the modifications in visceral arches in vertebrates. AMPHISTYLIC In primitive elasmobranchs there is no modification of visceral arches and they are made of cartilage. Pterygoqadrate makes the upper jaw and meckel’s cartilage makes lower jaw and they are highly flexible. Hyoid arch is also unchanged. Lower jaw is attached to both pterygoqadrate and hyoid arch and hence it is called amphistylic. AUTODIASTYLIC Upper jaw is attached with the skull and lower jaw is directly attached to the upper jaw. The second arch is a branchial arch and does not take part in jaw suspension. HYOSTYLIC In modern sharks, lower jaw is attached to pterygoquadrate which is in turn attached to hyomandibular cartilage of the 2nd arch. It is the hyoid arch which braces the jaw by ligament attachment and hence it is called hyostylic. HYOSTYLIC (=METHYSTYLIC) In bony fishes pterygoquadrate is broken into epipterygoid, metapterygoid and quadrate, which become part of the skull. Meckel’s cartilage is modified as articular bone of the lower jaw, through which the lower jaw articulates with quadrate and then with symplectic bone of the hyoid arch to the skull. This is a modified hyostylic jaw suspension that is more advanced. AUTOSTYLIC (=AUTOSYSTYLIC) Pterygoquadrate is modified to form epipterygoid and quadrate, the latter braces the lower jaw with the skull. Hyomandibular of the second arch transforms into columella bone of the middle ear cavity and hence not available for jaw suspension.
    [Show full text]
  • Furry Folk: Synapsids and Mammals
    FURRY FOLK: SYNAPSIDS AND MAMMALS Of all the great transitions between major structural grades within vertebrates, the transition from basal amniotes to basal mammals is represented by the most complete and continuous fossil record, extending from the Middle Pennsylvanian to the Late Triassic and spanning some 75 to 100 million years. —James Hopson, “Synapsid evolution and the radiation of non-eutherian mammals,” 1994 At the very beginning of their history, amniotes split into two lineages, the synapsids and the reptiles. Traditionally, the earliest synapsids have been called the “mammal-like reptiles,” but this is a misnomer. The earliest synapsids had nothing to do with reptiles as the term is normally used (referring to the living reptiles and their extinct relatives). Early synapsids are “reptilian” only in the sense that they initially retained a lot of primitive amniote characters. Part of the reason for the persistence of this archaic usage is the precladistic view that the synapsids are descended from “anapsid” reptiles, so they are also reptiles. In fact, a lot of the “anapsids” of the Carboniferous, such as Hylonomus, which once had been postulated as ancestral to synapsids, are actually derived members of the diapsids (Gauthier, 1994). Furthermore, the earliest reptiles (Westlothiana from the Early Carboniferous) and the earliest synapsids (Protoclepsydrops from the Early Carboniferous and Archaeothyris from the Middle Carboniferous) are equally ancient, showing that their lineages diverged at the beginning of the Carboniferous, rather than synapsids evolving from the “anapsids.” For all these reasons, it is no longer appropriate to use the term “mammal-like reptiles.” If one must use a nontaxonomic term, “protomammals” is a alternative with no misleading phylogenetic implications.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecting the Chondrocranium: Biomechanics of the Suspensorium in Reptiles
    70 (3): 275 – 290 © Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, 2020. 2020 VIRTUAL ISSUE on Recent Advances in Chondrocranium Research | Guest Editor: Ingmar Werneburg Connecting the chondrocranium: Biomechanics of the suspensorium in reptiles Alec T. Wilken 1, *, Kaleb C. Sellers 1, Ian N. Cost 2, Rachel E. Rozin 1, Kevin M. Middleton 1 & Casey M. Holliday 1 1 Department of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, University of Missouri, M263, Medical Sciences Building, Columbia, MO, 65212, USA — 2 Department of Biology, Albright College, 13th and Bern Streets, Reading, PA, 19612, USA — * Corresponding author; atwxb6@ mail.missouri.edu Submitted February 07, 2020. Accepted June 8, 2020. Published online at www.senckenberg.de/vertebrate-zoology on June 16, 2020. Published in print on Q3/2020. Editor in charge: Ingmar Werneburg Abstract Gnathostomes all share the common challenge of assembling 1st pharyngeal arch elements and associated dermal bones (suspensorium) with the neurocranium into a functioning linkage system. In many tetrapods, the otic and palatobasal articulations between suspensorium and neurocranial elements form the joints integral for cranial kinesis. Among sauropsids, the otic (quadratosquamosal) joint is a key feature in this linkage system and shows considerable variability in shape, tissue-level construction and mobility among lineages of reptiles. Here we explore the biomechanics of the suspensorium and the otic joint in fve disparate species of sauropsids of different kinetic capacity (two squamates, one non-avian theropod dinosaur, and two avian species). Using 3D muscle modeling, comparisons of muscle moments, joint surface areas, cross-sectional geometries, and fnite element analysis, we characterize biomechanical differences in the resultants of protractor muscles, loading of otic joints, and bending properties of pterygoid bones.
    [Show full text]
  • The Work of FRANZ Baron NOPCSA (1877-1933): Dinosaurs, Evolution and Theoretical Tectonics
    ©Geol. Bundesanstalt, Wien; download unter www.geologie.ac.at L Jb. Geol. B.-A. ISSN 0016-7800 Band 127 Heft 2 S.187-203 Wien, August 1984 The Work of FRANZ Baron NOPCSA (1877-1933): Dinosaurs, Evolution and Theoretical Tectonics By DAVID B. WEISHAMPEL & WOLF-ERNST REIF*) With 2 figures and 1 table Dinosaurier Kiefermechanik Systematik Histologie Paläobiologie Archaeopteryx Evolution Orthogenese Neolamarckismus Biogeographie Vulkanismus Orogenese Kontinentalverschiebung Table of Contents Summary, Zusammenfassung 187 1. Introduction . .. 188 2. Dinosaur Systematics and Paleobiology : : : : : : . '. : : '. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 189 3. Biogeography of the Cretaceous Siebenbürgen Island 190 4. Dinosaur Jaw Mechanics 190 5. Sexual Dimorphism , 191 6. Paleohistology , . .. 191 7. Origin of Flight , , : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 192 8. Kerunia 192 9. Evolution 193 10. Theoretical Tectonics 195 11. Conclusions , 198 Literature , 199 Summary lieh untersucht. NOPCSAist im Wesentlichen bis heute als Di- The scientific studies of FRANZBaron NOPCSAhave received nosaurierspezialist bekannt. Es zeigt sich jedoch, daß NOPCSA only minor modern analysis, despite their relevance to early sich mit seinen Publikationen und Vorträgen entschieden ge- works in dinosaur paleobiology, neo-Lamarckian evolution, gen einseitiges Spezialistentum wandte. NOPCSAwar viel mehr theoretical tectonics and paleobiogeography. NOPCSA'Scon- ein sehr vielseitiger Theoretiker, der seine eigentliche Leistung temporary impact in these areas varies from progressive
    [Show full text]
  • Mammalogy Lecture 2 - Origin of Mammals Introduction to the Geologic Time Scale
    Mammalogy Lecture 2 - Origin of Mammals Introduction to the Geologic Time Scale. We’ll begin in the Carboniferous (Mississippian), ~ 363 MYA. I. There are three major living (extant) groups of mammals A. Monotremes – egg-laying mammals (echidna) B. Metatherians – marsupial mammals (kangaroo) C. Eutherians – Placental mammals (pangolin) These are related by the following evolutionary tree or phylogeny Monotremes Metatherians (Marsupials) Eutherians (Placentals) Node - Divergence Event Branch - Common Ancestor Marsupials and placentals share an ancestor not shared by monotremes. II. A. In order to understand the origin of mammals, we have to look farther back, ~360 MYA, and look at relationships among tetrapod vertebrates. Amphibians Mammals Squamates Turtles Crocodylians Dinosaur9I Birds Dinosaur9II Synapsids Stem9Amniotes Amnion Evolution9of9Limbs We can mark evolutionary changes along this phylogeny; the evolution of limbs, the evolution of the amnion, etc. It’s this lineage labeled Synapsida that we’ll examine in order to understand the origin of mammals. We need to understand the situation just prior to this in the “stem amniotes” (a.k.a. stem reptiles), the ancestors to mammals, birds, turtles, and other reptiles. Stem Amniotes. B. In the Carboniferous, ca. 350 MYBP, the stem amniotes evolved, and the synapsid lineage diverged from these 30 MY later 320 MYA, and it’s this lineage that will eventually lead the modern mammals. Synapsid - “together arch” describes a skull condition that is unique to this lineage. The word “synapsid” is also used to refer to the group of organisms that exhibit this condition. Stem amniotes were anapsid; they had no temporal fenestra. The temporal region (temple) is a solid shield of bone.
    [Show full text]
  • The Palaeozoic Ancestry of Salamanders, Frogs and Caecilians
    Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford, UKZOJZoological Journal of the Linnean Society0024-4082The Lin- nean Society of London, 2007? 2007 150s2 1140 Original Articles LISSAMPHIBIAN ANCESTRYR. L. CARROLL Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2007, 150 (Suppl. 1), 1–140. With 78 figures The Palaeozoic Ancestry of Salamanders, Frogs and Caecilians ROBERT L. CARROLL FLS1 1Redpath Museum, McGill University, 859 Sherbrooke St W., Montreal, P.Q. Canada, H3A 2K6 The relationships of frogs, salamanders, and caecilians (Gymnophiona) with one another and with the vast assem- blage of Palaeozoic amphibians remain highly contentious phylogenetic problems. Cladistic analyses support a com- mon ancestry of the three modern orders, but fail to achieve a consensus regarding their affinities with Palaeozoic amphibians. The most exhaustive phylogenetic analyses that have been applied to the ancestry of lissamphibians have recognized few, if any, biologically significant characters differentiating the living orders. These results can be attributed to limiting the database primarily to characters common to Palaeozoic amphibians and including few fea- tures that distinguish the modern orders. Making use of the numerous derived characters that are expressed in either the larvae or adults of extant salamanders, frogs, and caecilians provides the basis for recognizing a nested sequence of synapomorphies that support a common ancestry of salamanders and anurans with temnospondyl lab- yrinthodonts to the exclusion of caecilians. The larvae of Carboniferous and Permian temnospondyl labyrinthodonts provide strong evidence for their being members of the stem group of urodeles. This is based primarily on the great similarity in the sequence of ossification of the bones of the skull and appendicular skeleton, but is also supported by detailed similarities of the hyoid apparatus.
    [Show full text]
  • Biogeography
    Overview of Changes in Skull Morphology Ear Bones Hinge Jaw Bone Mammals 3 Sq/D Dentary Early Mammals* 3 Sq/D Dentary Therapsida** 1 2 hinges several bones Pelycosauria** 1 2 hinges several bones Reptiles 1 Q/Art. several bones *Note: Early mammals include: Morganucodonts, Triconodonts, Multituberculates, and Pantotheres **Note: Therapsida are advanced & Pelycosaurs are primitive mammal-like reptiles. Together they are called Synapsida or synapsid reptiles. Mammalian Evolution • Reptile – 1 ear bone = hyomandibular (or stapes) – quadrate-articular jaw hinge Mammalian Evolution • Reptile – 1 ear bone = stapes 1 Mammalian Evolution • Mammal-like Reptile : Order Therapsida (therapsids) – 1 ear bone = hyomandibular (or stapes) – double jaw hinge on each side Mammalian Evolution •Mammal – 3 ear bones = stapes, malleus, incus – dentary-squamosal jaw hinge – malleus originates from reptilian articular; incus originates from reptilian quadrate; stapes from reptilian stapes Mammalian Evolution •Mammal – 3 ear bones = stapes, malleus, incus – ectotympanic = tympanic bullae 2 Mammalian Evolution Changes in The Skull • Anapsid skull - no temporal openings or windows – primitive reptile design • Parapsid skull - window up high for muscles to pass through – marine reptile pattern 3 Changes in The Skull • Diapsid skull - 2 temporal openings for muscle play – most reptiles & dinosaurs • Synapsid skull - window down low – mammal-like reptiles (synapsids) & mammals Changes in The Skull Pelycosaur Mammal Why did temporal openings originate? • Some possibilities:
    [Show full text]
  • Ears About Ancient Mammals
    News & views all stages of the transition. If multituberculates Evolution had adopted palinal chewing before the sep- aration of the middle-ear bones from the jaw, how would this arrangement have worked? The tiny but exquisitely preserved middle ear All ears about of Jeholbaatar (Fig. 1) is completely separated from the jaw, but it provides the beginning of ancient mammals an answer to this question. It has long been suspected that, in mam- Anne Weil malian ancestors, the articular bone and the prearticular bone of the ancestral jaw fused The configuration of middle-ear bones in an ancient fossil to form the malleus. Fossil discoveries have suggests that specializations suited to eating plants might suggested that a third bone, the surangular, also fused with the articular, at least in some have influenced how the jaw joint evolved to form the 3,4 lineages . In Jeholbaatar, the surangular is mammal’s ear. See p.102 present as a separate bone distinguishable along the lateral side of the malleus. The only other animal in which a separate surangular The presence of three delicate bones in the internally to form a middle ear together with has been described in the ear also shares a middle ear that are completely separated from a bone called the stapes, which was present second odd trait with Jeholbaatar4: the position the lower jaw can be used to distinguish exist- in mammalian ancestors. Other bones then of the incus in the middle ear. ing mammals from other vertebrates. This formed the jaw joint that mammals have today. The incus lies flat on top of the malleus arrangement evolved independently at least In transitional stages of this evolutionary in Jeholbaatar, in contrast to its position in three times in mammals, so it is not found in all process, the connection between the middle humans and opossums (Didelphis), in which mammalian fossils.
    [Show full text]
  • Transformation of the Quadrate (Incus) Through the Transition from Non-Mammalian Cynodonts to Mammals Author(S): Zhexi Luo and Alfred W
    Transformation of the Quadrate (Incus) through the Transition from Non-Mammalian Cynodonts to Mammals Author(s): Zhexi Luo and Alfred W. Crompton Source: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Sep. 7, 1994), pp. 341-374 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4523575 Accessed: 03-04-2017 21:44 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Taylor & Francis, Ltd. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 21:44:05 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14(3):341-374, September 1994 @ 1994 by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology TRANSFORMATION OF THE QUADRATE (INCUS) THROUGH THE TRANSITION FROM NON-MAMMALIAN CYNODONTS TO MAMMALS ZHEXI LUO' and ALFRED W. CROMPTON2 'Department of Biology, College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina 29424; 2Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge,
    [Show full text]