Ornis Hungarica 2015. 23(2): 62–155. DOI: 10.1515/orhu-2015-0016 Osteological guide of songbirds from Central Europe Jenő (eugen) Kessler Jenő (Eugen) Kessler 2015. Osteological guide of songbirds from Central Europe. – Ornis Hun- garica 23(2): 62–155. Abstract The author provides an osteological guide to songbirds, based on 11 skeletal parts of 51 genera, at the genus level for ornithologists studying owl pellets, paleontologists and archae- zoologists. The mandible, the coracoid bone, the scapula, the humerus, the ulna, the carpometacarp, the first pha- lanx bone of the second finger, the femur, the tibiotars, the tarsometatars and the claw bone are presented. The morphological characteristics and method of measurement of the examined skeletal parts and the photo- graphs of the appropriate bones are illustrated on 52 plates and 17 figures. The measurement data are also pro­ vided in 11 size tables. For every discussed bone, 3­6 characteristics are chosen, and their codes consist of 3­6 let- ters. In case of overlaps, dimensions are the determining factors, and for the humerus and the ulna, the ensemble of the two bone end pairs can be used. Keywords: Central­Europe, guide, osteology, Paleornithology, archeozoology, Passerines Összefoglalás A szerző 51 énekesmadár genus 11 vázrészének morfológiai jellemzőin alapuló csonthatározót ál- lított össze a bagolyköpeteket vizsgáló ornitológusoknak, paleontológusoknak, archaeozoológusoknak ajánlva. A dolgozatban az alsó állkapocs (mandibula), a hollócsőrcsont (coracoideum), a lapocka (scapula), a felkarcsont (humerus) és a singcsont (ulna), a kézközépcsont (carpometacarpus), a kézujjperc (phalanx proximalis digiti ma- joris), a combcsont (femur), a lábszárcsont (tibiotarsus), a csüd (tarsometatarsus) és a karomcsont (phalanx un- gularis) jellemzői találhatók. A vizsgált vázrészek morfológiai jellegei, mérési módja és a csontok fényképe 52 táblaképen és 17 ábrán talál- ható. Tájékoztatási célból a mérési adatokat is közöljük 11 táblázatban. A határozó a kiválasztott morfológiai jel- legek kódolásán alapszik. Minden tárgyalt csonton 3­6 jelleg került kiválasztásra, és ennek megfelelően a kódok 3­6 betűből állnak. Átfedések esetén a méretek az irányadóak, illetve a felkarcsontnál és a singcsontnál a két­két csontvég együttese használható. Kulcsszavak: Közép­Európa, határozó, csonttani, paleornitológia, archeozoológia, énekesmadarak Department of Paleontology, Eötvös Loránd University, 1117 Budapest, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/c, Hungary, e-mail: [email protected] Introduction The current work wishes to aid this work by providing codes as well as images and Despite the numerous songbird skeletal measurement data. parts remaining in owl pellets, rocks from The preparation of the guide was limi­ the Neogene period and at archaeological ted to the material of the recent osteological sites alike, the identification of these is still collection available in the Paleontological lagging behind all across Europe due to the and Geological Department of the Hungari- lack of an ample comparative skeleton col- an Natural History Museum. There are only lection, and a relatively easy­to­use guide- 48 (or 46­47) because not all genera had all book. the skeleton parts, or they were not in ample J. Kessler 63 condition to photograph, hence the lower code, which can be used to identify the ap- number of shown parts than the number of propriate genus from the bone. The typical processed genera (51). code types are presented for skeletal parts Only those skeletal parts are presented via tables and figures. which have remained complete and which The guide is supplemented by 52 tables carry morphological characteristics that are and 17 figures, with 4­4 tables for each characteristic at the genus level. discussed skeletal part. Eight of these are On the skull, only the tip of the mandi­ graphical illustrations (in case of the man- bula, the proximal end of the coracoid and dibula and scapula), while other bones are the scapula from the pectoral girdle are de- presented by original photographs. The pre- scribed. On the upper limb, the humerus, the paratory state of the bones in the collection ulna, the metacarpus bones (carpometacar- influenced the colour and sharpness of the pus) and the first phalanx bone of the second photographs. The degreased skeletal parts finger (phalanx proximalis digiti majoris) appear more bright and sharp, while those completely, whereas on the lower limb, remaining greased are less sharp and are the femur, the tibiotarsus, the distal end of darker. Colour and sharpness were modified the tarsometatarsus and the claw (phalanx by transforming the original colour image to ungularis) are described. The point is that greyscale. since both ends (epiphysis) of either a hu- Since more than half of the discussed 51 merus or an ulna are enough for a definition, genera represent several species which pri- and often the ends surface separately or par- marily differ in size or color of their feath- tially because the bone itself is broken, they ers, we also attach tables of dimensions for both can be traced as parts of the same bone each skeletal part for information. The di- and had been coded as such. mensions are taken from one specimen. In In the case of other long bones, only the case of genera containing several species, end part, which had been easier to define, the lower and upper limits of all the species was coded. are given. Other parts of the excessively fragile From practical considerations we used the skull, vertebrae, ribs, the sternum, the pel- taxonomy after Cramp (1998). (Except of vis (synsacrum), the clavicula, the radius, a Lusciniola, wich was separated from Acro- few carpi (carpale) and the fibula (perone- cephalus.) um) are not presented here. Finally, it was not possible to show bones Since the largest family of the order of from the same sides of each skeletal part on songbirds (Passeriformes), the Corvidae, the pictures. is relatively well­known (Kessler & Mold- vai 1993, Tomek & Bochenski 2000), gene­ ra belonging to here are not discussed. Method How ever, the Western Jackdaw (Corvus monedula) is used to illustrate anatomical For every discussed skeletal part, the ana- and dimensional characteristics. tomical terminology (Baumel et al. 1979) The distinctive feature of the guide lies in and method of measurement (von den Dri- the method of coding. Each discussed skele­ esch 1976, Gál 2002, Kessler 2013) of the tal part of each genus receives a 3­6­letter bone in question is given, illustrated by the 64 ORNIS HUNGARICA 2015. 23(2) appropriate bone of the Western Jackdaw. Anatomical terminology (after: Milne­Ed- Arrows indicate the coded characteristics. wards 1867­68, Fürbringer 1888, Lam­ For each anatomical character, a number brecht 1933, Ballmann 1966, Mourer­Chau- of different types are differentiated, which viré 1975, Baumel et al. 1979, Gilbert et al. received capitalized codes. We attempted 1981, Cheneval 1983, Jánossy 1985, More- to keep the number of codes at a minimum, no 1985, 1986, 1987, Cuisin 1989, Ujhelyi since we had to take into account the indi- 1992, Kessler & Moldvai 1993, Solti 1996, vidual differences and, in the case of genera Tomek & Bochenski 2000, Kessler 2013a). featuring several species, the differences be- Plate with morphological characters tween them. This way we could make sure (Figure 1). that even the more or less similar anatomi- cal features can be classified easier and we 1. mandibula: could avoid subjective judgement. a. rostrum mandibulae; Based on the characteristics used, we con- b. the immersed part of the rostrum; structed a code consisting of 3­6 letters. The c. ramus mandibulae; majority of these is typical for a single gene­ ra, but in a few cases, for more than one. 2. coracoideum: In such cases, either the difference in size a. acrocoracoideum; will define where they belong, or for similar b. tuberculum brachiale (processus acro- sizes, the tables and figures provide guid- coracoideus); ance. (The tables with the bone sizes in- c. sulcus musculi supracoracoidei; clude genera with a single species, and ge­ d. processus procoracoideus; ne ra with several species. In the first case, e. processus glenoidalis coracoidei; only a single size of the species is given. In the latter case, the limits of the smallest spe- 3. scapula: cies and the biggest species from the genus a. dorsal branch of the acromion; are given.) b. lateral branch of the acromion; During genus identification, we create the c. the pit between the branches of the acro- code for the specific bone (or end of bone) mion; and match it with the appropriate code in d. acromion; this guide. The images of genera with simi­ e. processus glenoidalis scapulae; lar (but not identical) codes can give further help. 4. humerus (proximal epiphysis): It is worth noting that the fewer of the a. tuberculum ventrale; characteristics are coded, the higher the b. crista bicipitalis; chance of overlapping. Regarding overlap- c. the edge between crista bicipitalis and ping of the humerus and ulna, we have to corpus humeri; take into account the codes of both of the d. fossa pneumotricipitalis; epiphyses. e. caput humeri; Since for a definition of guaranteed ac- f. crista deltopectoralis; curacy the recent comparative osteological collection is absolutely required, this current 5. humerus (distal epiphysis): guide can only serve information purposes. a. tuberculum supracondylare ventrale; Figure 1 Morphological characters Corvus monedula L. 1758 bones; (A – mandibula; B – coracoideum; C – scapula; D – humerus prox.; E – humerus dist.; F – ulna prox.; G – ulna dist.; H – carpometacarpus; I – phalanx prox. dig. maj.; J – femur dist.; K – tibiotarsus dist.; L – tarsometatarsus dist.; M – phalanx ungularis) 1. ábra Morfológiai jellegek Corvus monedula L. 1758 csontokon (A – alsó állkapocs; B – hollócsőrcsont; C – lapocka; D – felkarcsont proximális epifízis; E – felkarcsont disztális epifízis; F – singcsont prox. epifízis; G – singcsont diszt. epifízis; H – kézközépcsont; I – szárny ujjperc; J – combcsont diszt. epifízis; K – lábszárcsont diszt. epifízis; L – csüd diszt. epifízis; M – karomcsont) 66 ORNIS HUNGARICA 2015. 23(2) b.