2014
DOI: 10.4067/s0717-95022014000400030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Morphometric Study on the Skull of Donkey (Equus asinus)

Abstract: SUMMARY:The present study was carried out on a number of 16 skulls of adult male domestic donkeys. Craniometric measurements for 40 different parts of the skulls were made. All investigated features were expressed as Mean±SD. Cephalic indices and ratios were calculated by using the investigated features. The craniometric measurements and cephalic indices had been compared with those of local horses and ponies. A skull length of 443.07±53.57 mm and a maximum zygomatic width of 169.09±17.64 mm were obtained. The… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
14
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
2
14
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast, the skull was mesaticephalic in dog (Miller et al), brachycephalic in tiger (Joshi, 2004) and mesocephalic in Malayan sun bear (Kalita et al, 2019). The skull index was 47.82±0.05 in the present study, whereas the same measurement was 53.57 cm in Mehraban sheep (Karimi et al, 2011), 38.23±0.85 in donkey (Zhu et al ., 2014), 47.77±1.96 in Markhoz goat (Goodarzi & Hoseini, 2014), 46.12±0.12 cm in blackbuck (Choudhary & Singh, 2015b), 46.51±0.29 cm in dromedary camel , 70.56±0.22 in wild pig (Choudhary et al ., 2017), 53.56±0.11 in Zovawk pigs (Choudhary et al, 2019b) and 80.48 in Malayan Sun bear (Kalita et al).…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 53%
“…In contrast, the skull was mesaticephalic in dog (Miller et al), brachycephalic in tiger (Joshi, 2004) and mesocephalic in Malayan sun bear (Kalita et al, 2019). The skull index was 47.82±0.05 in the present study, whereas the same measurement was 53.57 cm in Mehraban sheep (Karimi et al, 2011), 38.23±0.85 in donkey (Zhu et al ., 2014), 47.77±1.96 in Markhoz goat (Goodarzi & Hoseini, 2014), 46.12±0.12 cm in blackbuck (Choudhary & Singh, 2015b), 46.51±0.29 cm in dromedary camel , 70.56±0.22 in wild pig (Choudhary et al ., 2017), 53.56±0.11 in Zovawk pigs (Choudhary et al, 2019b) and 80.48 in Malayan Sun bear (Kalita et al).…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 53%
“…The skull length and width was significantly (P<0.01, P<0.05) higher in the males as compared to the females of Sex Wise Morphometrical Studies on the Skull Bones of Indian Mithun (Bos frontalis) mithun. The length, width of the skull were 44.52±0.02 cm, 44.41±0.02 cm in males and 21.62±0.04 cm, 21.57±0.05 cm in females of mithun respectively, whereas the length, width of the skull was 44.30±5.35 cm, 16.90±1.76 cm in donkey (Zhu et al, 2014), 18.67±0.66 cm, 8.91±0.18 cm in Markhoz goat (Goodarzi and Hoseini, 2014), 20.68±0.02 cm, 9.54±0.03 cm in blackbuck , 19.28±0.03 cm, 9.22±0.04 cm in goat of Mizoram (Choudhary et al, 2020), 21.65±0.14 cm, 7.64±0.54 cm in males; 19.22±0.11 cm, 7.59±0.52 cm in females of chinkara (Din et al, 2020), respectively.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…The skull index/ cephalic index was 48.76±0.03 in males and 48.71±0.02 in females of the mithun. In contrast, the same index was 53.57 in Mehraban sheep (Karimi et al, 2011), 38.23±0.85 in donkey (Zhu et al, 2014), 47.77±1.96 in Markhoz goat (Goodarzi and Hoseini, 2014), 46.12±0.12 in blackbuck , 46.51±0.29 in dromedary camel , 70.56±0.22 in wild pig (Choudhary et al, 2017), 53.56±0.11 in Zovawk pigs (Choudhary et al, 2019) and 80.48 in Malayan Sun bear (Kalita et al, 2019), 47.82±0.05 in goat in Mizoram (Choudhary et al, 2020) and 35.26±0.05 in males and 39.49±0.09 in females of chinkara (Din et al, 2020).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…The skull index or cephalic index of Zovawk was 53.56±0.11, whereas it was 38.23±0.85 in donkey (Zhu et al, 2014), 46.12±0.12 cm in blackbuck (Choudhary and Singh, 2015b), 46.51±0.29 cm in dromedary camel (Choudhary et al, 2016) and 70.56±0.22 in Indian wild pig (Choudhary et al, 2017).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 92%