1970
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1970.tb02053.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Anatomical observations on the bill of the Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus occidentalis) in relation to feeding behaviour

Abstract: Oystercatchers have recently increased as inland breeders in Northern Britain. Concurrently, they have been observed feeding in coastal fields in winter. It is suggested that the bill of this species possesses dual characteristics enabling them to feed on shellfish adn also to probe in the soil for terrestrial invertebrates. The gross internal morphology of the bills of adults and young is described. A bony core contains large nerves running the length of the bill. These break up towards the tip where numerous… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1981
1981
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Evaluation of our histology images shows that the chickadee rhamphotheca is thicker relative to the overall size of the beak than that of the chicken ( Gallus gallus ), the species for which the most comparable published images are available (Lucas and Stettenheim,1972; Lunam,2005; Kuenzel,2007). Although precise comparisons are difficult without exact measurements or identical planes of section, the hard‐cornified layer of the chickadee epidermis appears to be more similar in proportion to that of several other free‐ranging species: the Great‐spotted Woodpecker ( Dendrocopus major ), Bohemian Waxwing ( Bombycilla garrula ; Lüdicke,1933), European Oystercatcher ( Haematopus ostralegus ; Heppleston,1970), and some psittacines (Menzel and Lüdicke,1974). A thick rhamphotheca capable of sustaining high and variable rates of wear may be necessary for species that use their beaks to forage on hard substrates or otherwise incur significant mechanical wear.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Evaluation of our histology images shows that the chickadee rhamphotheca is thicker relative to the overall size of the beak than that of the chicken ( Gallus gallus ), the species for which the most comparable published images are available (Lucas and Stettenheim,1972; Lunam,2005; Kuenzel,2007). Although precise comparisons are difficult without exact measurements or identical planes of section, the hard‐cornified layer of the chickadee epidermis appears to be more similar in proportion to that of several other free‐ranging species: the Great‐spotted Woodpecker ( Dendrocopus major ), Bohemian Waxwing ( Bombycilla garrula ; Lüdicke,1933), European Oystercatcher ( Haematopus ostralegus ; Heppleston,1970), and some psittacines (Menzel and Lüdicke,1974). A thick rhamphotheca capable of sustaining high and variable rates of wear may be necessary for species that use their beaks to forage on hard substrates or otherwise incur significant mechanical wear.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interspecific differences in beak and claw structures that are apparent at a macroscopic level have received the greatest attention from evolutionary biologists and ecologists, but similarly diverse adaptive features also occur at a microscopic level. For example, both beaks and claws contain mechanoreceptors that perceive sensory information such as vibrations, pressure, and temperature, all of which confer information about foraging substrates and potential prey (Heppleston,1970; Lucas and Stettenheim,1972; Gottschaldt,1985; Gentle and Breward,1986). These structures, which may be densely packed in bony pits near the tip of the beak in what has been described as a bill tip organ, have attracted considerable research interest for wading birds that feed by probing in soft substrates (e.g., Zelená et al,1997; Piersma et al,1998; Cunningham et al,2007, 2010) and other species that use the beak extensively for food manipulation (Ziswiler and Trnka,1972; Krulis,1978 and references therein).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In considering the second source we note that though Oystercatchers possess anatomical (Heppleston 1970a, Burton 1974) and behavioural (Norton-Griffiths 1967, 1968, Hulscher 1982 adaptations providing for their rather esoteric food preferences, they retain the 'primitive' shorebird feeding mode of probing in soft surfaces for soft-bodied worm-like invertebrates. Indeed, specialists of most types resort to this mode of feeding occasionally, or when their 'speciality' food becomes IBIS 127 temporarily scarce or unavailable (Norton-Griffiths 1968, Goss-Custard & Durell 1983.…”
Section: Which 'Uneducable' Generalists Have Become ' Terrestrial-feementioning
confidence: 99%