Functional morphological study of the choana in different bird species

Abstract

Background: The anatomical information about the structure of the choana is lacking in literature, and its role in the olfactory and feeding mechanism is still unknown Results: The present study discusses the adaptation of choana to cranial kinesis during feeding process in different bird species: kestrel, common moorhen, and hoopoe. Kestrel possesses a kinetic skull while the hoopoe and common moorhen have kinetic one; however, the common moorhen skull seems highly kinetic more than that of the hoopoe that properly effect on the choanal epithelium. The choana of kestrel and hoopoe are lined by pseudostratified ciliated columnar epithelium, while choana of common moorhen have transitional epithelium beside pseudostratified ciliated columnar epithelium. The choana epithelium of each bird species provides with simple alveolar glands and numerous goblet cells. In kestrel and hoopoe, the secretion products of choanal glands contain neutral and sulfated mucin, while in the common moorhen, these glands secret neutral and carboxylate mucopolysaccharides. Conclusion: The choana of the three studied bird species apparents adaptation to the olfaction process but also affects the movement of skeletal elements of the skull during the feeding process

Recessive white plumage color mutation of Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) revealed morphological variations in the oropharyngeal roof structures, accompanied by behavioral differences

“…As revealed here by SEM, the edges of the infundibular cleft was lack of the pharyngeal papillae in the recessive white quails, while in the brown ones, the cleft edges had 4–5 caudally directed conical papillae. These findings are in an agreement with that reported in the turkey (Sayed, Saleh, et al, 2016), Japanese quail (Madkour, 2018a), and kestrel (Mahmoud et al, 2018), where the edges of the infundibular cleft are surrounded by papillae. Nevertheless the edges of the cleft are smooth and devoid of the papillae in the hooded crow, cattle egret (Moussa & Hassan, 2013), laughing dove (Madkour, 2018a), and pigeon (Mahdy, 2020).…”

“…These findings were parallel to that reported in the chicken (Mohamed & Zayed, 2003), hooded crow (Moussa & Hassan, 2013), turkey (Sayed et al, 2017), Japanese quail (Madkour, 2018b), and adult pigeon (Mahdy, 2020). By contrast, the caudal part was detected longer in the duck and goose (Madkour et al, 2019; Mohamed & Zayed, 2003), as well as kestrel (Mahmoud, Gadel‐Rab, & Shawki, 2018). The latter researchers stated that these two parts are equal in length in the common moorhen.…”

A comparative anatomy of the lingual apparatus of Indian doves (genus: Streptopelia and Stigmatopelia), Aves: Columbidae

“…The variations in the mode of operation of the lingua in birds depend upon their food, feeding behavior, and the nature of the structural adaptations in the lingua, its epidermal structures, and the apparatus hyobranchialis which forms the skeleton of the lingua, and lingual myology. While a number of workers in the past, notable amongst them being Mudge (1903), Gardener (1926), Engel (1938), Weymouth et al (1964), McLelland (1968), Bock (1972Bock ( , 1978, Lucas and Stettenheim (1972), Morioka (1974), Zweers (1974Zweers ( , 1982aZweers ( , 1982b, Homberger and Meyers (1989), and Shawki and Al-Jalaud (1994); latest by Jackowiak and Godynicki (2005), Jackowiak and Ludwig (2008), Tivane et al (2011), Venkatesan et al (2015), Shawki et al (2016), Fatma (2017), and Mahmoud et al (2018) have studied the various aspect of lingual morphology. The studies on the functional anatomy of feeding apparatus conducted in several Indian birds by Dubale and Rawal (1966), Dubale and Thomas (1978), Rawal (1966Rawal ( , 1970, Soni (1976), Bhattacharyya (1994), Shukla (1999), Yumnam (2005), Trivedi (2012), and Trivedi and Soni (2013).…”

Functional Significance of Anatomical Accommodation in the Skull of Common Hoopoe, Upupa Epops (Bucerotiformes, Upupidae)

“…Th ese diff erent types of kinetic hinges are common among avian species but with diff erent degrees, e.g. in prey-predator bird like common kestrel, and black kite no any kinetic hinges between cranial elements were observed (Mahmoud et al, 2017;Shawki, 1998) while some birds like parrot possess highly movable hinge between the upper beak and brain case (Frontonasal hinge) (Mahmoud et al, 2018).…”

“…Th e common hoopoe is a colorful bird species which posses some unique external features and has own foraging style (Kristin, 2001;El-Bakary, 2011;Gadel-Rab, 2017;Mahmoud et al, 2018). Recently, the hoopoe has been the object of interest by many scientifi c to clarify its phylogenetic relationship between bird species.…”