open access

Vol 81, No 1 (2022)
Original article
Submitted: 2020-12-15
Accepted: 2021-01-19
Published online: 2021-02-09
Get Citation

A comparative study on the morphology, radiography and computed tomography of the skull bones of barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak) and sambar deer (Rusa unicolor)

K. Keneisenuo1, O. P. Choudhary1, P. C. Kalita1, S. Duro2, A. Kalita1, P. J. Doley1, R. S. Arya3, S. Debroy1, P. Priyanka4
DOI: 10.5603/FM.a2021.0015
·
Pubmed: 33577074
·
Folia Morphol 2022;81(1):164-174.
Affiliations
  1. Department of Veterinary Anatomy and Histology, College of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry, Central Agricultural University (I), Selesih, Aizawl, Mizoram, India
  2. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Agricultural University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania
  3. Department of Veterinary Pathology, College of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry, Central Agricultural University (I), Selesih, Aizawl, Mizoram, India
  4. Department of Veterinary Microbiology, College of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry, Central Agricultural University (I), Jalukie, Peren, Nagaland, India

open access

Vol 81, No 1 (2022)
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Submitted: 2020-12-15
Accepted: 2021-01-19
Published online: 2021-02-09

Abstract

Background: There is scanty information on the skull morphology of barking and sambar deer; thus the present study was designed to provide information on morphology, radiography and computed tomography (CT) of the skull bones of both deer species.
Materials and methods: The study was conducted on 12 skulls of adult barking deer (n = 6) and sambar deer (n = 6) of either sex (n = 3 males and n = 3 females) collected from Aizawl Zoological Park, Aizawl, Mizoram. The skulls of both species were macerated as per the standard maceration techniques.
Results: The skull bones of both deer species were divided into a neurocranium and a viscerocranium. The neurocranium was comprised of occipital, sphenoid, temporal, frontal, parietal, interparietal and ethmoid bones. The viscerocranium consisted of nasal, lacrimal, zygomatic, maxilla, incisive, palatine, pterygoid, vomer, mandible, turbinates and hyoid bones. The cranial cavity was oval and elongated caudally. The orbit was round, complete in barking deer; however, it was oval, complete in sambar deer. The facial tuberosity was present caudal to infraorbital foramen and dorsally at superior third premolar tooth in barking deer whereas dorsally at the superior first molar tooth in sambar deer. The infraorbital foramina were small, elliptical and placed at the level of the superior first premolar tooth. The alveolus for a canine tooth was present rostrally in the maxilla of both species. Turbinates bones were visible and mandibular symphysis remained unossified on radiographs and CT in both species. The radiographs of both species showed that the nasal canal was divided by the nasal septum. The CT scan demonstrated the paranasal, frontal and maxillary sinuses.
Conclusions: The present study is important in the comparative anatomy of ruminant species and may help the wildlife forensic officials to identify and differentiate the bones of these two species from those of other domestic and wild small ruminants.

Abstract

Background: There is scanty information on the skull morphology of barking and sambar deer; thus the present study was designed to provide information on morphology, radiography and computed tomography (CT) of the skull bones of both deer species.
Materials and methods: The study was conducted on 12 skulls of adult barking deer (n = 6) and sambar deer (n = 6) of either sex (n = 3 males and n = 3 females) collected from Aizawl Zoological Park, Aizawl, Mizoram. The skulls of both species were macerated as per the standard maceration techniques.
Results: The skull bones of both deer species were divided into a neurocranium and a viscerocranium. The neurocranium was comprised of occipital, sphenoid, temporal, frontal, parietal, interparietal and ethmoid bones. The viscerocranium consisted of nasal, lacrimal, zygomatic, maxilla, incisive, palatine, pterygoid, vomer, mandible, turbinates and hyoid bones. The cranial cavity was oval and elongated caudally. The orbit was round, complete in barking deer; however, it was oval, complete in sambar deer. The facial tuberosity was present caudal to infraorbital foramen and dorsally at superior third premolar tooth in barking deer whereas dorsally at the superior first molar tooth in sambar deer. The infraorbital foramina were small, elliptical and placed at the level of the superior first premolar tooth. The alveolus for a canine tooth was present rostrally in the maxilla of both species. Turbinates bones were visible and mandibular symphysis remained unossified on radiographs and CT in both species. The radiographs of both species showed that the nasal canal was divided by the nasal septum. The CT scan demonstrated the paranasal, frontal and maxillary sinuses.
Conclusions: The present study is important in the comparative anatomy of ruminant species and may help the wildlife forensic officials to identify and differentiate the bones of these two species from those of other domestic and wild small ruminants.

Get Citation

Keywords

barking deer, sambar deer, skulls, morphology, radiography, computed tomography

About this article
Title

A comparative study on the morphology, radiography and computed tomography of the skull bones of barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak) and sambar deer (Rusa unicolor)

Journal

Folia Morphologica

Issue

Vol 81, No 1 (2022)

Article type

Original article

Pages

164-174

Published online

2021-02-09

Page views

2022

Article views/downloads

924

DOI

10.5603/FM.a2021.0015

Pubmed

33577074

Bibliographic record

Folia Morphol 2022;81(1):164-174.

Keywords

barking deer
sambar deer
skulls
morphology
radiography
computed tomography

Authors

K. Keneisenuo
O. P. Choudhary
P. C. Kalita
S. Duro
A. Kalita
P. J. Doley
R. S. Arya
S. Debroy
P. Priyanka

References (23)
  1. Adnyane IKM, Zuki ABZ, Noordin MM, et al. Morphological study of the infraorbital gland of the male barking deer, muntiacus muntjak. African J Biotech. 2011; 10(77): 17891–17897.
  2. Boitani L. Simon & Schuster's guide to mammals. Simon & Schuster/Touchstone Books, New York, USA 1984.
  3. Choudhary OP, Priyanka P, Kalita PC, et al. A morphometrical study on the skull of goat (capra hircus) in mizoram. Int J Morphol. 2020; 38(5): 1473–1478.
  4. Choudhary OP, Singh I. Morphogical and radiographic studies on the skull of Indian blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra). Int J Morphol. 2016; 16(2): 775–783.
  5. Din S, Masood S, Zaneb H, et al. Gross and Clinical Anatomy of the Skull of Adult Chinkara (Gazella bennettii). Pak J Zool. 2020; 52(5).
  6. Gündemir O, Duro S, Jashari T, et al. A study on morphology and morphometric parameters on skull of the Bardhoka autochthonous sheep breed in Kosovo. Anat Histol Embryol. 2020; 49(3): 365–371.
  7. Ilyas O, Khan JA. Food habits of barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak) and goral (Naemorhedus goral) in Binsar Wildlife Sanctuary, India. Mammalia. 2003; 67(4).
  8. Karimi I, Onar V, Pazvant G, et al. The cranial morphometric and morphologic characteristics of Mehraban sheep in western Iran. Global Vet. 2011; 6(2): 111–117.
  9. Keneisenuo K, Choudhary OP, Kalita PC, et al. Comparative morphometrical studies on the skull bones of barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak) and sambar deer (Rusa unicolor). Anat Histol Embryol. 2021; 50(3): 500–511.
  10. Leslie D. Rusa unicolor (Artiodactyla: Cervidae). Mammalian Species. 2011; 43: 1–30.
  11. Long JL. Introduced mammals of the world: their history, distribution and influence. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood Victoria, Australia 2003.
  12. Medway L. The wild mammals of Malaya. Oxford University Press, London, UK 1969.
  13. Miazi OF, Miah G, Bilkis T, et al. Phenotypic and reproductive parameters of barking deer under management condition of chittagong zoo. Int J Genet Genomics. 2016; 4(5): 40–44.
  14. Mishra HR. The ecology and behaviour of chital (Axis axis) in the Royal Chitawan National Park, Nepal with comparative studies of hog deer (Axis porcinus), sambar (Cervus unicolor) and barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak). Ph.D. Thesis., Edinburgh, University, Edinburgh, 1982.
  15. Nowak RM. Walker’s Mammals of the world. 6th edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, London, UK 1999.
  16. Ohtaishi N, Gao Y. A review of the distribution of all species of deer (Tragulidae, Moschidae and Cervidae) in China. Mammal Rev. 1990; 20(2-3): 125–144.
  17. Oli MK, Jacobson HA. Vocalizations of barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak) in Nepal. Mammalia. 1995; 59(2).
  18. Payne J, Francis C, Phillips KA. A field guide to the mammals of Borneo. The Sabah Society with WWF Malaysia, Malaysia 1985.
  19. Ramswarup. Gross anatomical studies on the bones of the skull in chital (Axis axis). M.V.Sc. Thesis. Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India, 2011.
  20. Sarma K. Morphological and Craniometrical Studies on the Skull of Kagani Goat (Capra hircus) of Jammu Region. Int J Morphol. 2006; 24(3).
  21. Sarma K. Suri S Kalita A. Gross anatomical studies on the skull of local sheep of Jammu region. Indian J Anim Sci. 2007; 77(10): 999–1001.
  22. Timmins RJ, Duckworth JW, Hedges S. Muntiacus muntjak. The IUCN red list of threatened species. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2016.
  23. Timmins RJ, Kawanishi K, Giman B, et al. Rusa unicolor. The IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN, 2015.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By  "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl