Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Short communication
Austral J. Vet. Sci.
Vol 52, 25-31 (2020)

Variability of cranial morphometrical traits in Suffolk Down Sheep

1 Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, INIA Remehue, Osorno, Chile.
2 Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, INIA Butalcura, Chiloé, Chile.
Keywords: morphology sheep skull animal ethnology

Submitted: 2019-05-02

Accepted: 2019-09-02

Published: 2020-01-01

*Corresponding author:
eugemartinez.inia@gmail.com

How to Cite

de la Barra, R., Carvajal, A. M., & Martínez, M. E. (2020). Variability of cranial morphometrical traits in Suffolk Down Sheep. Austral Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 52(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0719-81322020000100105

Abstract

The widespread use of measures and indices associated with the head for racial analysis suggests that such measures have a strong relationship with the underlying bone structure. Few studies analyse the variability of the bones of the head and the relationship with their external expression. The objective of this work was to identify and measure the magnitudes of the main skull parameters in Suffolk Down adult sheep. This study was carried out on sixteen adult Suffolk Down sheep skulls at INIA Butalcura. Their skeletons were obtained and digital morphometry was performed. Each skull was photographed from dorsal, ventral, lateral and nuchal views with a total of 28 parameters evaluated (10 dorsal, 5 ventral, 6 lateral and 6 nape). The results indicate that the externally observable variability in the cranial zone of a sheep cannot be extrapolated to the rest of the bony components of the cranial zone, either in length, width or height. It was observed that the variability of a cephalic dimension can be contrasted with the variability of individual bones that participate in a certain dimension as part of a plasticity adjustment mechanism independent of the genetic variability of each bone separately. The cranial dimensions are still useful in defining the productive potential of a sheep population; however, they should be taken cautiously for racial definitions, where the individual variability of the bones could be a better reflection of the genetic structure of the population and the dimensionality could be biased by adaptive plasticity.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Agüera S, Castejón F, Diaz A, Miró F, López Rivero J. 1988. Diferenciación radiológica en ovejas manchegas y merinas. Archivos de Zootecnia 37, 205.
  2. Alvarez S, Fresno M, Capote J, Delgado J, Barba C. 2000. Estudio para la caracterización de la Raza ovina Canaria. Archivos de Zootecnia 49, 209-215.
  3. Aparicio G. 1960. Zootecnia especial. Etnología compendiada. Imprenta Moderna, Córdoba, Argentina. Baranowsky P. 2017. Craniometric characteristics and cranial indices of Polish Heath sheep rams - extended data. Int J Morphol 35, 133-140.
  4. Bravo S, Sepúlveda N. 2010. Indices zoométricos en ovinos criollos Araucanos. Int J Morphol 28, 489-495.
  5. Brüenner H, Lugon-Moulin N, Balloux F, Fumagalli L, Hausser J. 2002. Taxonomical re-evaluation of the Valais chromosome race of the common shrew. Sorex araneus (Insectivora: Soricidae). Acta Theriol 47, 245-275.
  6. Carneiro H, Louvandini H, Paiva S, Macedo F, Mernies B, et al. 2010. Morphological characterization of sheep breeds in Brazil, Uruguay and Colombia. Small Rum Res 94, 58-65.
  7. Chirinos Z. 2011. La funcionalidad animal, herramienta esencial para el mejoramiento del rebaño bovino. In: Innovación y tecnología de la ganadería doble propósito. Universidad del Zulia, Zulia, Venezuela, Pp 217-223.
  8. Choudhary P, Singh I. 2016. Morphological and radiographic studies on the skull of Indian blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra). Int J Morphol 34, 775-783.
  9. Cobb S, O´Higgins P. 2007. The ontogeny of sexual dimorphism in the facial skeleton of the African apes. J Hum Evol 53, 176-190.
  10. De la Barra R, Martínez ME, Carvajal AM. 2016. Morphostructural relationships and productive functionality of sheep breeds used for terminal crossbreeding in Chile. Int J Morphol 34, 958-962.
  11. Herrera M, Luque M. 2009. Morfoestructura y sistemas para el futuro en la valoración morfológica. In: Sañudo AC (ed). Valoración morfológica de los animales domésticos. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino, Madrid, España, Pp 79-109.
  12. Ilayperuma I. 2011. Evaluation of cephalic indices: A clue for racial and sex diversity. Int J Morphol 29, 112-117.
  13. Karimi I, Onar V, Pazvant G, Hadipour M, Mazaheri Y. 2011. The mranial morphometric and morphologic characteristics of Mehraban sheep in Western Iran. Global Veterinaria 6, 111-117.
  14. Latorre E, Uribe H, Martínez ME, Calderón C, De la Barra R. 2011. Morphology differentiation and structural functionality of ewes due to uncomplete crossbreeding. Int J Morphol 29, 954-959.
  15. Macedo R, Arredondo V, Cervantes A. 2016. Head and tail morphology of Pelibuey, Katahdin and Blackbelly rams in Colima, México. Vet México 3, 1-9.
  16. Miró F, Diaz A, López-Rivero J, Regodon S. 1988. Determinación de algunos parámetros cefálicos del vacuno de raza Retinta. Arch Zootec 37, 75.
  17. Mohamed R, Driscoll M, Mootoo N. 2016. Clinical anatomy of the skull of the Barbados Black Belly sheep in Trinidad. Int J Curr Res Med Sci 2, 8-19.
  18. Mujica F, Mella J, De la Barra R, Blanco A. 2012. Phenotipic characterization of the sheep breed Creole Chilota and two sheep breeds that predominate in southern Chile. Actas Iberoamericanas de Conservación Animal 2, 67-70.
  19. Olopade J, Onwuka S. 2004. Morphometric studies of the cranio-facial region of the West African Dwart goat in Nigeria. Int J Morphol 22, 145-148.
  20. Özcan S, Aksoy G, Kürtul I, Aslan K, Özüdogru, Z. 2010. A comparative morphometric study on the skull of the Tuj and Morkaraman sheep. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg 16, 111-114.
  21. Parés I, Kamal S, Jordana J. 2010. On biometrical aspects of the cephalic anatomy of Xisqueta sheep (Catalunya, Spain). Int J Morphol 28, 347-351.
  22. Popoola MA, Oseni SO. 2018. Multifactorial discriminant analysis of cephalic morphology of indigenous breeds of sheep in Nigeria. Slovak J Anim Sci 51, 45-51.
  23. Ravosa M, Noble V, Hylander W, Johnson K, Kowalski E. 2000. Masticatory stress, orbital orientation and the evolution of the primate postorbital bar. J Human Evol 38, 667-693.
  24. Riva J, Rizzi R, Marelli S, Cavalchini L. 2004. Body measurements in Bergamasca sheep. Small Rum Res 55, 221-227.
  25. Rodríguez P, Tovar J, Rota A, Rojas A, Martín L. 1990. El exterior de la cabra Verata. Archivos de Zootecnia 43, 57.
  26. Salako A. 2006. Application of morphological indexes in the assessment of type and function in sheep. Int J Morphol 24, 13-18.
  27. Sánchez-Belda A. 1964. Merinos entrefinos. Fomento y mejora del ganado lanar. Ministerio de Agricultura, Madrid, España. Sierra I. 2001. El concepto de raza: evolución y realidad. Archivos de Zootecnia 50, 547-564.
  28. Sotillo J, Serrano V. 1985. Producción animal. Etnología zootécnica. Tomo I. Imprenta Flores, Albacete, España, Pp 111-116.
  29. Thiagarajan R, Jayashankar M. 2012. Effect of genetic and no genetic factors on staple length in indigenous and crossbreed sheep. Research Journal of Animal Sciences 6, 1-3.
  30. Thomason J, Grovum L, Deswysen A, Bignell W. 2001. In vivo surface strain and stereology of the frontal and maxillary bones of sheep: Implications for the structural design of the mammalian skull. The Anatomical Record 264, 325-338.
  31. Toro I, Manríquez S, Suazo G. 2010. Morfometría geométrica y el estudio de las formas biológicas: De la morfología descriptiva a la morfología cuantitativa. Int J Morphol 28, 977-990.

Make a Submission

Journal Metrics (2023) & Ranking

Impact Factor
0.5 (2024)
5 years Impact Factor
0.8
JCR Quartile
Q4
JIF Rank
134/170 (Veterinary Sciences)
SJR (2024)
0.244
SNIP (2024)
0.35

 


 

SCImago Journal & Country Rank

Indexed in




Publisher

Keywords