Ozan GÜNDEMİR, Ermiş ÖZKAN, Mustafa Orhun DAYAN, Sedat AYDOĞDU

Sexual analysis in turkey Meleagris gallopavo neurocranium using geometric morphometric methods

The aim of this study was to obtain morphometric data by applying geometric analysis to the neurocranium of the turkey and to statistically reveal the differences between males and females using these data. In the present study, 14 7 males, 7 females turkey skulls were used. The neurocrania of the samples were photographed and put into an electronic environment to be marked. Neurocrania were examined from 4 different regions caudal, ventral, dorsal, and lateral . Compared to PC1 obtained in dorsal sampling, the difference between points 9 and 10 and 3 to 2 was significantly higher in males. Caudal examination showed that male samples were wider laterally. In ventral measurements, it was seen that points 3 and 7 in the male were more anterior and point 1 was more posterior. The lateral area was seen to be higher in females and longer in the anterior-posterior direction in males. The greatest statistical difference was seen in landmark 4 middle point of foramen magnum's dorsal margin , obtained as a result of caudal geometric analysis P

Keywords:

Anatomy, geometric morphometry, neurocranium, turkey,

___

1. Nickel R, Schummer A, Seiferle E. Anatomy of the Domestic Birds. 1st ed. Berlin, Germany: Verlag Paul Parey; 1977.
2. Çalışlar T. Evcil Hayvanların Anatomisi. At, tavuk diseksiyonu. 1st ed. İstanbul, Turkey: İstanbul Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Yayınları; 1986 (in Turkish).
3. Çakır A. Kelaynak kuşunda (Geronticus eremita) neurocranium kemikleri. Journal of Turkish Veterinary Medical Association 2001; 72: 35-38 (in Turkish)
4. Süzer B, Serbest A, Arıcan İ, Yonkova P, Yılmaz B. A morphometric study on the skull of the turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). Uludağ University Journal of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine 2018; 37 (2): 93-100. doi: 10.30782/ uluvfd.427228
5. İlgün R, Akbulut Y, Kuru N. Comparative macro-anatomical investigations and morphometric investigations on neurocranium in guinea fowls (Numida meleagridis) and turkeys (Meleagridis gallapova). Fırat University Veterinary Journal of Health Sciences 2016; 30 (1): 29-32 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
6. İnce NG, Demircioğlu İ, Yılmaz B, Ağyar A, Dusak A. Threedimensional modeling of cranium in seagulls (Laridae spp). Harran University Journal of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine 2018; 7 (1): 98-101 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
7. O’Higgins P. The study of morphological variation in the hominid fossil record: biology, landmarks and geometry. Journal of Anatomy 2000; 197: 103-120. doi: 10.1046/j.1469- 7580.2000.19710103.x
8. Slice DE. Geometric morphometrics. Annual Review of Anthropology 2007; 36: 261-281. doi: 10.1146/annurev. anthro.34.081804.120613
9. Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer. 1st ed. Waltham, MA, USA: Elsevier; 2004.
10. Bernal V. Size and shape analysis of human molars: comparing traditional and geometric morphometric techniques. HOMOJournal of Comparative Human Biology 2007; 58 (4): 279-296. doi: 10.1016/j.jchb.2006.11.003
11. Önel A. Comparison of hares (Lepus europaeus Pallas, 1778) from Elazığ and Malatya by using geometric morphometrics techniques. PhD, Fırat University, Elazığ, Turkey, 2010 (in Turkish).
12. Koyabu D, Werneburg I, Morimoto N, Zollikofer CPE, Forasiepi AM et al. Mammalian skull heterochrony reveals modular evolution and a link between cranial development and brain size. Nature Communications 2014; 3625: 1-9. doi: 10.1038/ncomms4625
13. Parés-Casanova PM, Salamanca-Carreño A, Crosby-Granados R, Carolino N, Leite JV et al. Differentiated postnatal growth of the neurocranium and splanchnocranium in domestic equines. Revista de Investigaciones Veterinarias del Peru 2018; 29 (3): 723-728 (in Spanish with an abstract in English). doi: 10.15381/rivep.v29i3.14835
14. Yalçın H, Kaya MA. Comparative geometrical morphometry on the skull bones of Anatolian wild sheep and Akkaraman sheep. Atatürk University Journal of Veterinary Sciences 2009; 4 (2): 105-116 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
15. Yalçın H, Kaya MA, Arslan A. Comparative geometrical morphometries on the mandibles of Anatolian wild sheep (Ovis gmelini anatolica) and Akkaraman sheep (Ovis aries). Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi 2010; 16 (1): 55-61. doi: 10.9775/kvfd.2009.385
16. Hospitaleche CA. Variation in the cranial morphometry of the Magellanic penguin (Spheniscus magellanicus). Ornitologia Neotropical 2009; 20: 19-26.
17. Wold S, Esbensen K, Geladi P. Principal component analysis. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 1987; 2 (1- 3): 37-52. doi: 10.1016/0169-7439(87)80084-9
18. Cablk ME, Minor TB. Detecting and discriminating impervious cover with high- resolution IKONOS data using principal component analysis and morphological operators. International Journal of Remote Sensing 2003; 24 (23): 4627- 4645. doi: 10.1080/01431160310000102539
19. Klingenberg CP. MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Molecular Ecology Resources 2011; 11: 353-357. doi: 10.111/j.1755-0998.2010.02924.x
20. Degrange FJ, Picasso MB. Geometric morphometrics of the skull of tinamidae (Aves, Palaeognathae). Zoology 2010; 113 (6): 334-338. doi: 10.1016/j.zool.2010.07.003
21. Şahiner Y, Yalçın H. Determine the gender from cranial bone by using geometric morphometric method in males and females and ramus flexure. Atatürk University Journal of Veterinary Sciences 2007; 2 (4): 134-142 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
22. İlgün, R, Özkan ZE, Akbulut Y. Macro-anatomical investigations on neurocranium and splanchnocranium in dalmatian pelican (Pelecanus crispus). Van Veterinary Journal 2017; 28 (1): 5-10 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
23. Tajkova SY, Klochko AV. The bird bones from the excavations of ancient Chersonesos (Crimea, Ukraine). Proceedings of the National Museum of Natural History 2013; 11: 37-42.