The Meiglyptini comprise eight species grouped into three genera: Meiglyptes and Mulleripicus, with three species each, and Hemicircus, with two species. The aim of the present study was to describe the cranial osteology of six species and three genera of Meiglyptini and to compare them to each other, as well as with other species of woodpeckers and other bird groups. The cranial osteology varied among the investigated species, but the most markedly distinct characteristics were: (1) a frontal overhang is only observed in the middle portion of the frontale of H. concretus; (2) the Proc. zygomaticus and suprameaticus are thick and long in species of the genus Mulleripicus, but short in other species; (3) the Pes pterygoidei is relatively larger in species of the genus Mulleripicus, while it is narrow, thin and relatively smaller in species of the genus Meiglyptes and indistinct in H. concretus; (4) the bony projection of the ectethmoidale is relatively short and thin in species of Mulleripicus and more developed in H. concretus. It appears that the greatest structural complexity of the cranial osteology is associated with the birds’ diet, with the frugivorous H. concretus being markedly different from the insectivorous species. 1. Introduction Woodpeckers have been investigated scientifically for over a century. These birds are notable for their colour, size, foraging mode, nest-building behaviour, instrumental signals, and the way they climb vertical surfaces. Interestingly, many of the behavioural patterns of woodpeckers are closely related to their anatomical features. Thus, these aspects cannot be dissociated in a study [1]. The Meiglyptini comprise three genera of Old World woodpeckers: Meiglyptes and Mulleripicus, with three species each, and Hemicircus, with two species [2]. These species are all arboreal and feed mainly upon the larvae and eggs of insects, ants and secondarily termites, beetles, caterpillars, and other arthropods. There is also a frugivorous species in this group, H. concretus. The foraging modes vary among these woodpeckers, irrespective of food type. The Meiglyptini primarily employ gleaning, with probing and tapping being used secondarily; excavating and tonguing are less common. The aim of the present study was to describe and compare the mandibular apparatus of several species of Meiglyptini and perform a morphofunctional analysis of the complexity of this apparatus, relating it with the species’ foraging mode. Specifically, the following questions were addressed: Are the foraging mode and the structure of the mandibular
References
[1]
R. J. Donatelli, “The jaw apparatus of the neotropical and afrotropical woodpeckers (Aves: Piciformes),” Arqivos de Zoologia, vol. 33, pp. 1–70, 1996.
[2]
H. Winkler and D. A. Christie, “Family Picidae (woodpeckers),” in Handbook of the Birds of the World, Vol. 7: Jacamars to Woodpeckers, J. del Hoyo, A. Elliot, and J. Sargatal, Eds., pp. 296–555, Lynx Editions, Barcelona, Spain, 2002.
[3]
J. J. Baumel, A. S. King, J. E. Breazile, and H. E. Evans, Nomina Anatomica Avium, Academic Press, London, UK, 1993.
[4]
J. J. Baumel and L. M. Witmer, “Osteologia,” in Nomina Anatomica Avium, J. Baumel, A. S. King, J. E. Breazile, and H. E. Evans, Eds., pp. 45–132, Academic Press, London, UK, 1993.
[5]
R. J. Donatelli, “The jaw musculature of the Meiglyptini (Aves: Piciformes: Picidae),” Acta Zoologica (Stockholm) (In press).
[6]
E. H？fling and J. P. Gasc, “Biomécanique du crane et du bec chez Ramphastos (Aves, Ramphastidae),” Gegenbaurs Morphologisches Jahrbuch, vol. 130, pp. 125–147, 1984.
[7]
P. J. K. Burton, “Anatomy and evolution of the feeding apparatus in the avian orders Coraciiformes and Piciformes,” Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History, Zoology, vol. 47, pp. 331–443, 1984.
[8]
W. J. Bock, “Functional and evolutionary morphology of woodpeckers,” Ostrich, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 23–31, 1999.
[9]
W. H. Burt, “Adaptative modifications in the woodpeckers,” University of California Publications in Zoology, vol. 32, pp. 455–524, 1930.
[10]
M. Jollie, “The head skeleton of the chicken and remarks on the anatomy of this region in other birds,” Journal of Morphology, vol. 100, pp. 389–436, 1957.
[11]
R. J. Donatelli, “Cranial osteology and myology of the jaw apparatus in the Galbulidae (Aves: Piciformes),” Arqivos de Zoologia, vol. 32, pp. 1–32, 1992.
[12]
M. C. Pascotto, E. H？fling, and R. J. Donatelli, “Cranial osteology of Coraciiformes (Aves) [Osteologia craniana de Coraciiformes (Aves)],” Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 841–864, 2006.
[13]
H. Hofer, “Untersuchungen uber den Bau des V？gelschadels besonders über den der Spechte und Steinhuhner,” Zoologische Jahrbücher. Abteilung für Anatomie und Ontogenie der Tiere, vol. 69, pp. 1–158, 1945.
[14]
W. J. Bock, “Kinetics of the avian skull,” Journal of Morphology, vol. 114, pp. 1–52, 1964.
[15]
E. M. S. J. van Gennip, “The osteology, arthrology and myology of the jaw apparatus of the Pigeon (Columba livia L.),” Netherlands Journal of Zoology, vol. 36, pp. 1–46, 1986.
[16]
J. Rooth, “On the correlation between the jaw muscles and the structure of the skull in Columba palumbus palumbus L.,” Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol. 56, pp. 251–264, 1953.
[17]
R. L. Merz, “Jaw musculature of the mourning and white-winged doves,” University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History, vol. 12, pp. 521–551, 1963.
[18]
H. Morioka, “Jaw musculature of swifts (Aves, Apodidae),” Bulletin of the National Museum of Natural Science, vol. 17, pp. 1–16, 1974.
