COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CRANIAL OSTEOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY TRAITS OF Micrastur gilvicollis, Micrastur ruficollis AND Micrastur semitorquatus (AVES: FALCONIFORMES)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65259/rnzool.v8i1.62Keywords:
Anatomy, skull, FalconidaeAbstract
The cranial osteology of Micrastur gilvicollis (Vieillot, 1817), Micrastur ruficollis (Vieillot, 1817) and Micrastur semitorquatus (Vieillot, 1817) is comparatively and meticulously described to characterize each of the species and to determine which traits the species have in common and which are distinct. These traits will be used a posteriori for phylogenetic analysis. Our results indicate that M. gilvicollis and M. ruficollis are closely related, as they share a large number of traits, including a lacrimal bone with a distal portion that is approximately half as long as the proximal portion and a parasphenoid rostrum that covers 50% of the distance between the occipital condyle and pterygoid. Similarly, M. gilvicollis and M. semitorquatus both have a partially fused craniofacial flexion zone. In both M. ruficollis and M. semitorquatus, the symphyseal region of the mandible is 1/5 the total length of the mandible. The diagnostic traits for each of these species are as follows: a) in M. gilvicollis, the interorbital distance is 1/3 the length of the parietal, and the zygomatic process stretches 1/5 of the distance from the orbital arch to the jugal arch; b) in M. ruficollis, the interorbital distance is 2/5 of the length of the parietal and the zygomatic process extends 1/4 of the distance from the orbital arch to the jugal arch; and c) in M. semitorquatus, the interorbital distance is 3/7 the length of the parietal and the distal portion of the lacrimal is 1/3 the length of the proximal portion. Among the three species, M. gilvicolis and M. ruficollis share the most traits, which leads us to infer that these species are more closely related to one another than they are to M. semitorquatus. Phylogenetic analysis performed a posteriori may confirm the relationship between these three species.
Downloads
References
AMADON, D. 1964. Taxonomic notes on birds of prey. New York, America Museum Novitates, 24p.
ANTAS, P.T.Z. 2005. Pantanal guide to birds: species of the Brazilian Natural Heritage Private Reserve of the SESC Pantanal, Rio de Janeiro. SESC, National Department, 225p.
BAUMEL, J.J. & L.M. WITMER. 1993. OSTEOLOGIA, p. 45-132. In: Baumel, J.; A.S. King; A.M. Lucas; J.E. Breazile & T.H.E. Evans (Eds). Handbook of Avian Anatomy: Nomina anatomica avium. London, Academic Press, 637p.
BROWN, L. & D. AMADON. 1968. Eagles, hawks and falcons of the world. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 531p.
CBRO (Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos) 2011. List of Brazilian Birds. 10th Edition, Disponível na World Wide Web em: http://www.cbro.org.br/CBRO/listabr.html [23/04/2012].
ERICSON, P.G.P.; C.L. ANDERSON; T. BRITTON; A. ELZANOWSKI; U.S. JOHANSSON; M. KÄLLERSJÖ; J.I. OHLSON; T.J. PARSONS; D. ZUCCON & G. MAYR. 2006. Diversification of Neoaves: integration of molecular sequence data and fossils. Biology Letters, London, 2: 543-547.
Fuchs, J.; S. Chen; J.A. Johnson & D.P. Mindell. 2011. Pliocene diversification within the South American Forest falcons (Falconidae: Micrastur). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Detroit, 60: 398-407.
FUCHS, J.; S. CHEN; J.A. JOHNSON & D.P. MINDELL. 2012. Molecular systematics of the caracaras and allies (Falconidae: Polyborinae) inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear sequence data. Ibis, London, 154: 520-532.
GRIFFITHS, C.S.; G.F. BARROWCLOUGH; J.G. GROTH & L. MERTZ. 2004. Phylogeny of the Falconidae (Aves): a comparison of the efficacy of morphological, mitochondrial, and nuclear data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Detroit, 32: 101-109.
HERTEL, F. 1995. Ecomorphological indicators of feeding behavior in recent and fossil raptors. The Auk, Washington, 102 (4): 890-903.
MARCELIANO, M.L.V.; S.R. POSSO. & R.J DONATELLI. 2007. Cranial osteology of Penelope superciliaris Temminck, 1815 (Galliformes: Cracidae). Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém, 2 (1): 55-67.
MÉNDEZ, A.C. & E. HÖFLING. 2007. Cranial Osteology of Ceryinae (Coraciiformes: Alcedinidae). Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém, 2 (1): 155-182.
PASCOTTO, M.C.; E. HÖFLING. & R.J. DONATELLI. 2006. Cranial Osteology of Coraciiformes (Aves). Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, Curitiba, 23 (3): 841-864.
SCHWARTZ, P. 1972. Micrastur gilvicollis, a valid species sympatric with M. ruficollis in Amazonia. The Condor, Los Angeles, 74: 399-415.
SICK, H. 1997. Ornitologia Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro, Editora Nova Fronteira. 912p.
SILVA, A.G.; G.J.B. FERREIRA; R.J. DONATELLI & A. GUZZI. 2012. Cranial osteology of Micrastur semitorquatus Vieillot, 1817 (Falconiformes: Falconidae). Comunicata Scientiae, Bom Jesus, 3 (1): 64-71.
SUSTAITA, D. 2008. Musculoskeletal underpinnings to differences in killing behavior between North American accipiters (Falconiformes: Accipitridae) and falcons (Falconidae). Journal of Morphology, New Jersey, 269: 283-301.
SUSTAITA, D. & F. HERTEL. 2010. In vivo bite grip forces, morphology and prey-killing behavior of North American accipiters (Accipitridae) and falcons (Falconidae). The Journal of Experimental Biology, Cambridge, 213: 2617-2628.
THORSTROM, R. 2000. The food habits of sympatric forest-falcons during the breeding season in northeastern Guatemala. Journal of Raptor Research, Boise, 34: 196-202.
ZUSI, R.L. & B.C. LIVEZEY. 2000. Homologies and phylogenetic implications of some enigmatic cranial features in galliform and anseriform birds. Annals of Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, 69: 157-193.
ZUSI, R.L. 1993. Patterns of diversity in the avian skull, p. 391-437. In: Haken, J. & B.K. Hall. (Eds). The skull, patterns of structural and systematic diversity. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, v. 2. 580p.
