Skip to main content
Log in

What Comes First: The Egg or the Mathematics? Review Article

  • THEORETICAL AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
  • Published:
Biology Bulletin Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When we wish to describe our Universe, our planet Earth, natural environment, and our surroundings, artists often use imagery, whereas scientists attempt to use mathematical formulae. It begs the fundamental question: was the nature and the universe preceded by a clear mathematical design, or did the mathematic description appear subsequently? In this review, we addressed a biological issue of shapes in nature and, specifically, egg shapes in birds, including poultry, as one of most exciting avian adaptations. In order to compute the shape and volume of eggs as a marker of fitness, discover subtle nuances of the evolution of nest parasitism as in cuckoos, detect double-yolk eggs in poultry, develop methods for hatchability improvement and in ovo sex identification, and other things, an exact description of egg shape is urgently needed. We overviewed here the recent mathematical development of a universal egg shape equation called the Narushin–Romanov–Griffin (NRG) model. Following the Latin term “ab ovo” meaning “from the beginning, the origin, the egg,” the NRG model successfully tried to combine two concepts, biological object and mathematical geometry, and enabled to fulfil the formidable task of describing, mathematically, any bird’s egg. Eventually, a series of mathematical formulae was developed that could define bird eggs of any shape present in nature including spherical, elliptical, ovoid and pear-shaped ones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Ferréol, R., Hügelschäffer egg, in Encyclopédie des Formes Mathématiques Remarquables. 2D Curves, 2017. http://www.mathcurve.com/courbes2d.gb/oeuf/oeuf.shtml. Accessed October 3, 2022.

  2. Freiberger, M., Perfect buildings: the maths of modern architecture, Plus Mag., 2007. http://plus.maths.org/issue42/features/foster. Accessed October 3, 2022.

  3. Gielis, J., Shi, P., and Caratelli, D., Universal equations—a fresh perspective, Growth Form, 2022, vol. 3, no. 1–2, pp. 27–44. https://doi.org/10.55060/j.gandf.220817.001

  4. Gilbert, C., The egg reopened again, Art Bull., 1974, vol. 56, pp. 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043079.1974.10790036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hammonds, R., Math in nature: perfect spheres, 2015. https://www.mathnasium.eg/2015/01/math-in-nature-perfect-spheres. Accessed on October 3, 2022.

  6. Herz-Fischler, R., Dürer’s paradox or why an ellipse is not egg-shaped, Math. Mag., 1990, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 75–85. https://doi.org/10.2307/2691062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kurvenkonstruktionen für den Flugzeugentwurf, Flugsport, Ursinus, O., Ed., 1944, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 15–18.

  8. Meshcheryagina, S.G., Mashanova, A., Bachurin, G.N., Mitiay, I.S., and Golovatin, M.G., Host species determines egg size in Oriental cuckoo, J. Zool., 2018, vol. 306, pp. 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Narushin, V.G., and Romanov, M.N., Some ecological peculiarities of chicken egg incubation, Bull. Sumy Natl. Agrar. Univ., Ser. Vet. Med., 2000, no. 5, pp. 92–93.

  10. Narushin, V.G., and Romanov, M.N., Influence of egg parameters on hatchability (a research review), Ptakhivnytstvo, 2001, no. 51, pp. 422–429.

  11. Narushin, V.G., and Romanov, M.N., Physical characteristics of chicken eggs in relation to their hatchability and chick weight, in ASAE Annual International Meeting/CIGR World Congress (Chicago, IL, USA, July 28–31, 2002), 2002, CD-ROM, Paper #026066. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.9226

  12. Narushin, V.G., Romanov, M.N., and Bogatyr, V.P., On relationship between chicken egg morphological parameters and chick sex, 2nd Ukrainian Poultry Conference (Borky, Ukraine, May 14–16, 1996), Abstracts of Papers, 1996, pp. 92–93.

  13. Narushin, V.G., Romanov, M.N., and Bogatyr, V.P., Method for preincubational prediction of embryo sex in chicken eggs, Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Animal Production: Contributed Papers (Seoul, Korea, June 28–July 4, 1998), 1998, vol. 1, pp. 832–833.

  14. Narushin, V.G., Bogatyr, V.P., and Romanov, M.N., Relationship between hatchability and non-destructive physical measurements of chicken eggs, J. Agric. Sci., 2016, vol. 154, pp. 359–365. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859615001045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Narushin, V.G, Romanov, M.N., Lu, G., Cugley, J., and Griffin, D.K., Digital imaging assisted geometry of chicken eggs using Hügelschäffer’s model, Biosyst. Eng., 2020, vol. 197, pp. 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2020.06.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Narushin, V.G., Romanov, M.N., and Griffin, D.K., Egg and math: introducing a universal formula for egg shape, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 2021, vol. 1505, pp. 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Petrović, M., Obradović, M., and Mijailović, R., Suitability analysis of Hugelschaffer’s egg curve application in architectural and structures’ geometry, Bull. Inst. Politeh. Iaşi, Secţ. Constr. maş., 2011, vol. 57 (61), no. 3, pp. 115–122.

  18. Schmidbauer, H., Eine exakte Eierkurvenkonstruktion mit technischen Anwendungen, Elem. Math., 1948, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 67–68.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shi, P., Gielis, J., Quinn, B.K., Niklas, K.J., Ratkowsky, D.A., Schrader, J., Ruan, H., Wang, L., and Niinemets, Ü., ‘biogeom’: an R package for simulating and fitting natural shapes, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14862

  20. Silverman, M., Egg: Eggfun.io. Version 0.09. Silverware Games, Inc., 2020. https://eggfun.io. Accessed October 3, 2022.

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank very much Mr. Vladimir Borozenets (Pattaya, Thailand) for sharing the photo in Fig. 4.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors conceived and wrote the paper. VGN performed the mathematical derivations and calculations. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to V. G. Narushin, M. N. Romanov or D. K. Griffin.

Ethics declarations

COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. This article does not contain any studies involving animals or human participants performed by any of the authors.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Not applicable.

Additional information

Supplementary Information

Not applicable.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Narushin, V.G., Romanov, M.N. & Griffin, D.K. What Comes First: The Egg or the Mathematics? Review Article. Biol Bull Russ Acad Sci 50, 237–243 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1062359022602701

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1062359022602701

Keywords:

Navigation