Advertisement

Anatomical Science International

, Volume 94, Issue 2, pp 172–179 | Cite as

Gross morphological and ultrastructural characterization of the oropharyngeal cavity of the Eurasian hoopoe captured from Egypt

  • Mohamed M. A. AbumandourEmail author
  • Mahmoud S. Gewaily
Original Article
  • 104 Downloads

Abstract

The present study aimed to give full morphological insight into the oropharyngeal cavity of Eurasian hoopoe at the level of gross morphology in addition to ultrastructural inspection including light- and scanning electron microscopy. The oropharyngeal cavity has a triangular appearance with a very long rostrally located beak, helping the bird achieve its feeding mechanism. The floor of the oropharyngeal cavity is divided into three parts; a pre-lingual part with a pre-lingual fold, a lingual part containing a rudimentary triangular tongue, and a laryngeal part, which contains a small elevated laryngeal mound. There are four giant papillae and numerous openings of lingual salivary glands on the root. The roof is divided into the pre-choanal and the choanal region. The pre-choanal region has two parallel palatine ridges, while the choanal region had an ovoid-shaped choanal cleft rostrally, followed caudally by a narrow infundibular slit. The mechanical papillae on the roof are arranged in two rows directed caudally; one row is located on the free border of rostral half of the choanal cleft, while the other row is located between the pharynx cavity and the esophagus. The histological study showed that the tongue was covered dorsally and ventrally by keratinized stratified squamous epithelium and supported centrally by entoglossum, which extends from the root until the rostral tip of the tongue. The entoglossum was mainly cartilaginous rostrally in the apex and ossified caudally in the lingual body and root. Numerous mucous glands scattered in the sub mucosa of the lingual root as well as in the palatine region convey their secretions to the surface through a duct guarded by diffuse lymphocytic infiltration.

Keywords

Hoopoe Oropharyngeal cavity Anatomy SEM Histology 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abumandour MMA (2014) Gross anatomical studies of the oropharyngeal cavity in Eurasian hobby (Falconinae: Falco subbuteo, Linnaeus 1758). J Life Sci Res 1:80–92Google Scholar
  2. Abumandour MM (2018) Surface ultrastructural (SEM) characteristics of oropharyngeal cavity of house sparrow (Passer domesticus). Anat Sci Int 93:384–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abumandour MMA, El-Bakary NER (2017a) Morphological characteristics of the oropharyngeal cavity (tongue, palate and laryngeal entrance) in the Eurasian coot (Fulica atra, Linnaeus, 1758). Anat Histol Embryol 46:347–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abumandour MMA, El-Bakary NER (2017b) Morphological features of the tongue and laryngeal entrance in two predatory birds with similar feeding preferences: common kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) and Hume’s tawny owl (Strix butleri). Anat Sci Int 92:352–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abumandour Mm, El-Bakary Ne (2018) Anatomical investigations of the tongue and laryngeal entrance of the Egyptian laughing dove Spilopelia senegalensis aegyptiaca in Egypt. Anat Sci Int.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12565-018-0451-0 Google Scholar
  6. Al-Ahmady Al-Zahaby S (2016) Light and scanning electron microscopic features of the tongue in cattle egret. Microsc Res Tech 79:595–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumel JJ, King SA, Breazile JE, Evans HE, Berge JCV (1993) Handbook of avian anatomy: nomina anatomica avium, 2nd edn. Nuttall Ornithol Club, Cambridge, p 779Google Scholar
  8. Brockhausen I (2003) Sulphotransferases acting on mucin-type oligosaccharides. Biochem Soc Trans 31:318–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Catarina T, Marcio NR, John TS, Herman BG (2011a) Gross anatomical features of the oropharyngeal cavity of the ostrich (Struthio camelus). Pesq Vet Bras 31(6):543–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Catarina T, Rodrigues MN, Soley JT, Groenwald HB (2011b) Gross anatomical features of the oropharyngeal cavity of the ostrich (Struthio camelus). Pesq Vet Bras 31:543–550Google Scholar
  11. Cevik-Demirkan A, Haziroğlu RM, Kürtül I (2007) Gross morphological and histological features of larynx, trachea and syrinx in Japanese quail. Anat Histol Embryol 36:215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crole MR, Soley JT (2010a) Gross morphology of the intra-oral rhamphotheca, oropharynx and proximal oesophagus of the emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae). Anat Histol Embryol 39:207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crole MR, Soley JT (2010b) Surface morphology of the emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae) tongue. Anat Histol Embryol 39:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dehkordi RAF, Parchami A, Bahadoran S (2010) Light and scanning electron microscopic study of the tongue in the zebra finch Cardueis carduelis (Aves: Passeriformes: Fringillidae). Slov Vet Res 47:139–144Google Scholar
  15. El-Bakary NER (2011) Surface morphology of the tongue of the hoopoe (Upupa epops). J Am Sci 7:394–399Google Scholar
  16. Erdogan S, Alan A (2012) Gross anatomical and scanning electron microscopic studies of the oropharyngeal cavity in the European magpie (Pica pica) and the common raven (Corvus corax). Microsc Res Tech 75:379–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erdogan S, Iwasaki S (2014) Function-related morphological characteristics and specialized structures of the avian tongue. Ann Anat 196:75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Erdogan S, Perez W (2015) Anatomical and scanning electron microscopic characteristics of the oropharyngeal cavity (tongue, palate and laryngeal entrance) in the southern lapwing (Charadriidae: Vanellus chilensis, Molina 1782). Acta Zool Stockh 96:127–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gargiulo A, Lorvik S, Ceccarelli P, Pedini V (1991) Histological and histochemical studies on the chicken lingual glands. Br Poult Sci 32:693–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gussekloo SWS, Bout GR (2005) The kinematics of feeding and drinking in palaeognathous birds in relation to cranial morphology. J Exp Biol 208:3395–3407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iwasaki S, Kobayashi K (1986) Scanning and transmission electron microscopical studies on the lingual dorsal epithelium of chickens. Acta Anat Nippon 61:83–96Google Scholar
  22. Iwasaki S, Tomoichiro A, Akira C (1997) Ultrastructural study of the keratinization of the dorsal epithelium of the tongue of Middendorff’s bean goose, Anser fabalis middendorffii (Anseres, Anatidae). Anat Rec 247:149–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jackowiak H, Ludwig M (2008) Light and scanning electron microscopic study of the structure of the ostrich (Strutio camelus) tongue. Zool Sci 25:188–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jackowiak H, Skieresz-Szewczyk K, Kwieciński Z, Trzcielińska-Lorych J, Godynicki S (2010) Functional morphology of the tongue in the nutcracker (Nucifraga caryocatactes). Zool Sci 27:589–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackowiak H, Skieresz-Szewczyk K, Godynicki S, Iwasaki S, Meyer W (2011) Functional morphology of the tongue in the domestic goose (Anser Anser f. domestica). Anat Rec 294:1574–1584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kobayashi K, Kumakura M, Yoshimura K, Inatomi M, Asami T (1998) Fine structure of the tongue and lingual papillae of the Penguin. Arch Histol Cytol 61:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kristin A (2001) Family Upupidae (Hoopoe). In: Hoyo J del, Elliott A, Jordi S (eds) Handbook of the birds of the world. Lynx, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  28. Liman N, Bayram G, Kocak M (2001) Histological and histochemical studies on the lingual preglottal and laryngeal salivary glands of the Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) at the post hatching period. Anat Histol Embryol 30:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nickel R, Schummer A, Seiferle E (1977) Anatomy of the domestic birds (translation by WG Siller and PAL Wight). Parey, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  30. Parchami A, Fatahian RAD (2011) Lingual structure of the domestic pigeon (Columba livia domestica): a light and scanning electron microscopic studies. Middle-East J Sci Res 7(1):81–86Google Scholar
  31. Parchami A, Dehkordi RAF, Bahadoran S (2010) Fine structure of the dorsal lingual epithelium of the common quail (Coturnix coturnix). World Appl Sci J 10:1185–1189Google Scholar
  32. Rodrigues MN, Tivane CN, Carvalho RC et al (2012) Gross morphology of rhea oropharyngeal cavity. Pesq Vet Bras 32(1):53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sagsoz H, Erdogan S, Akbalik ME (2012) Histomorphological structure of the palate and histochemical profiles of the salivary palatine glands in the Chukar partridge (Alectoris chukar, Gray 1830). Acta Zool (Stockholm) 100:1–10Google Scholar
  34. Sağsöz H, Erdoğan S, Akbalik ME (2013) Histomorphological structure of the palate and histochemical profiles of the salivary palatine glands in the Chukar partridge (Alectoris chukar, Gray 1830). Acta Zool 94:382–391Google Scholar
  35. Samar M, Avila R, De Fabro S, Centurion C (1995) Structural and cytochemical study of salivary glands in the magellanic penguin (Spheniscus magellanicus) and the kelp gull (Larus dominicanus). Mar Ornithol 23:154–156Google Scholar
  36. Samar ME, Ávila RE, Esteban FJ et al (2002) Histochemical and ultrastructural study of the chicken salivary palatine glands. Acta Histochem 104:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Santos TC, Fukuda KY, Guimara˜Es JP, Oliveira MF, Miglino MA, Watanabe L (2011) Light and scanning electron microcopy study of the tongue in Rhea americana. Zool Sci 28:41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suvarna SK, Layton C, Bancroft JD (2013) Bancroft’s theory and practice of histological techniques, 8th edn. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Association of Anatomists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anatomy and Embryology, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineAlexandria UniversityEdfinaEgypt
  2. 2.Department of Anatomy and Embryology, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineKafrelsheikh UniversityKafrelsheikhEgypt

Personalised recommendations