COMPARATIVE MORPHOLOGY AND MORPHOMETRY OF WING PATAGIA IN Gallus gallus DOMESTICUS AND Numida meleagris: FUNCTIONAL IMPLICATIONS

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26873/SVR-2341-2026

Keywords:

avian flight biomechanics, chicken, guinea fowl , ligamentum propatagiale, metapatagium, propatagium

Abstract

This study aimed to test the hypothesis that Numida meleagris (guinea fowl), as a species retaining greater flight capability than Gallus gallus domesticus (domestic chicken), exhibits structurally reinforced wing patagia reflecting functional adaptations to more demanding biomechanical requirements. A total of 15 guinea fowls (8 males, 7 females) and 14 domestic chickens (7 males, 7 females), aged 6–7 months and maintained under identical husbandry and dietary conditions, were examined through gross anatomical dissection and morphometric analysis. Measurements were recorded using a digital caliper at two standardized wing positions: resting (90° elbow angle) and fully extended (135° elbow angle). These positions were selected to capture the functional range of the propatagium during the downstroke and upstroke phases of the wingbeat cycle. Results indicated that neither species possessed muscular or ligamentous support for the patagium cervicale or patagium alulae. In the metapatagium, both m. serratus superficialis pars metapatagialis and m. latissimus dorsi pars metapatagialis supported this region in chickens, whereas only the former was present in guinea fowls. The propatagium of guinea fowls exhibited significantly denser connective tissue fibers, which obscured the margins of the ligamentum limitans cubiti. Morphometric analysis revealed that the ligamentum propatagiale was significantly shorter in guinea fowls (P < 0.001), yet remained proportionally consistent with long-bone lengths across wing positions in both species. The insertion thickness of the ligamentum propatagiale was significantly greater in guinea fowls (P = 0.05 at 90°; P = 0.001 at 135°). Collectively, these findings suggest that the reinforced propatagial architecture of N. meleagris represents a functional adaptation to sustain higher mechanical loads during active flight, offering new comparative insights into musculoskeletal diversity and evolutionary plasticity within Galliformes.

References

Beaufrère, H. A review of biomechanic and aerodynamic considerations of the avian thoracic limb. Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery. 2009; 23(3), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1647/2007-023.1

Brown, RE. Avian Flight: Anatomy of the Propatagium and Its Mechanical and Aerodynamic Contributions. 1992. Publication of Kansas State Univer-sity.

Baumel, JJ, King, AS, Breazile, HE, et al. Nomina Anatomica Avium, Second Edition, 1993. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Nuttall Ornithological Club.

Brown, RE. Baumel, JJ, Klemm, RD. Anatomy of the propatagium: The great horned owl (Bubo virginianus). Journal of Morphology. 1994; 219(2), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1052190209

Canova, M, Clavenzani, P, Bombardi, C, et al. Anatomy of the shoulder and arm musculature of the common buzzard (Buteo buteo Linnaeus, 1758) and the European honey buzzard (Pernis apivorus Linnaeus, 1758). Zoomorpho-logy. 2015; 134, 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00435-014-0252-5

Nickel, R, Schummer, A, Seiferle, E. Anatomy of Domestic Birds. 1977. Berlin: Verlag Paul Parey.

Canova, M, Bedoni, C, Harper, V, et al. Anatomical study of the musculus deltoideus and musculus flexor carpi ulnaris in 3 species of wild birds. Vete-rinaria Italiana. 2016; 52(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.12834/VetIt.70.202.2

Razmadze, D, Panyutina, AA, Zelenkov, NV. Anatomy of the forelimb muscu-lature and ligaments of Psittacus erithacus (Aves: Psittaciformes). Journal of Anatomy. 2018; 233(4), 496–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12866

FAO. Phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources. FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines No. 11. 2012. Rome: Food and Agricultu-re Organization of the United Nations.

Hudson, GE, Lanzillotti, PJ. Muscles of the pectoral limb in galliform birds. The American Midland Naturalist. 1964; 71(1), 1–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/2422689

Smith, BJ, Smith, SA, Holladay, SD. An additional bone in the carpal region of raptorial birds. Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia. 1993; 22(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0264.1993.tb00348.x

Daley, MA, Usherwood, JR. Two explanations for the compliant running paradox: reduced work of bouncing and increased stability in uneven terra-in. Biology Letter. 2010; 6 (3) 418–421. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0175

Kannus, P. Structure of the tendon connective tissue. Scandinavian Jour-nal of Medicine and Science in Sports. 2000; 10(6), 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.16000838.2000.010006312.x

McGowan, C. The wing musculature of the Weka (Gallirallus australis), a flightless rail endemic to New Zealand. Journal of Zoology. 1985; 210, 305–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1985.tb05075.x

Zhang, Z, Yang, Y. Forelimb myology of the golden pheasant (Chryso-lophus pictus).International Journal of Morphology. 2013; 31(4), 1482–1490. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022013000400054

Downloads

Published

2026-07-17

How to Cite

Dabanoglu, I., & Yavas, E. O. (2026). COMPARATIVE MORPHOLOGY AND MORPHOMETRY OF WING PATAGIA IN Gallus gallus DOMESTICUS AND Numida meleagris: FUNCTIONAL IMPLICATIONS. Slovenian Veterinary Research, Early View. https://doi.org/10.26873/SVR-2341-2026

Issue

Section

Original Research Article

Most read articles by the same author(s)