Comparative Myoarchitectural Orientation of the Extrinsic Lingual Muscles of the Egyptian Cattle (Bos Taurus), Buffalo (Bubalus Bubalis) and Camel (Camelus Dromedarius)


Comparative Myoarchitectural Orientation of the Extrinsic Lingual Muscles of the Egyptian Cattle (Bos Taurus), Buffalo (Bubalus Bubalis) and Camel (Camelus Dromedarius)


Mohamed A. Naziha

aDepartment of anatomy, faculty of veterinary medicine, New Valley University, El-Kharge, New Valley, Egypt


American Journal of Anatomy and Physiology 2D

Comparative myoarchitectural anatomical studies were adopted on twelve tongues of apparently health of both adult sexes of cattle, buffalo and camel. The study was aimed to describe the architectural orientation of the extrinsic lingual muscles for each species. As well as statistical data between the tongue and extrinsic lingual muscles. The work declared the properties of potent tongue which allowed the cattle and buffalo to perform their behavioral prehension of food. The study described the extrinsic lingual muscles and spotted a light on the role of the geniohyoid muscle on the tongue. The work concluded that the tongue of cattle was the stronger than the buffalo while both able to depend up on their tongue for food prehension. On the other hand the tongue of camel adapted for introral function.


Keywords: Comparative, orientation, lingual muscles, cattle, buffalo, camel

Free Full-text PDF


How to cite this article:
Mohamed A. Nazih. Comparative Myoarchitectural Orientation of the Extrinsic Lingual Muscles of the Egyptian Cattle (Bos Taurus), Buffalo (Bubalus Bubalis) and Camel (Camelus Dromedarius).American Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, 2019, 2:7


References:

1. Chibuzo GA (2006). Ruminant dissection guide: a regional approach in the goats, second edition. Beth- Bekka Academic publishers Maiduguri Nigeria. Pp 61-64
2. Dyce KM, WO Sack and CJG Wensing (2010). Textbook of veterinary anatomy. The digestive system, pp: 102-105.
3. Eerdunchaolu, Takehana, Yamamoto, Kobayashi, Cao, Baiyin, Ueda and Tangkawattana (2008). Characteristics of dorsal lingual papillae of the Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus). Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia. Vol. 30, issue 3
4. El- Bably SH and Tolba AR (2015). Morph-metrical studies on the tongue (Lingua) of the adult Egyptian domestic cats (Felis domestica).
5. GomezWedeen V., J., Reese T., G., Napadow V., J. and Gilbert R., J. (2001). Demonstration of primary and secondary muscle fiber architecture of the bovine tongue by diffuse tensor magnetic resonance imaging. Biophysical journal Vol. 80 1024- 1028
6. Igado O., O. (2011). Gross morphometric study of the eyeball and tongue of the nigerian dog. IJAE Vol. 116, n. 1:104-110
7. Iwasaki S. (2002). Evaluation of the structure and function of the vertebrate tongue J. Anat. 201, pp 1-13
8. König HE and Liebich HG (2014) Veterinary Anatomy of Domestic Mammals: Textbook and Colour Atlas, Sixth Edition.
9. König HE and Liebich HG (2006) Veterinary Anatomy of Domestic Mammals: Textbook and Colour Atlas, forth Edition.
10. Miller ME, GC Christensen and HE Evans (1996). Anatomy of the dog. WB Saunders Co, Philadelphia.
11. Parvez M.N.H. & Rahman M.T. (2005). Anatomical study of the tongue of indigenous cow (Bos indicus) in Bangladesh with special emphasis on papillae distribution. Bangladesh journal of veterinary medicine. Vol. 3, No.2
12. Saidu A., Jaji A., Yawulda P., U F., Da., Ahmed Y. and Elelu N. (2015). Gross morphology and morphometry of foetal and adult dromedary tongues. Sokoto journal of Veterinary Sciences, Vol. 13 No. 2
13. Shoeib MB, Risk AZ and Hassanin AM. (2014). Comparative morphological studies on lyssa in carnivores and camels with special reference to its surgical resection. Journal of advanced veterinary research, Vol. 4, Issue 3. Pp 135-141.
14. Sisson and Grossman (1975). The anatomy of the domestic animals