Al-Qadisiyah Journal of Veterinary Medicine Sciences

Comparative morphohistological study of the tongue of domestic goose (Anser anser domesticus) and domestic turkey (Meleagris gallopavo domesticus)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Anatomy and Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sulaimani, Iraq

2 Department of Anatomy and Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sulaymani, Iraq

10.29079/qjvms.2024.155444.1051

Abstract

This study was designed to compare the morphohistological features of the tongue between domestic goose and turkey. Ten tongues of adult healthy both the birds were used. Six tongues of both birds for macroscopic inspections and the four tongues for microscopic examinations were prepared. The gross observations showed that shape of the tongues was fit to the shape of the lower beaks, and they occupied lower beak only small space of rostral region remained. Goose tongue was elongated with rounded tip, but turkey tongue was triangular with pointed tip. Lingual apex carried a lingual nail plays a major role in food collecting. In turkey lingual nail was longer than it in goose. The conical papillae were observed on the body and root in goose and turkey. Filiform papillae only observed in goose located between conical papillae in body. Microscopically, tongues covered by parakeratinized, orthokeratinized and non-keratinized mucosa according to the tongue regions. The lamina propria contained lingual glands that divided into anterior glands in body and posterior glands in root of the tongues. The lingual glands excrete mucous secretion via their opening on the ventrolateral and dorsal surfaces of tongue. The findings in this study conclude that tongue is a modified and essential organ; it has different morphology and performances according to the feeding habit and food type in birds. 

Keywords

References
1.Van der Leeuw A, Kurk K, Snelderwaard P, Bout R, Berkhoudt H. Conflicting demands on the trophic system of Anseriformes and their evolutionary implications. Animal biology, (2003); 53:259-301. DOI: 10.1163/157075603322539453.
2.Klasing KC. Poultry nutrition: a comparative approach. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, (2005); 14:426-36. DOI: 10.1093/japr/14.2.426.
3.Erdoğan S, Sağsöz H, Akbalik ME. Anatomical and histological structure of the tongue and histochemical characteristics of the lingual salivary glands in the Chukar partridge (Alectoris chukar, Gray 1830). British Poultry Science, (2012); 53:307-315. DOI: 10.1080/00071668.2012.700507.
4.Erdoğan S, Iwasaki SI. Function-related morphological characteristics and specialized structures of the avian tongue. Annals of Anatomy-Anatomischer Anzeiger, (2014); 196:75-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.aanat.2013.09.005
5.Mohamed R. Histomorphological study on the tongue of the duck in the Caribbean with relation to feeding habit. Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research, (2019); 6:74-81. DOI: 10.5455/javar.2019.f315.
6.Emura S, Okumura T, Chen H. Scanning electron microscopic study of the tongue in the peregrine falcon and common kestrel. Okajimas Folia Anatomica Japonica, (2008); 85:11-5. DOI: 10.2535/ofaj.85.11.
7.Jackowiak H, Skieresz‐Szewczyk K, Godynicki S, Iwasaki SI, Meyer W. Functional morphology of the tongue in the domestic goose (Anser anser f. domestica). The Anatomical Record: Advances in Integrative Anatomy and Evolutionary Biology, (2011); 294:1574-1584. DOI: 10.1002/ar.21447.
8.Skieresz-Szewczyk K, Jackowiak H. Morphofunctional study of the tongue in the domestic duck (Anas platyrhynchos f. domestica, Anatidae): LM and SEM study. Zoomorphology, (2016); 135:255-268. DOI: 10.1007/s00435-016-0302-2.
9.Abumandour MM, El-Bakary NE. Anatomical investigations of the tongue and laryngeal entrance of the Egyptian laughing dove Spilopelia senegalensis aegyptiaca in Egypt. Anatomical Science International, (2019); 94:67-74. DOI:10.1007/s12565-018-0451-0.
10.Iwasaki SI, Kobayashi K. on the Lingual Dorsal Epithelium of Chickens. Acta anat. Nippon, (1986); 61:83-96. DOI: 10.1155/2013/980465.
11.Attaallah A, Fouda Y, El-Beltagy AE, Saleh AM. Comparative studies on the tongue of the Egyptian fruit bat (Rousettus aegyptiacus) and the common quail (Coturnix coturnix). Egyptian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, (2023); 10:476-492. DOI:10.1080/2314808X.2023.2231197.
12.Kadhim KK, Zuki AB, Babjee SM, Noordin MM, Zamri-Saad M. Morphological and histochemical observations of the red jungle fowl tongue Gallus gallus. African Journal of Biotechnology, (2011); 10: 9969-9977. DOI : 10.5897/AJB11.955.
13.Pourlis AF. Morphological features of the tongue in the quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Journal of Morphological sciences, (2014); 31:177-181. DOI: 10.4322/jms.061113.
14.İlgün R, Kuru N, Bölükbaş F, Gür FM. Histological and electron microscopical structure of tongue and lingual papillae of guinea fowl (Numida meleagris). Pakistan J. Zool., (2020);  52:949-956. DOI: 10.17582/journal.pjz/20190621210615.
15.Skieresz-Szewczyk K, Plewa B, Jackowiak H. Functional morphology of the tongue in the domestic turkey (Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo var. domesticus). Poultry Science, (2021); 100:101038. DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2021.101038.
16.Bancroft JD, Cook HC. (1984). Manual of Histological Techniques. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, London, Melbourne and New York.
17.Glatz PC, Miao ZH, Ru YJ. Feeding Free-range Poultry and Pigs. In: Bels V. Feeding in Domestic Vertebrates. From Structure to Behaviour, CAB International, Wallingford. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Publishing, 2006; 326–348. DOI: 10.1079/9781845930639.0326.
18.Harrison JG. Tongue. A new dictionary of birds. 1st ed. Publishing A.L. Thomson. Nelson, London, United Kingdom, 1964: 928. https://lccn.loc.gov/64018267.
19.Skieresz-Szewczyk K, Jackowiak H. Scanning electron microscopy investigation of the filter-feeding apparatus in the domestic goose (Anser anser f. domestica) and the domestic duck (Anas platyrhynchos f. domestica). In: A. Méndez-Vilas, Ed. Microscopy: advances in scientific research and education, 2014ed, FORMATEX, 2014; 84-88. url={https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:62884485.
20.Alhasso A, Alzebari BS. Anatomical study and measurements on the tongue of mature local breed ducks (Anas Platyrhynchos) and geese (Anserinae). NTU Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, (2023); 3:164-170. DOI: 10.56286/ntujavs.v2i2.
21.Abumandour MM, Gewaily MS. Gross morphological and ultrastructural characterization of the oropharyngeal cavity of the Eurasian hoopoe captured from Egypt. Anatomical science international, (2019); 5:172-179. DOI: 10.1007/s12565-018-0463-9.
22.Emura S, Okumura T, Chen H. Scanning electron microscopic study of the tongue in the Japanese pygmy woodpecker (Dendrocopos kizuki). Okajimas folia anatomica Japonica, (2009); 86:31-35. DOI: 10.2535/ofaj.86.31
23.Hassan SM, Moussa EA, Cartwright AL. Variations by sex in anatomical and morphological features of the tongue of Egyptian goose (Alopochen aegyptiacus). Cells Tissues Organs, (2010); 191:161-165. DOI: https:10.1159/000223231.
24.Skieresz-Szewczyk K, Jackowiak H, Ratajczak M. LM and TEM study of the orthokeratinized and parakeratinized epithelium of the tongue in the domestic duck (Anas platyrhynchos f. domestica). Micron, 2014; 67:117-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.micron.2014.07.004.
25.Skieresz-Szewczyk K, Jackowiak H, Skrzypski M. Alpha-keratin, keratin-associated proteins and transglutaminase 1 are present in the ortho-and parakeratinized epithelium of the avian tongue. Cells, (2022) ; 11:1899. DOI: 10.3390/cells11121899.
Al-Qadisiyah Journal of Veterinary Medicine Sciences
Volume 24, Issue 1
January 2025
Pages 95-103
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics