CRANIAL OSTEOLOGY COMPARED TO CARACARA CHERIWAY (JACQUIN, 1784) AND CARACARA PLANCUS (MILLER, 1777) (AVES: FALCONIDAE)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X14839Keywords:
Anatomy. Caracara cheriway. Caracara plancus. Falconidae. Cranial Osteology.Abstract
http://dx.doi.org/10.5902/2179460X14839
The Caracara genus (Aves: Falconidae) is composed by species C. cheriway, (“Crested Caracara”), and C. plancus (Southern Caracara). This study aimed to describe in detail and compared the cranial osteology of C. cheriway and C. plancus, identifying osteological cranial characters for a future systematic work. The two common characters of Caracara species are: the projection of rostro parasphenoid reaches 50% of the distance from the occipital condyle to the pterygoid; the upper maxilla has about 4/9 of the total length of theskull, the symphysial portion of mandible occupies about 1/7 of its total length, the proximal portion of lacrimal bone ends in a rounded shape and has about 1/4 of the width of the distal portion. The unique characters of C. cheriway are: the interorbital width is about 1/2 of the parietal region, shows a frontal bone prominence; presence of lacrimal process of frontal bone; the proximal portion of the lacrimal bone reaches 1/5 of the distance from the orbital arc to the jugal bone; the distance between the distal portions of two lacrimal bones reach 5/6 of the parietal width, the ratio between the interorbital diameter and parietal region ranges from 2 times; the zygomatic process occupies about 40% of the distance between its origin in the skull and jugal bone. The unique characters of C. plancus are: the interorbital width is approximately 4/7 of the parietal width; show a rostral medial concavity; the proximal portion of the lacrimal bone is about 1/4 of the width of the distal; the proximal portion of the lacrimal bone reaches 1/7 of the distance from the orbital arc to the jugal bone; the distance between the distal portions of two lacrimal bones reaches 6/7 of the width parietal one; the ratio between the interorbital diameter and parietal region varies 1, 75 times, the zygomatic process occupies about 35% of the distance between its origin in the skull and jugal bone.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
