Geometric Morphometric Analysis on the skull of the Red Fox (Vulpes Vulpes)

Abstract

This study was carried out to determine the shape of the fox skull by the geometric morphometric method according to gender. For this purpose, four female and nine male fox skulls were used. The skulls were photographed from the dorsal and lateral aspects. Eleven homologous landmarks on the dorsal aspect and 19 homologous landmarks on the lateral aspect were marked on the photographs of the skull. Principal component analysis and Relative warp analysis were performed on the coordinate values of the images. In addition, MorphoJ software was used to determine the shape differences and directions of the landmarks. According to principal component analysis, male and female individuals were mainly concentrated to the y axis’s right on lateral images, and female and male individuals were not concentrated in one region on dorsal images. Therefore, according to the principal component analysis, no significant gender difference was found. The consensus graph determined that the oral edge of the incisive tooth and the cranial edge of the canine tooth in females were ventrally directed compared to males. It is thought that the findings obtained as a result of the study will contribute to zooarchaeological and taxonomic research.

Keywords

• Geometric morphometry
• MorphoJ
• Red Fox
• Skull

Kızıl Tilkilerde (Vulpes vulpes) Kafatasının Geometrik Morfometrik Analizi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, tilki kafatasının cinsiyete göre geometrik morfometrik yöntemle şekilsel durumunun belirlenmesi amacıyla yapıldı. Bu amaçla 4 dişi ve 9 erkek tilki kafatası kullanıldı. Kafatasları dorsal ve lateral yönlü olacak şekilde fotoğraflandı. Kafataslarının dorsal görüntüleri üzerinde 11, lateral görüntüleri üzerinde 19 homolog landmark işaretlendi. Görüntülerden elde edilen koordinat değerlerinde temel bileşenler analizi ve Relative warp analizi yapıldı. Ayrıca işaretlenen landmarkların şekil farklılıklarını ve yönlerini belirlemek amacıyla MorphoJ yazılımı kullanıldı. Temel Bileşenler analizine göre, lateral görüntülerde dişi ve erkek bireylerin büyük oranda y ekseninin sağına toplandığı, dorsal yönlü görüntülerde ise dişi ve erkek bireylerin bir bölgeye yoğunlaşmadığı tespit edildi. Dolayısıyla Temel Bileşenler analizine göre belirgin bir cinsiyet farklılığına rastlanmadı. Konsensus grafiğine göre ise, dişilerde incisiv dişin oral kenarı ile canin dişin cranial kenarının erkeklere göre ventral yönlü olduğu belirlendi. Çalışma sonucunda elde edilen bulguların zooarkeolojik ve taksonomik araştırmalara katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• Geometrik morfometri
• Kafatası
• Kızıl tilki
• MorphoJ

References

1. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, 2000: Ecological character displacement in Plethodon: biomechanical differences found from a geometric morphometric study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 97, 4106-4111. doi:10.1073/pnas.97.8.4106
2. Animal Protection Law, Official Gazette 25509: 24.06.2004, Law no: 5199.
3. Clark KM, 1995: The later prehistoric and protohistoric dog: the emergence of canine diversity. Archaeozoologia, 7, 9-32.
4. Demiraslan Y, Özgel Ö, Gürbüz İ, Zümre Ö, 2021: The mandibles of the Honamlı and Hair goats (Capra hircus); a geometric morphometric study. Ankara Univ Vet Fak Derg, 68 (4), 321-328. doi: 10.33988/auvfd.759964
5. Demircioğlu İ, Demiraslan Y, Gurbuz İ, Dayan MO, 2021: Geometric morphometric analysis of skull and mandible in Awassi ewe and ram. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 27 (1), 43-49, 2021. doi: 10.9775/kvfd.2020.24714
6. Dobrowolska ZM, Moska M, Mucha A, Wierzbicki H, Dobrowolski M, 2018: Variation in fur farm and wild populations of the red fox, Vulpes vulpes (Carnivora: Canidae) - Part II: Craniometry. Can J Anim Sci, 98, 84-97.
7. Duro S, Gündemir O, Sönmez B, Jashari T, Szara T, Pazvant G, Kambo A, 2021: A different perspective on sex dimorphism in adult Hermann’s Tortoise: Geometric morphometry. Zool Stud, 60, 9. doi: 10.6620/ZS.2021.60.09
8. Gündemir O, Özkan E, Dayan MO, Aydoğdu S, 2020: Sexual analysis in turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) neurocranium using geometric morphometric methods. Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 44, 681-687.

9. Gündemir O, Özkan E, Gezer İnce N, Pazvant G, Demircioğlu İ, Aydoğdu S, Koçyiğit A, Dayan MO, 2020b: Investigation of os coxae in horses using geometric morphometry method. Harran Univ Vet Fak Derg, 9(2), 170-176.
10. Gürbüz İ, Aytek Aİ, Demiraslan Y, Onar V, Özgel Ö, 2020: Geometric morphometric analysis of cranium of wolf (Canis lupus) and German shepherd dog (Canis lupus familiaris). Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 26 (4), 525-532. Doi: 10.9775/kvfd.2019.23841.9775/kvfd.2
11. Hammer Q, Harper DAT, Ryan PD, 2001: PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontol Electron, 4, 9.
12. Higgins OP, 2000: The study of morphological variation in the hominid fossil record: biology, landmarks and geometry. J Anat, 197, 103-120.
13. Kistner TM, Zink KD, Worthington S, Lieberman DE, 2021: Geometric morphometric investigation of craniofacial morphological change in domesticated silver foxes. Sci Rep, 11, 2582. Doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82111-9
14. Klingenberg CP, 2011: MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric Morphometrics. Mol Ecol Resour, 11, 353-357.
15. Kruuk H, 2002: Hunter and Hunted. Relationships Between Carnivores and People. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
16. Loy A, 2007: Morphometrics and theriology: Homage to Marco Corti. HYSTRIX, 18(2): 115-136.
17. Milencovic M, Spedic VJ, Blagojevic J, Tatovic S, Vujosevic M, 2010: Skull variation in dinaric- Balkan and Carpathian gray wolf populations revealed by geometric morphometric approaches. J Mammal, 91(2), 376-386. Doi: 10.1644/09-MAMM-A-265.1
18. Munkhzul T, Reading RP, Buuveibaatar B, Murdoch JD, 2018: Comparative Craniometric Measurements of Two Sympatric Species of Vulpes in Ikh Nart Nature Reserve, Mongolia. Mong J Biol Sci, 16(1), 19- 28.
19. Onar V, Belli O, 2005: Estimation of shoulder height from long bone measurements on dogs unearthed from the Van-Yoncatepe early Iron Age necropolis in Eastern Anatolia. Rev Med Vet, 156, 53-60.
20. Onar V, Belli O, Owen PR, 2005: Morphometric Examination of Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) from the Van-Yoncatepe Necropolis in Eastern Anatolia. Int J Morphol, 23(3), 253-260.
21. Parsons KJ, Rigg A, Conith AJ, Kitchener AC, Harris S, Zhu H, 2020: Skull morphology diverges between urban and rural populations of red foxes mirroring patterns of domestication and macroevolution. Proc R Soc B, 287, 20200763. Doi: 10.1098/rspb.2020.0763
22. Rohlf FJ, 2017: TpsSmall Version 1.34, Ecology & Evolution. SUNY at Stone Brook, USA.
23. Rohlf FJ, 2018: TpsDig Version 2.31, Ecology & Evolution. SUNY at Stone Brook, USA.
24. Rohlf FJ, 2019: TpsUtil program Version 1.79, Ecology & Evolution. SUNY at Stone Brook, USA.
25. Slice DE, 2007: Geometric morphometrics. Annu Rev Anthropol, 36, 261-281.
26. Tamlin AL, Bowman J, Hackett DF, 2009: Separating wild from domestic American mink Neovison vison based on skull morphometries. Wildl Biol, 15: 266-277. doi: 10.2981/08-004
27. Trut LN, Dzershinskii FY, Nikol’skii VS, 1991: Component analysis of craniologic characters of silver foxes (Vulpes Fulvus Desm.) and their changes arising under domestication. Genetika, 27, 1440–50.
28. Wozencraft WC, 2005: Carnivora. In: Mammal Species of the World, Wilson DE and Reeder D (eds), 532-628, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
29. Wroe S, Clausen P, McHenry C, Moreno K, Cunningham E, 2007: Computer simulation of feding behaviour in the thylacine and dingo as a novel test for convergence and niche overlap. Proc Biol Sci, 274, 2819-2828. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0906
30. Yalçın H, Kaya MA, Arslan A, 2010: Comparative Geometrical Morphometries on the Mandibles of Anatolian Wild Sheep (Ovis gmelini anatolica) and Akkaraman Sheep (Ovis aries). Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 16, 55-61.
31. Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD 2004: Geometric Morphometrics For Biologists: A Primer, Academic Press, Cambridge.