Keywords
middle toe
tarsus and wing expansion
How to Cite
Abstract
Morphomatric of Cotton Pygmy-goose, Nettapus coromandelianus coromandelianus was studied during 2006 to 2008. The males are comparatively bigger in size than the females. The average weight was found to be 226.50 gm and 219.50 gm for male and female respectively. The primary (wing) feather arrangement in male was found to be P1 < P11 < P10 < P9 < P8 < P7 < P2 < P6 <P5 < P3< P4. The females have a more or less similar arrangement except the P2 and P6 where P6<P2. The mean length of the middle toe in male was found to be 34.32+0.194 mm; where as in female the same remains 0.5 mm shorter (+0.163). The wing expansion was ranged between 424 mm to 426 mm in both male and female, but with slight variation in mean value (male- 425.17+0.753 mm; female- 425.53+0.816 mm). Since no morphomatric studies has been done so far on this species, the present paper was hypothesized to the study of morphomatric variation in various aspects of Cotton Pygmy-goose indicating the relation of wings, hind-limbs, head neck, beak, tarsus, different types of toes and tail in respect to the habitat utilization and ecology of the wetland.
References
Ali S. 2002. The Book of Indian Birds. 13th Edn., Bombay Natural History Society & Oxford Univ. Press. Pp 91-92.
Ali S and Ripley SD. 1983. Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan. Compact Edn. Oxford Univ. Press 48-49.
Anonymous 1965. For the wildfowler-III: ‘The smallest ducks in the world’. Cheetal 8(1):18-19.
Balachandran S. 2002. Indian Bird Binding Manual, Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai. 80.
Bibby CJ, Burgess ND and Hill DA. 1992. Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press, London.
Birdlife International 2004. Nettapus coromandelianus. In IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. CD ROM.
Bock JW. 1959. Pre-adaptation and multiple evolutionary pathways. Evolution. 13: 123-131.
Bock JW and Von Wahlert G. 1965. Adaptation and the form-function complex. Evolution 19:269-299.
Bock JW. 1980. The definition and recognition of biological adaptation. American Zoologist 20(1):217-227.
Fox AD, King R and J. Watkin. 1992. Seasonal variation in weight, body measurements and condition of free-living Teal. Bird Study 39: 53-62.
Green AJ, Figuerola J King R. 2001. Comparative inter-specific and intraspecific allometry in the Anatidae. J. Ornithology 142:321-334.
Grimmett R, Inskipp C and T. Inskipp, 1999. Pocket guide to the Birds of Indian Sub- Continent. Oxford Univ. Press 384.
Moore SJ and Battley PF. 2003. The use of wing remains to determine condition before death in brown teal (Anas chlorotis). Notornis 50:133-140.
Pöysä H. 1983a. Resource utilization pattern and guild structure in a waterfowl community. Oikos, 40:295-307.
Pöysä H. 1983b. Morphology-mediated niche organization in a guild of dabbling ducks. Ornis Scand. 14:317-326.
Pöysä H. 1986. Foraging niche shifts in multispecies dabbling duck (Anas sp.) feeding groups: harmful and beneficial interactions between species. Ornis Scand. 17:333-346.
Pöysä H. 1987. Ecology and foraging behaviours in dabbling ducks (Anas sp.). Uni. Joensuu Publ. Sc., 10:1-19.
Pöysä H, Elmberg J, Nummi P and Sjoberg K. 1994. Species composition of dabbling duck assemblages: eco-morphological patterns composed with null models. Oecologia 98:193-200.
Relief F. 1965. Fundamentals of Statistics and thermal Physics. Mc. Graw Hill, New York.
Whistler H. 1986. Popular Handbook of Indian Birds. Natraj Pub, Dehradun. 519-520.
Copyright license for the research articles published in Journal of Research in Biology are as per the license given below
Creative Commons License
Journal of Research in Ecology is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). (www.creativecommons.org)
Based on a work at www.jresearchbiology.com
What this License explains us?
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
[As given in the www.creativecommons.org website]
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.