Phylogeny of the Waxwings and Allied Birds — John Shaqi
Phylogeny of the Waxwings and Allied BirdsArvey, M. Dale (Martin Dale)
Science
Phylogeny of the Waxwings and Allied Birds
Arvey, M. Dale (Martin Dale)
Bombycillidae -- Phylogeny; Waxwings -- Phylogeny
Key to Table
A) Deltoid
B) Thigh
C) Peronus
D) Gastrocnemius
====================================================================
Species |P. major|P. minor| A | B | C | D
---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------
Ptilogonys | 2.42g. | .29g. | .55g. | | |
caudatus | 4.94% | .59 | 1.12% | .43g. | .15g. |
| | | | .88% | .31% | .96%
Ptilogonys | 2.19g. | .28g. | .53g. | | |
cinereus | 5.57% | .71% | 1.35% | .30g. | .08g. |
| | | .71% | .21% | 1.02%
Phainopepla | 1.30g. | .20g. | .30g. | | |
nitens | 4.99% | .77% | 1.15% | .28g. | .10g. |
| | | | 1.12% | .40% | 1.42%
Phainoptila | 3.93g. | .44g. | .92g. | | |
melanoxantha | 6.18% | .69% | 1.45% | 1.09g. | .48g. |
| | | | 1.61% | .75% | 2.97%
Dulus | 2.09g. | .22g. | .50g. | | |
dominicus | 4.81% | .50% | 1.15% | .73g. | .18g. |
| | | | 1.68% | .41% | 1.01%
Bombycilla | 3.85g. | .45g. | .55g. | | |
garrula | 5.31% | .62% | .76% | .50g. | .15g. |
| | | | .69% | .18% | .59%
Bombycilla | 2.58g. | .35g. | .50g. | | |
cedrorum | 5.00% | .68% | .97% | .37g. | .10g. |
| | | | .73% | .19% | .83%
---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------
_Pectoral Muscles._--The pectoral set of muscles varies but little in
the family; flight power is seemingly not dependent upon size of
either the pectoralis major or pectoralis minor. The data indicate
that the insertion on the humerus, with consequent changes in the
relative length of that bone, is more significant in type of flight
and over-all flight power than is the actual size of the muscle mass.
The deltoid muscle, for example, is smaller in _Bombycilla_ than in
members of the other two subfamilies. The humerus in _Bombycilla_ is
shortened, and the muscle therefore does not need to be large to
accomplish the same powerful stroke that would be accomplished by a
longer humerus and a larger, more powerful deltoid muscle. In the case
of the deltoid, the shortening of the humerus and the more complex
arrangement of the points of insertion have obviated the necessity of
enlarging the muscle.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account