Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.50

  • SJR 0.263

  • Impact Factor 0.4 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Research Article

Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 56 issue 10 (october 2022) : 1221-1227

Arm and Forearm Bones of the Adult Blue Bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus): A Morphological and Morphometrical Study

Sanjay Kumar Bharti1,*, Ishwar Singh1, Om Prakash Choudhary2
1Department of Veterinary Anatomy, College of Veterinary and Animal Science, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar-263 145, Uttarakhand, India.
2Department of Veterinary Anatomy and Histology, College of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry, Central Agricultural University (I), Selesih, Aizawl-796 015, Mizoram, India.
Cite article:- Bharti Kumar Sanjay, Singh Ishwar, Choudhary Prakash Om (2022). Arm and Forearm Bones of the Adult Blue Bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus): A Morphological and Morphometrical Study . Indian Journal of Animal Research. 56(10): 1221-1227. doi: 10.18805/IJAR.B-4278.

ABSTRACT

Background: There is scanty information on the morphology and morphometry of the arm and forearm bones (humerus, radius, ulna) of the adult blue bull; therefore, the present study was designed to provide details on the morphology and morphometry of the arm and forearm bones of adult blue bull.

Methods: The present study was conducted on the arm and forearm bones of six adult blue bull of either sex (n=6, male and n=6, female). The bone specimens were collected from Jodhpur zoo after taking official permission from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF), Government of Rajasthan. The collected bones were processed as per the standard hot water maceration technique. The macerated bones were soaked in 3% hydrogen peroxide followed by five days of sun-drying.

Result: The humerus and radius was the long bones, whereas the ulna was aborted long bone. The humerus was a long, less twisted and strong bone with two extremities and four surfaces. The radius was fused to the ulna in the entire length, except for two interosseous spaces, namely, proximal interosseous spaces and distal interosseous spaces. The present study revealed that all the obtained parameters of arm and forearm bones (humerus, radius, ulna) showed a significant statistical difference (p<0.05*) between the males and females of adult blue bull. It can be concluded that the bones of the arm and forearm of the adult blue bull resembled that of small and large ruminants; however, they differed from other domestic and wild animals.

INTRODUCTION

The blue bull or nilgai is the largest antelope of the northern Indian subcontinent protected under Schedule III of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (Bagchi et al., 2004; Bharti et al., 2020). There is available literature on the various bones of wild animals like chital, blackbuck, wild pig, sambar deer, barking deer (Choudhary et al., 2015a,b; Choudhary and Singh, 2015a, b; Choudhary et al., 2017; Keneisenuo et al., 2020). However, the literature is scarce on the morphology and morphometry of arm and forearm bones (humerus, radius, ulna) of the adult blue bull; therefore, the present study was designed to provide information on the morphology and morphometry of the arm and forearm bones of adult blue bull. As per knowledge, in many veterolegal cases, one fails to identify the bones of adult blue bull and confuse them with those of some other small and large ruminants. This investigation will be helpful to the field veterinarians, zoo veterinarians as well as forensic personals too.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study was conducted on the arm and forearm bone of six adults blue bull of either sex. The permission for the specimen collection was obtained from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF), Government of Rajasthan. The skeletons were collected  (March 2015 to October 2015) from the Jodhpur zoo after official approvals from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) vide letter no. F,3 (04) Tech-II/CCF/2013/2326 dated 12.01.2015 and from the Deputy Conservator of Forest wildlife vide letter no. Jodhpur s.n./sam/388-90 dated 22.01.2015. The skeletons were dug out from the graveyards located in the premises of the Jodhpur zoo. Afterward, these specimens were processed by the hot water maceration technique as described earlier (Choudhary et al., 2020 a,b,c; Bharti and Singh, 2018a,b; Keneisenuo et al., 2020). The macerated arms and forearms bones were soaked in the 3% hydrogen peroxide and sundried for five days (Choudhary et al., 2013b,c; Choudhary et al., 2019; Bharti et al., 2020).
        
All the measurements obtained on arm and forearm bones (humerus, radius and ulna) were analyzed by routine statistical analysis (Snedecor and Cochran, 1994) and Student ‘t’ test by the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM, SPSS, 20.0 version) program.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The present study revealed that all the obtained parameters showed a significant statistical difference (p<0.05*) between the males and females of the adult blue bull; however, considering from the practical point of view, these differences were meager.
        
The humerus (Fig 1 and 2) was a long, less twisted and strong bone as explained by Raghavan (1964) in ox, Talukdar et al., (2002) in mithun, Choudhary et al., (2013a) in chital and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck. In contrast, it was almost straight in camel (Smuts and Bezuidenhout, 1987).
 

Fig 1: Cranial view of the humerus showing lateral tuberosity.


 

Fig 2: Caudal view of the humerus showing anterior part of lateral tuberosity.


        
The lateral surface of the shaft was a spiral, smooth and presented a well-developed shallow musculospiral groove (sulcus musculo-brachialis) as earlier revealed by Raghavan (1964) in ox, Sarma and Kalita (2008) in Asian elephant and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck. In contrast, it was deep was in horse (Getty, 1975, where. The deltoid tuberosity was large and prominent as described by Miller et al., (1964) in dog and Getty (1975) in horse. In contrast, it was small and less prominent in sheep Getty (1975), ox (Raghavan, 1964), hedgehogs (Ozkan, 2004), tiger (Tomer et al., 2014) and blackbuck (Choudhary, 2015). The medial surface was almost linear in outline and had a short teres tubercle placed at the proximal third as reported by Raghavan (1964) in ox, Getty (1975) in horse and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck. However, Talukdar et al., (2002) revealed that it was well developed in the humerus of mithun. Konig and Liebich (2006) reported in carnivores that it was replaced by the crest of the tubercle. The cranial surface was roughly triangular, being wide above and narrow below. The caudal surface was concave smooth in outline as imparted previously by Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck.
        
The nutrient foramen was located on the distal third of the caudal surface in blue bull as described by Raghavan (1964) in ox, Miller et al., (1964) in dog Sarma and Kalita (2008) in Asian elephant and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck; however, these findings were not similar to the reports of Siddiqui et al., (2008) in Black Bengal goat, where it was located at the distal third of the lateral surface, Getty (1975) in horse who reported it to be present on the lower third of the medial surface; Smuts and Bezuidenhout (1987) in camel who reported it to be present on the cranial surface.
        
The head (Fig 3) was rounded as notified in ox (Raghavan, 1964) and horse (Getty, 1975); while it was oval as reported in dog (Miller et al., 1964) and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck. The neck was ill-defined as described by Raghavan (1964) in ox, Smuts and Bezuidenhout (1987) in dromedary and Sarma and Kalita (2008) in an Asian elephant. However, it was well-defined as described in cat and dog (Konig and Liebich, 2006).
 

Fig 3: Proximal extremity of the humerus showing head.


        
The lateral tuberosity was well developed in blue bull as revealed by Raghavan (1964) in ox, Miller et al., (1964) in dog, Talukdar et al., (2002) in Mithun, Ozkan (2004) in hedgehogs and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck. The lateral tuberosity curved over the bicipital groove and consisted of a prominent cranial part and a less well defined small caudal part as reported earlier by Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck. The medial tuberosity was comparatively much smaller and did not divide noticeably as described by Raghavan (1964) in ox, Smuts and Bezuidenhout (1987) in dromedary and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck. The intertubercular or bicipital groove was present between both the tubercles. The bicipital groove was undivided as reported in blackbuck Choudhary (2015); on the other hand, it was separated by an intermediate ridge in horse (Getty, 1975) and by intermediate tuberosity in camel (Smuts and Bezuidenhout, 1987). The area for the insertion of the infraspinous muscle was small as imparted in dromedary (Smuts and Bezuidenhout, 1987).
        
The distal extremity (Fig 4) consisted of two condyles, two epicondyles and two fossae. The medial condyle was larger than the lateral one, as described in dromedary Smuts and Bezuidenhout (1987) and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck, where the medial epicondyle was more massive than the lateral one. The lateral epicondylar crest was prominent as reported by Smuts and Bezuidenhout (1987) in camel, Talukdar et al., (2002) in mithun and Sarma and Kalita (2008) in adult Asian elephant and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck.
 

Fig 4: Distal extremity of the humerus showing nutrient foramen.


        
The coronoid or radial fossa (fossa radialis) was shallow; the olecranon fossa (fossa olecrani) was deep, wide and bearing a nutrient foramen. In contrast, the olecranon fossa (fossa olecrani) was deep and narrow, as described by Sarma and Kalita (2008) in an Asian elephant and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck. Both these fossae are not communicated to each other as supratrochlear foramen where both fossae are communicated to each other by supratrochlear foramen in some species as elucidated by Miller et al., (1964), Konig and Liebich (2006), Akers and Denbow (2008) in dog, Haziroglu and Ozer (1990) in Turkish cattle, Ozkan (2004) in hedgehogs and Choudhary et al., (2013a) in chital and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck. 
        
The humerus bone parameters obtained were significantly (p<0.01, p<0.05) higher in the males than females of adult blue bull. The average length of the humerus of blue bull was 30.12±0.04 cm. The average breadth of proximal extremity, shaft and distal extremity was 10.73±0.07 cm, 3.95±0.01 cm and 6.81±0.03 cm, respectively. Whereas, the length of the humerus of Turopolje pigs was 19.49 cm (Ikic et al., 2007); however, the length and breadth of the humerus of adult Black Bengal goats were 12.06±0.27 cm and 1.66±0.06 cm, respectively (Siddiqui et al., 2008).
        
The breadth of the head was 6.88±0.01 cm (Table 1); however, the measurements for chital by Choudhary et al., (2013a) include the total length of humerus being 19.86±0.04 cm, the breadth at proximal end 5.39±0.02 cm and the breadth at distal end 3.65±0.03 cm. The diameter of the shaft at the level of nutrient foramen was 3.48±0.03, while the measurements for blackbuck by Choudhary (2015) was 13.87±0.019 cm, 4.89±0.01 cm, 1.95±0.005 cm and 2.82±0.005 cm, respectively. The breadth of the head was 6.88±0.04 cm; however, the same parameter was 2.87±0.005 in blackbuck (Choudhary, 2015).
 

Table 1: Measurements of the humerus of the adult blue bull in centimeters.


        
The radius was fused to the ulna (Fig 5) in the entire length, except for two interosseous spaces (spatium interosseum antibrachii), proximal interosseous spaces (spatium interosseum antibrachii proximale) and distal interosseous spaces (spatium interosseum antibrachii distale) as reported by Raghavan (1964) in ox, Getty (1975) in sheep, Siddiqui et al., (2008) in Black Bengal goat, France (2009) in Antelope, Choudhary et al., (2013a) in chital and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck. The radius was a long bone, relatively shorter and broader than ulna as described in ox (Raghavan, 1964) and blackbuck Choudhary (2015). The shaft was flattened craniocaudally. Its cranial surface was proximally convex and smooth. Distally it possessed three grooves namely, medial, central and lateral, as described by (Raghavan, 1964) in ox, (Getty, 1975) in horse and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck. The central groove was the widest among the three grooves.
 

Fig 5: Caudo-medial view of the radius-ulna showing olecranon process.


        
The proximal extremity (Fig 5) was irregularly oval and wider in outline with its long axis being mediolateral in the direction as described by Miller et al., (1964) in dog; Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck; on the contrary, Talukdar et al., (2008) reported that it was triangular in outline in elephant. The nutrient foramen was found variably between the proximal interosseous space of its lateral margin and lateral border, as noted by Raghavan (1964) in ox and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck. However, as reported by (Miller et al., 1964) in dog, the nutrient foramen was located slightly above the middle of the caudal surface of the radius.
        
The distal extremity (Fig 5) was less thick and then the proximal one and bearing an oblique articular surface as revealed by Raghavan (1964) in ox, but it was longer and thicker than the proximal as distinguished by Miller et al., (1964) in dog and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck. It consisted of three articular facets for the first three carpal bones of the proximal row. The medial one was the largest in all three, while the middle one was intermediate in size. The lateral one was the smallest as described in horse (Getty, 1975) and blackbuck (Choudhary, 2015), whereas the middle one was the largest in dog (Miller et al., 1964). The length of the radius of blue bull was 33.52±0.07 cm (Table 2), while the length of the radius was 11.12±0.23 cm in Black Bengal goat (Siddiqui et al., 2008), 18.73±0.04 cm in chital (Choudhary et al., 2013a), 22.2 cm and in blackbuck was 16.13±0.01 cm (Choudhary, 2015).
 

Table 2: Measurements of the radius of the adult blue bull in centimeters.


        
The radius bone parameters obtained were significantly (p<0.01, p<0.05) higher in the males than the females of adult blue bull. The breadth of proximal extremity, distal extremity and shaft in blue bull was 6.89±0.01 cm, 5.52±0.01 cm and 4.33±0.02 cm, respectively, (Table 2). while in blackbuck was 2.88±0.003 cm, 2.51±0.004 cm and 1.85±0.007 cm, respectively (Choudhary,  2015).
        
The ulna (Fig 5) was an aborted and longest bone of the forelimb as reported by Raghavan (1964) in ox, Choudhary et al., (2013a) in chital and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck.  It had a shaft and two extremities, as described in dog (Miller et al., 1964), ox (Raghavan, 1964), chital Choudhary et al., (2013a) and blackbuck (Choudhary, 2015). 
        
The shaft was roughly prismatic as elucidated in ox (Raghavan, 1964), horse (Getty, 1975), chital Choudhary et al., (2013a) and blackbuck (Choudhary, 2015). It was strongly curved and presented three surfaces. The cranial surface was convex vertically and transversely as described by Miller et al., (1964) in dog and (Choudhary, 2015) in blackbuck. It fused with radius except for two points of interosseous spaces. This cranial surface was arched at proximal interosseous space. The nutrient foramen was not recorded in blue bull and similar findings were reported by (Choudhary, 2015) in blackbuck. In contrast, the nutrient foramen was located on the cranial surface in dog (Miller et al., 1964) and horse (Getty, 1975).
        
The ulnar proximal extremity (Fig 5) comprised of olecranon process (processus anconeus) and semilunar notch (incisura trochlearis). The olecranon process had a well-developed summit and was directed dorso-caudally, the tuber olecrani. It was the most massive process of the ulna as reported by Raghavan (1964) in ox, Akers and Denbow (2008) in ruminants Choudhary et al., (2013a) in chital and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck. It had two surfaces and two borders. The medial surface was slightly concave and laterally, it was somewhat convex. The cranial border was thin in outline and distally presented a beak-like projection, the anconeus process as explained in ox (Raghavan, 1964) and horse (Getty, 1975) and Choudhary (2015) in blackbuck. The distal extremity was projected downwards, known as the styloid process and fused with the radius bone for the formation of the lateral facet as reported in ox (Raghavan, 1964) and chital (Choudhary et al., 2013a); In contrast, the ulna was fused to the shaft of the radius without forming the styloid process in horse (Getty, 1975). However, the distal extremity of the radius forms the styloid process as reported in dog (Miller et al., 1964; Konig and Liebich, 2006), dromedary (Smuts and Bezuidenhout, 1987),  ruminants (Akers and Denbow, 2008) and blackbuck (Choudhary, 2015). 
        
The ulna bone parameters obtained were significantly (p<0.01, p<0.05) higher in the males than females of adult blue bull. The average length of the ulna of the blue bull was 37.91±0.02 cm (Table 3). However, the greatest length was 14.20±0.20 cm in Black Bengal goat (Siddiqui et al., 2008), 24.30±0.05 cm in chital (Choudhary et al., 2013a), 19.92±0.01 cm in blackbuck (Choudhary 2015). The average height of the olecranon and maximum breadth of olecranon at an anconeal process in blue bull was 8.59±0.01 cm and 5.36±0.01 cm, respectively (Table 3). However, the same parameter was found to be 4.57±0.009 cm and 3.82±0.008 cm, respectively, in blackbuck (Choudhary, 2015).
 

Table 3: Measurements of the ulna of the adult blue bull in centimeters.

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded from the present study that the bones of arm and forearm of the adult blue bull resembled that of small and large ruminants; however, it differed from other domestic and wild animals. The results on gross morphological and morphometrical parameters of arm and forearm bones of the adult blue bull can be very useful for the forensic investigation of domestic and wild animals.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors are grateful to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF), Government of Rajasthan and District Forest Officer, Jodhpur Zoo for providing facilities during the present investigation. The first author is also thankful to the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR), New Delhi for providing financial help in respect of the Senior Research Fellowship during Ph.D. tenure.

REFERENCES


  1. Akers, R.M. and Denbow, M. (2008). Anatomy and physiology of domestic animals. 1st edn., Blackwell Publishing, Ames, Iowa, USA.

  2. Bagchi, S., Goyal, S.P. and Sankar, K. (2004). Harbivore density and biomass in a semi-arid tropical dry deciduous forest of western India. J. Trop. Ecol. 20(4): 475-478. 

  3. Bharti, S.K. and Singh, I. (2018a). Morphological and morphometrical studies on the carpal bone of blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus). Ind. J. Anim. Res. 54(4): 632-636.

  4. Bharti, S.K. and Singh, I. (2018b). Morphological, morphometrical, applied studies on cranial cavity, nasal cavity and dentition of blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus). Ind. J. Vet. Anat. 30(2): 83-84.

  5. Bharti, S.K., Singh, I. and Choudhary, O.P. (2020). Gross morphological and morphometrical studies on the metacarpals of blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus). Ind. J. Vet. Anat. 32(1): 16-18. 

  6. Choudhary, O.P. (2015). Osteo-morphological studies of skull and appendicular skeleton of Indian blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra). Ph.D. thesis submitted to G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttrakhand, India.

  7. Choudhary, O.P. and Singh, I. (2015a). Applied anatomy of the maxillofacial and mandibular regions of the Indian blackbuck (Antelope cervicapra). J. Anim. Res. 5(3): 497-500.

  8. Choudhary, O.P. and Singh, I. (2015b). Morphometrical studies on the skull of Indian blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra). Int. J. Morphol. 33(3): 868-876.

  9. Choudhary, O.P. and Singh, I. (2016). Morphological and radiographic studies on the skull of Indian blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra). Int. J. Morphol. 34(2): 788-796.

  10. Choudhary, O.P., Kalita, P.C., Kalita, A. and Doley, P.J. (2016). Applied anatomy of the maxillofacial and mandibular regions of the dromedary camel (Camelus dromedarius). J. Camel Pract. Res. 23(1): 127-131.

  11. Choudhary, O.P., Kalita, P.C., Kalita, A. and Doley, P.J. (2017). Applied anatomy of the head region of the Indian wild pig (Sus scrofa) and its clinical value during regional anesthesia. J. Anim. Res. 7(2): 339-344.

  12. Choudhary, O.P., Kalita, P.C., Konwar, B., Doley, P.J., Kalita, G. and Kalita, A. (2019). Morphological and applied anatomical studies on the head region of local Mizo pig (Zovawk) of Mizoram. Int. J. Morphol. 37(1): 196-204.

  13. Choudhary, O.P., Mathur, R., Joshi, S. and Yadav, S. (2013a). Gross and biometrical studies on humerus and radius ulna of chital (Axis axis). Ind. J. Vet. Anat. 25(1): 23-24.

  14. Choudhary, O.P., Mathur, R., Joshi, S., Beniwal, G. and Dangi, A. (2013b). Gross and biometrical studies on carpals of chital (Axis axis). Vet. Pract. 14(1): 36-39.

  15. Choudhary, O.P., Mathur, R., Joshi, S., Beniwal, G. and Dangi, A. (2013c). Gross and biometrical studies on scapula of chital (Axis axis). Vet. Pract. 14(2): 224-227.

  16. Choudhary, O.P., Priyanka, Kalita, P.C., Arya, R.S., Rajkhowa, T.K., Kalita, A., Doley, P.J. and Keneisenuo (2020a). Morphometric and radiographic characteristics of the skull in crested serpent eagle (Spilornis cheela) and brown wood owl (Strix leptogrammica). Indian J. Anim. Res. DOI: 10. 18805/ijar.B-3968.

  17. Choudhary, O.P., Priyanka, Kalita, P.C., Arya, R.S., Rajkhowa, T.K., Kalita, A., Doley, P.J. and Keneisenuo (2020b). Comparative gross anatomical studies on pelvic limb long bones of crested serpent eagle (Spilornis cheela) and brown wood owl (Strix leptogrammica). Indian J. Anim. Res. DOI: 10. 18805/ijar.B-3957.

  18. Choudhary, O.P., Priyanka, Kalita, P.C., Keneisenuo, Doley, P.J., Konwar, B. and Kalita, A. (2020c). A morphometrical study on the skull of goat (Capra hircus) in Mizoram. Int. J. Morphol. 33(5): 1473-1478.

  19. Choudhary, O.P., Singh, I., Bharti, S.K., Khan, I.M., Sathapathy, S. and Mrigesh, M. (2015a). Gross and morphometrical studies on mandible of blackbuck (Antelope cervicapra). Int. J. Morphol. 33(2): 428-32.

  20. Choudhary, O.P., Singh, I., Bharti, S.K., Mohd, K.I., Dhote, B.S. and Mrigesh, M. (2015b). Clinical anatomy of head region of Indian blackbuck. Ind. Vet. J. 92(3): 59-63.

  21. France, D.L. (2009). Human and nonhuman bone identification, A Color Atlas, CRC Press, Tyler and Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

  22. Getty, R. (1975). Sisson and Grossman’s. The anatomy of the domesticated animals. Vol. I, 5th edn. W.B. Saunders Co. Philadelphia, USA.

  23. Haziroglu, R.M. and Ozer, M. (1990). A supratrochlear foramen in the humerus of cattle. Anat. Histol. Embryol. 19(2): 106-108.

  24. Ikic, M., Salajpal, K., Karolyi, D., Ikic, D., Pavic, M. and Juric, I. (2007). Characteristics of femur and humerus in Turopolje pig-an autochthonous Croatian breed. Sveuèilište Josipa Jurja Strossmayera u Osijeku. 13(1): 172-175.

  25. Keneisenuo, Choudhary, O.P., Priyanka, Kalita, P.C., Kalita, A., Doley, P.J. and Chaudhary, J.K. (2020). Applied anatomy and clinical significance of the maxillofacial and mandibular regions of the barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak) and sambar deer (Rusa unicolor). Folia Morphol. Doi: 10.5603 /FM.a2020.0061.

  26. Konig, H.E. and Liebich, H.G. (2006). Veterinary anatomy of domestic animals. 3rd edn, Schattauer, Stuttgart, Germany.

  27. Miller, M.E., Christensen, G.C. and Evans, H.E. (1964). Anatomy of the dog. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, USA.

  28. Ozkan, Z.E. (2004). Macro-anatomical investigations on the Hedgehog skeleton (Erinaceus europaeus) I- Ossa Membri Thoracici. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 28: 271-274.

  29. Raghavan, D. (1964). Anatomy of ox. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India.

  30. Sarma, M. and Kalita, S.N, (2008). Passive locomotor system of the arm of adult Asian elephant: A gross study. Souvenir and Abstract, Silver Jubilee National Symposium on Advancement in Veterinary Anatomy Teaching and Research with Special Reference to their Clinical Application and XXIII Annual Convention of Indian Association of Veterinary Anatomists organized by College of Veterinary Sciences, Hisar, Haryana.

  31. Siddiqui, M.S.I., Khan, M.Z.I., Sarma M., Islam M.N. and Jahan M.R. (2008). Macro-anatomy of the bones of the forelimb of Black Bengal Goat (Capra hircus). Bangladesh J. Vet. Med. 6(1): 59-66.

  32. Smuts, M. and Bezuidenhout, A.J. (1987). Anatomy of the dromedary. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.

  33. Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. (1994). Statistical methods. 8th edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA.

  34. Talukdar, M., Kalita, A. and Baishya, G. (2002). Gross anatomical study on the humerus of Mithun. Ind. Vet. J. 79(6): 585-587.

  35. Talukdar, S.R., Kalita, S.N. and Baishya, G. (2008). Gross anatomical study on the radius of adult Indian elephant (Elephus maximus), Souvenir and Abstract, Silver Jubilee National Symposium on Advancement in Veterinary Anatomy Teaching and Research with Special Reference to their Clinical Application and XXIII Annual Convention of Indian Association of Veterinary Anatomists organized by College of Veterinary Sciences, Hisar, Haryana.

  36. Tomar, M.P.S., Taluja, J.S., Vaish, R. and Shrivastava, A.B. (2014). Gross anatomical study on humerus of tiger (Panthera tigris). Int. J. Advanc. Res. 2(3): 1034-1040.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)