The comparative myology of primates has interested researchers for centuries. This fascination can be observed in Tyson’s (1699) illustration that shows the muscles of a chimpanzee (probably a bonobo, Pan paniscus) standing in a biped position, as if it were a modern human. Extant primates are characterized by various myological synapomorphies, which are shared, derived features (Diogo and Abdala, 2010; Diogo and Wood, 2012b), including the presence of certain muscles in the hand (i.e., opponens pollicis and opponens digiti minimi) that increase dexterity and the fact that a specific arm muscle (the biceps brachii) does not insert onto one of the forearm bones (the ulna). Such features concern the movements of the forearm and hand and are probably related to the arboreal behavior of the first primates, although some of these features (e.g., biceps brachii not inserting onto the ulna and the differentiated opponens digiti minimi) are found in a few other mammals, including nonarboreal taxa such as rats. Below we will list the various groups of head and neck and appendicular muscles found in primates and briefly discuss their evolution within primates.View chapterPurchase book
Characterizing muscle properties to develop muscle-specific intervention strategies and improve meat cuts for the consumer
Additional resources can be obtained from the bovine and porcine myology web sites maintained at the University of Nebraska. They can be found at http://bovine.unl.edu and http://porcine.unl.edu. Readers are encouraged to access these information-rich web sites and explore the variety of data and educational strategies that have been presented. Like all web sites, these continue to be developed. A three-dimensional presentation for muscle identification and fabrication is under development.
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (Centennial, CO) has the Bovine Myology and Muscle Profiling (Jones et al., 2004) book available at minimal cost. This, too, is a powerful tool. Additionally, the National Pork Board (Des Moines, IA) has muscle profiling booklets for pork.
This chapter presents the anatomy of guinea pig. It provides a general description of osteology, myology, and neurology. The number of bones of the skeleton varies with age. A number of separate bones in immature animals become fused in adults. The skeleton is comprised of two parts, (1) the axial—the skull, hyoid apparatus, vertebrae, ribs and sternum, and (2) appendicular—the pectoral and pelvic girdles, and pectoral and pelvic limbs. The muscular system of guinea pig is well defined with exception of the cutaneous muscles. Particularly, those of the head where they tend to fuse, making identification of individual muscles difficult. The masticatory muscles are well developed, particularly the masseter and digastricus muscles, reflecting the gnawing behavior of these animals and mastication by grinding rather than shearing. The pterygoid and temporalis muscles are relatively small. The four-chambered heart lies in the pericardial sac within the mediastinum. The atria are thin walled and are separated from the ventricles by the coronary sulcus which contains the right and left coronary arteries and veins.View chapterPurchase book
Relationships among the African Freshwater Gonorynchiforms
This group is well-established as monophyletic, based on both osteology (Grande, 1994; Lenglet, 1974) and myology (Howes, 1985b). Howes reported on the cranial muscles of extant gonorynchiforms and corroborated the relationship among the kneriids Kneria, Parakneria, and Cromeria. He also corroborated their relationship to Phractolaemus but found evidence linking the kneriid Grasseichthys both to the other kneriids and to Phractolaemus. Howes left the relationship of these freshwater forms to Gonorynchus and Chanos unresolved. More recently, Grande’s study (1994) on interrelationships among kneriids, based on osteology, corroborated monophyly of the Kneriidae but did not resolve whether Cromeria is the sister-taxon to Grasseichthys or to the Kneria-Parakneria clade. Lenglet (1973) provided evidence from visceral anatomy relating Kneria and Parakneria to Phractolaemus, particularly presence of a partial compartmentalization of the gasbladder (see discussion of character 54) and in the structure of the esophagus and mucous stomach (discussed previously; see Gonorynchiform Synapomorphies). Lenglet (1973) did not have material of Cromeria or Grasseichthys and noted that Grasseichthys has a short, straight intestine (based on Géry, 1965, fig. 9) in contrast to Phractolaemus, Kneria, and Parakneria (she did not note the similar structure of the stomach, also discussed previously). The monophyly of the Kneriidae is well-corroborated osteologically, however, and since elongation and coiling of the intestine occurs during juvenile growth, the absence of these features in Grasseichthys may be associated with