4.4 Article

A revision of vulture feeding classification

Journal

ZOOLOGY
Volume 148, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.zool.2021.125946

Keywords

Convergence; Discriminant function analysis; Feeding behaviour; Morphological integration; Scavenging

Categories

Funding

  1. Agencia Estatal de Investigacion (Ministerio de Economia, Industria y Competitividad)/Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) [CGL2016-79795-R]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study identified three feeding groups in vultures: gulpers, rippers and scrappers, which are reflected in the anatomy of the skull and neck. Analysis of body core and limb bones showed that these feeding groups also emerge, but with some differences from the classification based on skull morphology.
Pioneering fieldwork identified the existence of three feeding groups in vultures: gulpers, rippers and scrappers. Gulpers engulf soft tissue from carcasses and rippers tear off pieces of tough tissue (skin, tendons, muscle), whereas scrappers peck on small pieces of meat they find on and around carcasses. It has been shown that these feeding preferences are reflected in the anatomy of the skull and neck. Here, we demonstrate that these three feeding groups also emerge when body core and limb bones are added to the analysis. However, the resulting classification differs from that which is based on skull morphology for three species, namely Gypaetus barbatus (Linnaeus, 1758), Gypohierax angolensis (Gmelin, 1788) and Gyps indicus (Scopoli, 1786). The proposed classification would improve the interrelationship between form and feeding habits in vultures. Moreover, the results of this study reinforce the value of the categorisation system introduced by Kruuk (1967), and expanded by Ko center dot nig (1974, 1983), Houston (1988) and Hertel (1994), as it would affect not only the skull morphology but the wholebody architecture.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available