Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:48:08.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetical studies on growth and form in the fowl: 2. The complexity of changes in skeletal proportions produced by selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

A. G. Cock
A. G. Cock
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, The University, Southampton, SO9 5NH
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Comparisons of skeletal dimensions are made between adult females of four lines of fowl, selected respectively for relatively long and short shanks (HI and LI) and for high and low body wieght (HW and LW) at 10 weeks of age. It is shown that elongation of the leg in HI compared with LI is greatest in the tarsometatarsus, least in the femur. HW and LW are intermediate in this respect. There is no comparable proximo-distal gradient of elongation in the wing. HI differs from LI in a manner comparable to ectomorphy in humans: limb bones are all longer in HI but relatively (and in most instances absolutely) thicker in LI. HW is again intermediate in this respect. The nasal region of the skull is disproportionately elongated in HI compared with LI. In certain bones HI and LI differ widely in cross-sectional shape of the shaft: LI is flatter than HI in the tarsometatarsus, less flat in the coracoid and scapula. HW resembles in each case the line with the less flattened cross-section.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , December 1969 , pp. 237 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

References

REFERENCES

Cock, A. G. (1963 a). Genetical studies on growth and form in the fowl. 1. Phenotypic variation in the relative growth pattern of shank length and body weight. Genet. Res., Camb. 4, 167–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cock, A. G. (1963 b). Quantitative developmental genetics of body shape and size in domestic fowl. (Abstract.) Proc. 11th Int. Congr. Genet. 1, 261.Google Scholar
Cock, A. G. (1966). Genetical aspects of growth and form in animals. Q. Rev. Biol. 41, 131–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cock, A. G. & Morton, J. R. (1963). Maternal and sex-linked effects on size and conformation in domestic fowl. Heredity 18, 337–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darwin, C. (1872). The Origin of Species, 6th edn.London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1964). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1966). Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biol. Rev. 41, 587–640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutt, F. B. (1929). Sex dimorphism and variability in the appendicular skeleton of the domestic fowl. Poult. Sci. 8, 202–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerison, H. (1955). Brain to body ratios and the evolution of intelligence. Science, N.Y. 121, 447–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, A. S. & Asmundson, V. S. (1957). Genetic and environmental factors affecting size of body and body parts in turkeys. I and II. Poult Sci. 36, 296–301 and 959–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, I. M. (1936). Heterogony in the axial skeleton of the creeper fowl. Am. Nat. 70, 595–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, I. M. (1937). Relative growth and hereditary size limitation in the domestic fowl. Hilgardia 10, 511–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misra, R. K. & Reeve, E. C. R. (1964). Clines in body dimensions in populations of Drosophila subobscura. Genet Res., Camb. 5, 240–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeve, E. C. R. (1950). Genetical aspects of size allometry. Proc. R. Soc. B. 137, 515–518.Google ScholarPubMed
Robertson, F. W. (1962). Changing the relative size of body parts of Drosophila by selection. Genet. Res, Camb. 3, 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, F. W. & Reeve, E. C. R. (1952). Studies in quantitative inheritance. I. The effects of selection of wing and thorax in length in Drosophila. J. Genet. 50, 414–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, W. H. (1940). The Varieties of Human Physique. New York: Harper Bros.Google Scholar
Siegel, P. B. (1963). Selection for body weight at eight weeks of age. II. Correlated responses of feathering, body weights and reproductive characteristics. Poult. Sci. 52, 896–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, J. M. (1962). Growth at Adolescence, 2nd Edn.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar