The functional anatomy of the head of the puff adder, Bitis arietans (Merr.)
The functional anatomy of the head of the puff adder, Bitis arietans (Merr.)
复制标题
粉扑蛇 Bitis arietans (Merr.) 头部的功能解剖
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1964
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. F. Ewer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. E. Boltt;R. F. Ewer
在现行的英语教科书中，对蝰蛇或响尾蛇的尖牙勃起机制的描述，可以用下面的引文来代表，这些引文摘自帕克和哈斯韦尔的《动物学教科书》（马歇尔，'62）的最新版本。上颌骨的旋转是由方骨下端的向后或向前运动引起的，方骨下端的运动传递给翼骨，从而传递给上颚的其他骨头。说明这一机制的图是在赫胥黎之后。Young（'62）在Gadow之后给出了一个类似的说明。一部专门研究爬行动物的著作（Bellairs，'57）也将尖牙的勃起归因于“正方形下端向前旋转产生的压力”，而在大西洋的另一边，Romer（' 56）讲述了同样的故事，并在Klauber之后进行了插图。对鼓腹蝰蛇Bitis arietans的一些偶然观察表明，这种描述是误导性的，它不是方骨，而是翼骨，由自己的肌肉移动，这是主要负责引起尖牙勃起的骨骼。因此，对这个物种的头部解剖进行了详细的研究，我们最初的印象得到了充分的证实。我们随后发现，我们与“古典”教科书的不一致绝非独一无二。许多研究者对颌骨的运动进行了描述，我们的发现与此相一致。例如，Kathariner（'OO）对Viperu护堤的头骨进行了描述，其中他强调翼骨不是被动地被方骨向前推，而是被自己的肌肉牵引，他特别指出了Thilo（' 00）的陈述的不正确性，即翼骨
In current English textbooks the descriptions which are given of the mechanism of fang erection in viperine or crotaline snakes may be typified by the following quotation, taken from the most recent edition of Parker & Haswell’s “Textbook of Zoology” (Marshall, ’62). “The rotation of the maxilla is brought about by the backward or forward movement of the lower end of the quadrate which imparts its movement to the pterygoid and thence to the other bones of the upper jaw.” The figure which illustrates this mechanism is after Huxley. Young (’62) gives a similar account with an illustration after Gadow. A work devoted entirely to reptiles (Bellairs, ’57) also attributes erection of the fang to “pressure initiated by forward rotation of the lower end of the quadrate,” while, on the other side of the Atlantic, Romer (’56) tells the same story, with an illustration after Klauber. Some casual observations on the puff adder, Bitis arietans, suggested that this description is misleading and that i t is not the quadrate but the pterygoid, moved by its own muscles, which is the bone primarily responsible for bringing about fang erection. A detailed study of the anatomy of the head of this species was therefore undertaken and our original impression fully confirmed. We subsequently discovered that our disagreement with the “classical” textbook account is by no means unique. A number of workers have given descriptions of the movements of the jaws with which our findings are in agreement. Kathariner (’OO), for instance, gave an account of the skull of Viperu berm in which he emphasized that the pterygoid is not pushed forward passively by the quadrate, but pulled by its own muscles and he specifically pointed out the incorrectness of Thilo’s (’00) statment that the pterygoid