,....

!inorganic
ty-over to
WILDLlFE_._
Neurologic examination of sea turtles
Cheryl L. Chrisman, DVM, MS, EdS; Michael Walsh, DVM; John C. Meeks, DVM;
Heidi Zurawka, DVM; Richard LaRock, DVM; Larry Herbst, DVM, PhD;
Juergen Schumacher, Dr Med Vet
Scielltifi( Repoll S
~ u m and
T Rep Int
feen sele-
IBiochem
I
~ n on
16;60:97-
I
rtokines.
I'ne func-
&15-335.
d use of
g. Guide
research
a guide
research
methods
Analyti-
the sta-
9:1994-
id per-
dietary
] Nutr
iarrhea:
ough a
cSwine
1997
Objective-To determine whether neurologic exami-
nation techniques established for use on pogs and
cats could be adapted for use on sea turtles.
Design-Prospective controlled observational study.
Animals-4 healthy Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas).
1 healthy Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys
kemp,). and 6 Green Turtles suspected to have neu-
rologic abnormalities.
Procedure--Neurologic examinations were performed
while sea turtles were in and out of the water and in
ventral and dorsal recumbency. Mentation, general
activity, head and body posture. movement and co-
ordination, thoracic and pelvic limb movement,
strength and muscle tone, and tail movement were
observed. Thoracic and pelvic limb flexor reflexes
and nociception, righting response. cranial nerve re-
flexes, clasp and cloacal reflexes, and neck, dorsal
scute, cloacal, and ta'll nociception were tested.
Results-Results of neurologic evaluations were con-
sistent for healthy sea turtles. Sea turtles suspected to
have neurologic abnormalities had abnormal results.
Clinical Implications-Many of the neurologic ex-
amination techniques used to evaluate dogs and cats
can be adapted and used to evaluate sea turtles. A
standardized neurologic examination should result in
an accurate assessment of neurologic function in
impaired sea turtles and should help in evaluating
effects of rehabilitation efforts and suitability for re-
turn to their natural environment. (J Am Vet Med
Assoc 1997;211: 1043-1047)
T
wo families and 7 species of sea turtles are cur-
. rently recognized.
l
The family Cheloniidae includes
the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas), Hawksbill
(Eretmochelys imbricata), Loggerhead (Caretta caretta),
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) , Olive
ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), and Flatback (Chelonia
depressa). The family Dermochelyidae includes only
the Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea). Cheloniidae
turtles have paddle-shaped thoracic limbs, a non-
retractable neck, roofed-over skull, and complete se-
ries of inframarginal scutes. The Leatherback has a
unique shell structure.
From the Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences,
College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32610-0125 (Chrisman, Zurawka); Sea World, 7007 Sea World
Dr, Orlando, FL 32821 (Walsh); Department of Companion Ani-
mal and Special Species Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606 (Meeks); Texas
Diagnostic Laboratory, 1103 Winecup Ct, College Station, TX 77845
(LaRock); Institute for Animal Studies, Albert Einstein College of
Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461 (Herbst); and Department of Com-
parative Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37901 (Schumacher).
The authors thank Drs. Elliott Jacobson and Bruce Homer
and the staff at Sea World for assistance.
JAVMA, Vol 211, No.8, October 15, 1997
Several genera of sea turtles are on the endangered
species list
l
and, therefore, are protected by law. Evalu-
ation by a veterinarian is necessary prior to euthanasia
even of gravely injured sea turtles. Increased impact of
human activities (especially boat strikes) and natural
diseases on sea turtles results in more turtles being
brought into rehabilitation programs, where there are
tremendous strains on manpower, space, time, and
monetary resources. Therefore, it is important to dif-
ferentiate turtles that can recover and be released from
those that will be permanently impaired. At least part
of this process should involve an accurate evaluation
of neurologic function.
Because of similarities in the basic organization of
the nervous systems in sea turtles and mammals, neu-
rologic examination techniques developed for use in
dogs and cats should be applicable for turtles. The
brain in sea turtles is linearly arranged into a forebrain
(telencephalon and diencephalon), midbrain (mesen-
cephalon), and hindbrain (metencephalon and myelen-
cephalon).2,3 As in mammals, there are 12 pairs of cra-
nial nerves, and paired cranial nerve nuclei are orga-
nized, as in all vertebrates, into 4 longitudinal col-
umns (somatic motor, somatic sensory, visceral motor,
and visceral sensory nuclei) extending along each side
of the midbrain, pons, and medulla oblongata. Cranial
nerve nuclei are located in the same brain stem seg-
ments as they are in mammals.
3
,4 The cerebellum is a
thin flap of tissue over the caudal brain stem and con-
tains 3 cell layers. 2
The gross and histologic arrangement of the spi-
nal cord in sea turtles is similar to that in mammals.
2
Enlargements are evident in the areas of the thoracic
and pelvic limbs. Gray matter is divided into dorsal
and ventral horns, and white matter is divided into
dorsal, lateral, and ventral funiculi.
Sea turtles have 8 cervical vertebrae (vs 7 in dogs
and cats), 8 or 9 thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, 3 sac-
ral vertebrae, and more than 10 caudal vertebrae (Fig
1). Thoracic and lumbar vertebrae are fused to the
carapace or shell and are difficult to differentiate. Fe-
male sea turtles have shorter tails than do males. An
articulation between the dorsal process of the eighth
cervical vertebra and carapace contributes to the in-
ability of sea turtles to retract their necks completely.
This articulation contains cartilage and synovial fluid.
A standardized approach to examination of the
nervous system ensures that a neurologic abnormality
will be detected and localized to a specific anatomic
site and that the dysfunction can be classified as mild,
moderate, or severe. A complete neurologic examina-
tion of dogs and cats can be divided into 4 sections:
evaluation of the head, gait, neck and thoracic limbs,
and back, pelvic limbs, tail, and anus.
5
Original Study 1043
Figure l-Lateral radIographIc prOjections of the cervical and thoracIc IIeft) and thoracic, lumbar, sacral, and caudal
(right) vertebrae of a sea lunJe obtained at necropsy alier lateral sectJOns of the carapace had been removed.
Notice articulaTion between C8 and the carapace, which preveniS neck retrachon ThoracIc and lumbar vertebrae
are fused to the carapace and are difficult to d'fferentiate ThIs turtle had 10 thoracic and lumbar verteorae
-
-
--
--
-
Evaluation of Ihe head lllcludes ohser..anons of
mentation. behavior. head posture and coordinalion.
and cmnial nen'e funclion and is useful for detecting
ahnorma1Jties in telencephalic. brain stem, and cer-
ebellar funClion. Evaluation of the gail during walk-
ing. Irolling. galloping, and turning can be useful in
evalualing limb coordination and strength. l\.eck and
back slrength. paslure, muscle size (ie. 31rophy or
h}pcrlrophr). and nociception should be obsencd.
Thoracic and pel\ic limbs are evaluated h} ob-
serving response (0 wheelbarrowing and hopping and
by Icsting for conscious proprionption 10 deleel suhtle
sensor)" and mOlar dysfunctions. Stretch Cie. biceps,
lriceps. and extensor carpi radialis reflexes) and fle,or
(ie. withdrawal refle,) reflexes arc evaluated in Ih!'
thoracic limbs. Strt'lch (ie, paleliar. gastrocnemius. and
cranial libial reflexes) alld flexor (ie. withdrawal re-
flex) and the .!>cialic nDlch response are cvalll-
aled in the pelvic limbs. The eXlensor thrust renex is
\ariable. but rna}' be increased with t'enlral neuropa-
Ihics and decre.15ed \\ lth peripheral neuropathies. so it
should be evalu.ned <15 well. All limbs are evaluated for
muscle atrophy or h}'perlrophy and dermal and peri-
oSlealnociception Anal and tail tone and rencxcs arc
also evaluated
Tht: purpose of the study re.poned here was to
dctcrmi nl' whether neurologic examination techniqucs
established lor use on dogs itnd cats could be adapted
for usc on sen turtles to difre.rentiate normal and neu-
rologically impaired turtles.
Materials and Methods
FOllr health}' Green Turtles (carapace length 45 to 90
em) and 1 health) rldle) 5ea turtle karapace length.
QO cm) were u!>('d to determme which neurologic cxamina-
lion techniques u;:;.ed on dogs and cals \\'ould be llseful for
neurologic responses m sea lunles. A neurologic
c-xllmmatiOl1 was then paformed on 6 Green Tunics (L'ara-
pace lenjl,lh, 60 to 120 cm) suspecled 10 haH neurologic
ahnormalil1es rour of thc 0 were suspeCied 10 haH' spinal
cord lIljuries associated with carapace fracturcs suffrred sev
eral monlhs previously, apparenll) as a result of boat strikes.
4..ea lunle.. all had a 'peh-ic noat' body pOSItHe (ie,
the caudal pari of the bod)" noaled hIgher in Ihe "'aler Ihan
did the cr:lnlal part). The other l sea !Unles suspected 10
have neurologic abnormalities did not all\ ob\lous
sign!> of mJuf)
E\'alualloll of swtmming abllil)' \\as subslilUled for
e\"aluanon or gall dUring e"amillalion 01 sea tunks, !>t-
causc waler IS their natural habitat and because onlv fe-
males spend nme on land (ollh for the shorllime neceSS4ry
t,1 la) eggs) Tutlle:. were ohsencd \\-hile ther \\cre sWim-
ming In a water-filll'd holdmg tank and agam while Ihey
tlUI of the water 011 thr woodell plalroml around the
lank III \clllral and dor:;al recumbency (Fig I).
OhscnlltiOllS while lunles were in the w3Ier-\len
la1l0n was 3Ssesst'd as alert (Ie. rcsponsi\'e to external sumuli).
(ie, reduced. compared \\Ith normal. bUI appro-
priate respon:.i\enco;.. to eXlernal Slimulil. dl'mented (ie.
mappropri:llr beh.lvlOr ,delirious (ie. manic !>tha\ior). SIU-
porous (ie. reduced con!i<:iousness, only to ap-
parenth painful stimuh), or (ie, not RSponsi\e,
los" of Visual Ol\oidance and menace reo
sponses were tested by obser\-ing turtles move aW3)' or blink.
rcspecuvcl). In re"ponS(' 10 Ihrc3tcning gcslUrcs made with
a Slick placcd III the lunles" visual field in Ihe "ater lIead
and body posture, head. tboracic and pelvic limb. and latl
movemenl as well as Ihoratlc and pelviC limb strenglh were
as tunics swam freel) around Ihe tank. Turtles
wen: obsen'ed for compulsive circling that did not rollow
thc shape of the tank Geueral i1c!t\it)" level was recorded,
Righllng respomc W;lS evaluated br olben ing the tunics'
slrugglcs tn correcltheir posillOn whl'utumed upside down
in the water
Obscn'alions while turtlcs were Ollt of the
General aCII\'1I) level ur tllTtles as Ihey were lifted from Ihe
lank on(O Ihe phllrllrm was observed. \lelllation aud head
po.. tllrcand movement were 31so ohserved when wrlles were
OUI of the watel
(.ramal nerve.!> were te.:,ted with tunles in venlra! re-
cumbency (FIE:; 1) Cranial nerve:> I (olfaction) were evalll-
,lied by ob:.ervmg lurtles' ability to find food whe.n thclr
eres were covered. Cranial nerves 11 (vision) and VII (mOlOr
Inner\,aI1011 (If the musclC.'> of raCial expression) were evalu-
atcd by advancing the' JMlm of I hand toward the lurtleS'
cyesand whether Iherc wa" a blink response (ie,
Tnenace response). Cranial ncrves 11 and 111 were evaluated
by delermining pupil size III sunlight and shade and by de-
lermining \\ hether pupils constricted when expo<:ed tu light
Cie. PUIlIl1:Try light rcnes), Tunles' pupils are round like
those of dORs Cnnial lIer\es 11I. IV. and VI, wnich deler-
lIline e)"eball po"'iTion and mobiht)'. were evaluated b)' check-
mg e)cs for qrabl!>mus (if'. an abnormal position). Motor
divisions of cranial nent'" \'. which detennine jaW tone and
slrcngth, \\erc e\aluated br placing a "'lick between the
mandlblc and mal(llla to obsern' rnO\'cmenl and slrenglh of
the bile, CranIal nene<; VII and scnsor) of cranial
nen'es \ wcre e\alualed by whether there was
a blink re'>ponR. when medial and laleral ocular canthi were
touched (ie. palpebral rcne"). Yt">lIbular portions of cranial
ne('oes \111 were e\'aluated b)" turning lUnlcs' heads 10 the
lefl and nghl and obscn'ing Ihl' brief n)"!>tagmus. wilh lhe
ra"'l pha'>C in tbe direction of Ihe lum, Ihal was induced.
Eyes were e\ammed for spontaneous n)'slagmus as well.
of audllory funtuon .... perfonned. Cranial
nerH'S IX and '\ were evalualed hr obsen'ing turtle.s' abilil\'
to swallow, and cranial nen .. '\11 \\ ere C\"alUiiled by obsen-
1<,"
,--

,--
-",-
_.
_.
-
-
--
Figur(
l11g to

,

ltg
,>crval
rcplll
press'
jl,ro"l
pace.
[lillie
olher
neck

ri!?hl
by:l'
nleill
wrre
delel
he I'
te.. le
!Unl
dra"
('\ld
and,
mg
anU
we:
llOll
pcri
con
1''''
10+1 Origmal "'tud, SClcntiflC Rcporls JA\"\IA. \01 211 :\0 B. Cktober 15. Iqq7
-- - -- ------- ----==
Figure 2-Checklist for neurologic examination of sea turtles.
ii
< i<
i
I
<i i ............. .. <.........ben<y. .<. <
O_nation
J=increased; Z=norma1; 1=decreased;
(Check appropriate box)
MenLa1.ion
Alort Depreosed D<monled Stuporouo
""'"""'"
CnmW.Nel'\'eI L R C.....-
TIoorod< p-
Urnbs Urnbs
=Isive None
Both
Left IOgIrt 1.()1fiodX>n
L R
[T
directioos
Howipomue
Level Tilted left
1\unod left
Tittedright Tumedright II, Mo_
Head movemmrt
Nonnal D=eued
-
Incoonfuwed T",",o"
SttengIh
Bodypomue
Level Tittedleft Tilted right Pelvic float
III,IV,VI.
Tone
"".m.mu.
Indicate awrorriate number V-Jaw lme & Flexor
KEY: 4 mcoordinated; absent; NE=not evaluated .....gth reflox
Visual avoidance p- C.....- V,VB-Pal- C"""""
Left""
Urnbs pd>mI refI", ,xtemo<
VisuaJ. avoidance
L R L I R
VIII-Vcstibulac Clup NA NA
Right eye
"""".....
-
General activity
Move-
EE
IXX- DortnaI
ment Swallowing noci.ception
R;g!ding""""", Strength XII-Tongue
Periooteal
noc1cePtiOO
Tail movcmcnl a-a"'ToIl C.....-
i< <
Soma_ L R Co_
CI"""'"
<
?< reflex

""""""
Nannal Roduced
-
Nod<
Cloocol
nociception.
Mentation Alort Depreosed Domontod Sluparow
""'"""'" ""'to
Tail
moy"",,",
Howl pooture
Levol Tilted left Turned left Tilted right
Tumedright Tail
noci.ception.
Head movemmrt Nannal D=eued
-
InooonIinatod
Tremon Location ofLesion. (8)
Original Study 1045
vic limbs. This test was then added to the neurologic exami-
nation as the clasp response. To evaluate nociception of the
perineum and tail, these regions were pricked with a hypo-
dermic needle and behavioral responses were observed.
Results
Healthy turtles-Stretch reflexes in thoracic and
pelvic limbs were inconsistent or absent in healthy
turtles; however, flexor (withdrawal) reflexes were
detected in all limbs. Results of other tests of neuro-
logic function in healthy turtles were consistent with
those for healthy dogs and cats.
Evaluating mentation of turtles required some ex-
perience with normal behavior. All turtles were judged
to be alert and responded appropriately to our pres-
ence and probing. While swimming, healthy turtles
had a level head and body posture unless banking
for a turn. They were inquisitive and looked around
at examiners and other turtles in the tank. As they
swam, they held their necks extended, moving all
limbs in a strong, coordinated fashion. When they
turned, the tail usually pulled toward the direction
of the turn. Thoracic limbs moved together, and pelvic
limbs served as rudders during rapid changes of di-
rection.
All turtles resisted being placed in dorsal recum-
bency, whether in or out of the water, and had a strong
righting response. When held in dorsal recumbency
for testing, turtles moved their necks, limbs, and tails,
but within a brief time, relaxed enough that reflexes
and nociception could be tested. Testing in dorsal re-
cumbency could be performed in 1 to 2 minutes, so
turtles were not distressed.
Scient iJi[ Reports JAVMA, Vol 211, No.8, October 15, 1997
ing tongue movement and muscle mass while turtles were
eating. Cranial nerves XI were not specifically evaluated.
Neck and scute nociception were tested while turtles
were still in ventral recumbency. Neck nociception was tested
by lightly pricking the skin with a hypodermic needle. Ob-
servation of some attempt to retract the neck indicated per-
ception of the noxious stimulus. To test scute nociception,
pressure was applied with closed hemostatic forceps along
growth lines between the dorsal vertebral scutes of the cara-
pace, and turtles were observed for evidence of discomfort.
Turtles were then placed in dorsal recumbency to con-
tinue testing. Righting response was again evaluated by
observing turtles' struggles to correct their position. Head,
neck, thoracic and pelvic limb, and tail movement and
strength and coordination were further evaluated during
righting response attempts.
Thoracic and pelvic limb muscle tone was evaluated
by assessing resistance to passive range of motion move-
ments. Muscles were palpated to determine whether they
were atrophic or hypertrophic, and limbs were palpated to
determine whether they had muscle or tendon contractures.
Responses to wheelbarrowing and hopping could not
be evaluated, and conscious proprioception could not be
tested in sea turtles. Flexor reflexes were tested by pinching
turtles' toes with hemostatic forceps and observing with-
drawal of the limbs. The contralateral limb was observed for
evidence of a crossed extensor response. Superficial dermal
and deep periosteal nociception of limbs were tested by pinch-
ing skin and digits, respectively, with hemostatic forceps
and watching for behavioral responses such as attempting
to escape or turning the head, that would indicate percep-
tion of the stimulus.
The cloacal reflex was tested by pinching skin in the
perineal area with hemostatic forceps and observing cloacal
contractions. It was noticed that manipulations around the
perineal area reliably produced clasping together of the pel-
7
he
ad
re
Turtles suspected to have neurologic abnormali-
ties-The 4 turtles with carapace fractures all had pel-
vic limb dysfunction, suggesting injury to the thora-
columbar portion of the spinal cord. Three (turtles 1,
2, and 3) of the 4 had paraparesis, and 1 (turtle 4) had
paraplegia. Of the remaining 2 turtles, 1 (turtle 5) was
suspected to have cerebellar dysfunction and the other
(turtle 6) was suspected to have cerebral dysfunction.
Turtle 1 had paraparesis that was worse on the left
side than on the right. Flexor reflex, muscle tone and
strength, and dermal and periosteal nociception of the
left pelvic limb were reduced, compared with responses
for the right pelvic limb. Bilateral crossed extensor
reflexes were detected. The left cloacal region had re-
duced nociception and no clasp response. Sacral scute
and tail nociception were absent.
Turtle 2 had flexor reflexes and crossed extensor
reflexes in both pelvic limbs, but pelvic limb move-
ment was questionable and tail movement was absent.
Dermal and periosteal nociception were absent from
pelvic limbs. The cloacal reflex and clasp response were
present, but there was no cloacal, tail, or scute
nociception.
Turtle 3 had paraparesis that was worse on the
right side than on the left. The flexor reflex was weaker
in the right, compared with the left, pelvic limb, but
dermal and periosteal nociception were detected in
both pelvic limbs. The cloacal reflex and clasp response
were detected. Cloacal nociception and tail movement
and nociception were normal. Scute nociception was
reduced beginning in the midthoracolumbar region.
Turtle 4 had paraplegia with muscle contracture,
absent flexor reflexes, and absent dermal and periosteal
nociception in both pelvic limbs and no clasp response.
Pelvic limb muscle tone could not be accurately as-
sessed because of muscle contracture. Although the
turtle had a cloacal reflex, it had no cloacal nociception,
tail movement or nociception, or scute nociception.
Turtle 5 had uncoordinated movements, tremors
of the head, and continual horizontal nystagmus. Re-
sults of the rest of the neurologic examination were
consistent with those for healthy turtles.
Turtle 6 was demented and had reduced activity.
Results of the rest of the neurologic examination were
consistent with those for healthy turtles.
Discussion
In this study, techniques adapted from those used
for neurologic examination of dogs and cats could be
used to differentiate healthy sea turtles from those
suspected to have neurologic abnormalities. Results of
neurologic examination of healthy turtles were consis-
tent with those for healthy dogs and cats. Increased
use of this standardized examination technique could
lead to the discovery of new examination techniques
and a more accurate evaluation of neurologic function
in turtles and other reptiles.
3

6
Variations in ambient
air and water temperatures during testing may alter
responses. Our evaluations were done when ambient
air temperature was approximately 35 C (95 F) and we
were in the shade. Level of excitement or relaxation
may alter responses as well. All turtles were adapted to
living in the wildlife park and were used to being around
people. Thus, it may have been easier to elicit responses
from them than from sea turtles in the wild. More expe-
rience is needed to determine what effect these variables
might have on results of neurologic evaluation.
Interpretation of abnormal neurologic examina-
tion findings in sea turtles may be different from inter-
pretation of abnormal findings in dogs and cats. For
example, sea turtles that swim unevenly, leaning to I
side, may not have dysfunction of the vestibular sys-
tem, as would be suspected in dogs and cats with head
tilt. Instead, the most common cause of asymmetric
buoyancy in the water in sea turtles is a mass or un-
even gas accumulation in the lungs or coelomic cav-
ity.? Examination of sea turtles in and out of the water
may help differentiate leaning associated with vestibu-
lar disease from leaning associated with lung or coelo-
mic disease. In this study, for instance, turtle 5 had
spontaneous nystagmus, a sign usually associated with
disease of the vestibular system. With more experi-
ence, other differences between responses of dogs and
cats to neurologic tests and responses of turtles are
likely to be discovered.
Rehabilitation centers treat many injured sea
turtles.
8
,9 Turtles 1 through 4 in this study had spinal
cord injuries and visible wounds of the carapace, and
spinal cord injuries from motorboat strikes are com-
mon in sea turtles.
8
-
10
Some authors
lO
have stated that,
if limb paresis or paralysis and spinal cord injury is
suspected, then prognosis for recovery is poor. How-
ever, because dogs, cats, and other species can recover
from spinal cord injuries, it is likely that some sea
turtles can as well,5,l1 In fact, because of anatomic dif-
ferences, reptiles may be capable of more spinal cord
regeneration than are mammals.
3
Turtles I through 4
in this study had chronic spinal cord injuries. In seems
likely that accurate serial neurologic examinations of
sea turtles with spinal cord injuries will help to differ-
entiate those turtles that may recover from those that
will not. For example, if a dog or cat has paraplegia
with loss of dermal and periosteal nociception for 1
month, prognosis for recovery of function is consid-
ered hopeless.
5
Further studies must be done to deter-
mine this kind of information for sea turtles.
Turtle 1 was necropsied several months after neu-
rologiC examination, and sacral and caudal vertebrae
in the region of the carapace damage were found to be
fractured. Nerve roots could not be seen in this region
because of fibrosis. In dogs and cats, traumatic
sacrocaudal injuries can stretch lumbosacral nerves and
cause paraparesis, as seen in this turtle. Reduced
nociception in the left cloacal region, loss of the clasp
response, and reduced scute nociception in the lower
thoracolumbar region could have been a result of a
sacrocaudallesion, if the anatomy of the terminal por-
tion of the spinal cord in sea turtles is similar to that in
dogs and cats. A crossed extensor response is usually
associated with lesions cranial to L6 in dogs and cats.
A lesion damaging the L6-S1 spinal cord segments or
nerve roots in a dog or cat will prevent detection of a
crossed extensor response, even if the spinal cord is
also damaged cranial to L6. If the anatomy of sea turtles
is like that of dogs and cats, turtle 1, which had a
lesion in the sacrocaudal region, must have had some
function
ments an
cranial t(
extensor
fracture.
Turt
rologic e
bar vertt
damage.
area bee
flexes ar
4, are eJ
lumbar 1
Turt

treatmel
cephalit
Tremato
turtles.?
Refere
1. f
In:
Malabar,
2. I
1046 Original Study S( iCllli/i( Rcpo/Is JAVMA, Vol 211, No.8, October 15, 1997
JAVMA
W W Armistead
M, Morlock H, eds. Turtles: perspectives and research. Malabar, Fla:
Krieger Publishing Co, 1989;193-203.
3. Bennett RA. Neurology. In: Mader ER, ed. Reptile medicine
and surgery. Philadelphia: WE Saunders Co, 1996;14I -I48.
4. Cruce WLR, Nieuwenhuys R. The cell masses in the brain
stem of the turtle Testudo hermanni: a topographical and topologi-
cal analysis. ] Comp Neurol 1974;156:277-306.
5. Chrisman CL. Problems in small animal neurology. 2nd ed.
Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1991;41-72,397-431.
6. Jacobson ER. Evaluation of the reptile patient. In: Jacobsen
ER, Kollias GY, eds. Contemporary issues in small animal practice:
exotic animals. New York: Churchill Livingstone Inc, 1988;1-8.
7. Boyer TH. Turtles, tortoises, and terrapins. In: Mader ER,
ed. Reptile medicine and surgery. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co,
1996;332-336.
8. Campbell TW Sea turtle rehabilitation, In: Mader ER, ed.
Reptile medicine and surgery, Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co,
1996;427-436.
9, Schumacher J, Herbst L, Jacobson ER, et al. Spinal cord
injuries in marine turtles, in Proceedings. 5th Int Colloq Pathol
Reptiles Amphibians 1995;231.
10. Mautino M, Page CD. Biology and medicine of turtles
and tortoises. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1993;23:1251-
1270,
II. Colter S, Rucker NC. Acute injury to the central nervous
system. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1988;18:545-552.
12. Dailey MD, Fast ML, Balazas GH. Carettacola hawaiiensis
N sp [Trematoda:Spirorchidae] from the green turtle, Chelonia mydas,
in Hawaii. ] Parasitol 1991;7:906-908,
From My Armchair: I/\( I/\( Armistead
Animal Intelligence
Because human intellect outperforms that of Earth's other creatures, human beings
have smugly concluded that they are superior to all other species. But as every veterinarian
knows, the "dumb" in the term "dumb animals" means unspeaking, not stupid. So-called
inferior creatures are superior to human beings in many abilities, some of which civilized
human beings lost long ago or never had. Humorist Will Rogers said that all people are
ignorant, only on different subjects. To paraphrase his remark, we might say that all
creatures are imperfect, only in different ways.
In some tiny creatures, genetically programmed instinct effectively substitutes for
intellect. The spider engineers and constructs its flawless web of material produced from
its own body. The fragile monarch butterfly, once an earth-bound caterpillar, finds its way
across thousands of miles from Canada to Mexico, to the same forest where its ancestors
have wintered for generations. The aging salmon leaves the sea and fights its way upstream
and over waterfalls to spawn and die in the fresh inland water where it was born.
Limited intelligence of many animals has been enhanced by extraordinary develop-
ment of special senses. A dog can use its acute sense of smell to track a forest animal or
a human fugitive or to sniff our hidden illicit drugs or explosives. A lost cat, through some
directional sixth sense, can navigate hundreds of miles to return to its home.
For all their differences, many animals share with human beings some oflife's nobler
sentiments. The dog's capacity for expressing love, loyalty, and heroism is legendary.
Elephants poignantly grieve at the death of a herd member. Wild jungle cats are gentle and
solicitous toward their young. The swan has a single mate for life, setting an example of
fidelity that might well be emulated by more of human society.
A lifetime of acquaintance with animals brings not only a better understanding of
them, but also increased respect for their remarkable talents, instincts, and virtues. As
players in the grand scheme of nature, they are not inferior or incomplete, only different.
And this world surely would be a far poorer place without them.
References
1. Pritchard PCH. Taxonomy, evolution and zoogeography.
In: Harless M, Morlock H, eds, Turtles: perspectives and research.
Malabar, Fla: Krieger Publishing Co, 1989;30-39.
2. Powers AS, Reiner A. The central nervous system. In: Harless
function remaining in the sacrocaudal spinal cord seg-
ments and nerve roots and damage to the spinal cord
cranial to that site for us to be able to detect a crossed
extensor reflex. However, the spinal cord cranial to the
fracture site was not evaluated at necropsy.
Turtle 4 was necropsied several months after neu-
rologic examination, and a fracture of the last 2 lum-
bar vertebrae was found in the area of the carapace
damage. The spinal cord could not be identified in this
area because of fibrotic tissue. Loss of pelvic limb re-
flexes and periosteal pain responses, as seen in turtle
4, are expected in dogs and cats with similar caudal
lumbar lesions.
Turtle 6 had dementia, and a cerebral disorder was
suspected. The turtle's condition deteriorated despite
treatment, and necropsy revealed nonsuppurative en-
cephalitis with adult trematodes and ova in the brain.
Trematode infestation is a common problem in sea
turtles.
7
,12
r neu-
tebrae
to be
egion
matic
esand
duced
clasp
lower
t of a
1por-
hat in
sually
cats.
nts or
n of a
ord is
urtles
had a
some
ed sea
spinal
e, and
com-
d that,
jury is
. How-
ecover
e sea
ic dif-
1cord
ugh 4
seems
ons of
differ-
e that
plegia
for 1
onsid- .
deter-
metric
or un-
ic cav-
e water
estibu-
coelo-
Shad
d with
xperi-
gsand
les are
,1997
JAVMA, Vol 211, No.8, October 15, 1997 Scientific RepOl ts Original Study 1047