Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Messinger 1965

    Încărcat de

    Pablo Flores
    5 vizualizări10 pagini
    analisis microscopico de plumas

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    analisis microscopico de plumas

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    5 vizualizări10 pagini

    Messinger 1965

    Încărcat de

    Pablo Flores
    analisis microscopico de plumas

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 10
    METHODS USED FOR IDENTIFICATION OF FEATHER REMAINS FROM WETHERILL MESA* Norman G. MEssiNceR Assinact phane tape along two edges. The principal ad~ Feathers provided by the Wesherill Meso Archeotori- vantage of this mount is speed. It is also the cal Project archseologiss were leaned, placed on less best method for mounting down. However, with mounts, and eximined undet a microscope, Some in most microscopes, the use of a 43x objective is tirer difer bom apeces to sptcion and trabendermr TOE Possible because of the thickness of the glass, Comparisons were made until the characterstics of the _ Higher magnifications are necessarily used unknown spesies matched those of a known species. A for more detailed examinations of nodes and fle of phtosraphs with characters of know species wit barbules. In such cases, Mayer's albumen fixe- the matetal wae identifed ne coming form Turkey V6 Canada balsam, and a standard microscope {Aclears adllonaw), with; Mourninu Dove Genaidunn cover slip were used. Individual down barbs ‘macroura) also being identified. were placed on the albumen-coated slide, flat- tened, and arranged to eliminate overlapping of FTER BEING trained in the techniques of the barbules. Pennaceous barbules were dis- feather identifications (see Hargrave, in sected off the barb by placing the barb on the preceding paper), I was furnished with study albumened slide, ventral ridge up, and cutting material from the Wetherill Mesa Archeologi- off a section of each vanule as close to the barb cal Project. Most of the feather fragments was as possible with a razor blade. The barbules associated with artifacts and was selected from were spread out with a very small needle and a large amount of material taken from the ruins lay in every position. The slide was completed during the course of excavations. This report when the albumen was fixed with heat, balsam. is primarily a description of my methods and added, and the cover slip placed in position. some recommendations for those who may wish Any modem microtechniques text will give to attempt similar identifications, A glossary is methods which can be adapted to feather micro- included, as well as a listing and discussion of scopy, my identifications. The index ot refrection of unpigmented feath- ers is very close to that of the balsam and glass. In the case of white feathers, the balsam was Cleaning. Almost all archaeological and omirted from the fixed slide and the feather some modern feathers must be cleaned before parts studied without the cover slip. A second they can be studied. Feathers were agitated 2. by Zin. glass was fastened on with a cello- ly in a container of warm water to which 2 phane-tape hinge for protection during storage. mild liquid soap or detergent had been added. Each feather or fragment was washed separately to avoid any posibility of mixing specimens ot their characters, After being washed, the ieather ‘was rinsed in water and then dipped in isopropyl alcohol for a few seconds to speed drying. Dirty, twisted, or shapeless feathers can usually be restored to their original shape by this proce- dure. Study Mounts. A 2- by 2-in, slide-mounting lass was used because a larger selection of feather parts could be placed together. The simplest mount was made by sandwiching com- si plete barbs or stall feathers between two pieces W"e.ubstituted to give a lareerfld of view of glass, which were then held together by cello- 45" feund tbe 430 diameters, Beyond this only individual cells of the barbule could be seen and there seemed to be no significant char- Mernons Microscopy. A wide-field stereoscopic micro- scope was used when dissecting the barbules from the barb and when arranging the down barbs in the albumen. The binocular microscope does not provide sufficient magnification to make it useful for identifications, although its depth-of-field would be desirable. To provide the necessary magnifi- cation, a compound monocular microscope with a triple revolving nosepiece of 10x, 43x, and 97x: objectives was used. A 10x ocular was generally used, although for larger feathers a 6x ocular *This is Contribution No, 33 of the Metherill Mesa Archeological Project. Muessivan } A »m™ O90 9 NQvOs Ber xe Fo, 1. types. These are offered as indicators only and are not detailed enough to be used dogmatically. Generalized, diagrammatic sketches of down acteristics involved. At magnifications below 100 diameters, significant characters are not magnified enough to show the details necessary to differentiate similar species, Generalized studies of down and barbs were therefore best made at the lower levels (100x) and detailed studies were made at the upper levels (258x and 430x). Microphotographs. I found it helpful to record on film typical characters of each species studied. A complete file of photographs show- ing the characters of each species is a significant time-saving device. It is much easier to thumb through a series of prints that show species characters than to search out these characters under the microscope. Similarly, the characters of an unknown feather are recorded on film and kept before me while searching through known material for similar characters. A word of cau- tion here: there is no way to record enough on METHODS OF FEATHER IDENTIFICATION 207 film to permit final identifications. Two sets of prints, one arranged according to species and the other arranged according to similarity of characters, provide the best use of this aid, Photomicrographs of excellent quality were made by using a 35-mm. single-lens reflex cam- era (without the lens) and a microscope adapter tube. A high contrast, fine-grain film is best. When developed in an extremely fine-grain developer, it is possible to enlarge negatives far beyond the resolving power of the microscope. A colored filter (medium yellow) placed be- tween the light source and the microscope stage was used to increase sharpness of focus on the film (Eastman Kodak Company 1962). I made 5- by Zin, enlargements on 5- by Sin. single weight paper. This is a convenient size for filing and allows a 1-in, margin for captioning. Principles of Identification. Identifications were based on the demonstrable theory that the microscopic structures of feathers from each species of bird differ just as do other characters. The more closely related two species are, the more alike the feather structures, and converse- ly. It has also been shown (Chandler 1916) that the complexity of feather structures gener- ally follows the taxonomic order; that is, feath- ers of more primitive birds are less complex. This phylogenetic arrangement of down is espe- cially useful. Identifications were made by trial and error because no key to the diagnostic structures exists. Fa, 2. Photomicrographs of a distal barbule from the breast feather of 2 Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). Com- pare with Figs. Ii and 12. The lack of cilia and highly developed hooklets of breast and back feathers hinders specif identifications. [ears] ~ Colmes Fro, 3. Principal paris of a feather. Chandler's “No- menclature and Definitions” reprinted here gives names, for the minute subdivisions of these principal pars. Initial comparisons were based upon macro- characters, a large size being the most impor- tant, since it eliminates a multitude of small birds. Color means little in archaeological feath- ers unlessit is gaudy, because weathering reduces the less-spectacular feathers to nearly the same dull-brown color. Microscopic examinations were made first on down, if it was present. I found that down, which is relatively simple in structure and hence less likely to show variations, was most signifi- cant in determining the major group — order ‘or family — to which the feather belonged (Fig. 1). Lacking down, I had no adequate single group of charzcters that would permit simple “pigeonholing,” although some orders (Colum- biformes, Strigiformes, and possibly others) do have unique characters. ‘The most complex feather parts available are the most useful in making species identification as the complexity usually means more variations between species on which identification can be based (Fig. 2). Thus, the best part consists of the distal barbules of a flight feather. However, identification can never be based on just a single part or character. When only a comparatively simple body feather or down is available, spe- WETHERILL MESA (Moons, 19 cific identification is usually difficult or impossi- ble. To generalize the identification process: first, obvious species are eliminated on the basis of the available macrocharacters; then, on the basis of down (if present), the unknown feather is placed in an order or family. Next, the speci- men asa whole is considered, micro- and macro- characters together, to see if a smaller group of species can be isolated on the basis of similari- . Finally, every character of the unknown feather is compared with each individual species remaining in the group of possibilities. The spe- cific identification is complete when one species is found in which there are no differences. To add validity to my identifications, 1 was tested on feathers plucked from skins unknown, to me. Several such tests are described in the introduction. Prostems Several questions must be kept in mind when making identifications, any or all of which may apply to a given feather or species. (1) What difference does age and sex make on the micro- characters of a feather? (2) Do these charac- tets vary with age or seasonal plumages? (3) Are the characters of all feathers from a given feather tract on the same individual the same? Fic. 4, Typical contour feather. Abbreviations: aftersh., aferthafi; cal, calamus; doum. str, downy structure; in. v, inner mt. v., outer vane; pen. str, penna- ceous structure; sh. shaft Mesayorn ] Prox. van. METHODS OF FEATHER IDENTIFICATION dist. van. rages, 209 pithy” Fig, 5. Proximal half of barb of duck, Abbeeviations: dist. van, distal vanule; prox. von., voximal vanule; x, ramns; vl, vil (4) Are the barbules the same on alll the barbs from any part of a feather? (5) How much variation is there between individuals of a given cies? (6) Finally, and most difficult to an- swer, what evolutionary change might have taken place that could affect the identification of archaeological feathers? The answers to these questions are presently words of caution, Comparative material from the known and unknown feathers should be selected, when possible, from the same places. For example, the proximal barbules in the basal one-fourth of the inner vane of a Turkey alula are not the same as on the rest of the feather. Male, female, young, old, breeding, and other plumages should always be considered sepa- rately when possible. Although characters may differ in these various categories, I have found no indication that such differences will cause a duplication of characters between species. In any case, | have never found variations with similar individuals of a species when using simi- lar parts from similar feathers. Finally, since it is possible to match exactly the micro- and macro-characters of ancient feathers with those of modern feathers, may we not assume that sufficient time has not clapsed for noticeable evolutionary changes to have taken place in the structures of feathers? NoMENCLATURE A feather cannot be intelligently studied with- out a thorough familiarity with its parts. And without a complete dictionary of terms, it is not possible to describe the characteristics upon which identifications are made or the differ- ences between species (Fig. 3). Chandler (1916) has published a dictionary of feather terminology. His terminology was used throughout this study, though a few of the terms commonly used today which describe major parts are different. Since his publication seems to be rare, 1 have included the significant portion of Chandler's “Nomenclature and Defi- nitions” as follows: Terms of Orientation. In speaking of feather, or any of its structures, “dorsal” and “ventral” are used as intrinsic terms: that is, with reference to. the feather itself, regardless of its position on the bird. Dorsal means, therefore, the side of the feather which is usually ex posed, or that opposite the superior umbilicus, which is considered to be upon the ventral side. Lateral is used with reference to the dorsal-ventral lines as here defined. Inner and outer, a8 applied to vanes, ate used to mean, respectively, the vases adjacent to and away from the >\------d ridge Fio. 6. Cross section of hypothetical barb. Abbrevia- tions: dist, Ly distal ledge; d. ridge, dorsal ridges a7. isroove for ingerion of distal Eazbule; prox, L, proximal ledge; v. sidge, ventral ridge. 210 WETHERILL MESA next overlapping feather, Proximal and distal, 2s applied to entire barbutes or vanules, refer, respectively, to those on the side of the ramus nearer to and away from the base of the feather. In all cases, proximal and distal are used intrinsically with reference to the sructure to. which they apply; for example, the proximal part of a berb is Jess remote and the distal pare mote remote from the junetion with the shaft Altershaft (Fig. 4). The ventral counterpart of the shaft, plus its vanes, springing from the ventral lip of the superior umbilicus; sometimes vestigial or absent. Barb (Fig. 5). A ramus or primary branch of the shaft plus its barbules, Borbicals (Figs. 7, 8). Outgrowshs of the cells of the linear seties forming pennacesus bartules, usually pro- jections from the snterior dorsal oF centeal corners of the cells, Borbule (Figs. 7-9). A branch of a ramus, collectively forming the vanules. Pennaceous barbules are those which are differentiated inta a peoximal and distal series [ Mestons, 1B which interlock by means of hooklets, unless the struc vure has been secondarily simplified. ‘The proximal bar ‘nutes (Fig. 7) are those which are borne on the side of the ramus nearest the base of the feather. The distal arbules (Fig. 8) are borne on the side nearert the tip. Douny harbules (Fig. 9) are relatively long and filzmen- tous, with no interlocking device, Base (Figs. 7-9). The proximal portion of a burbute, which is more or less amelliform; in distal barbules the portion proximal to the hoobler cells, in proximal bar- ules the portion proximal 19 the bend occurring just beyond the ventral teeth, and in down bartules the short, flattened portion ar the junction with the ramus. Calamus (Fig. 4). The hollow basal portion of the quill, proximal to the superior umbilicus, Cilia (Fig, 7). Pennular tarbicels, dorsal or ventral, occurring on distal terbules distal to the hooklets, and often on proximal Berbules of the outer yane of hishly developed feathers Ra. cil pen. Fis, 7. Diagtammatic distal barbules. Abbreviations: b. base; d. cil, dorsal cilias jl, flange; h., hooklets; fy micleusy per pennulum; v. cil, Venteal ‘lias ¢, Ventral teeth. Fa, §. Dissremmatie proximal harhule. Abbreviations: h, base: d. sp, dorsal spines /L, flange; n., nucleus; per, pennulum; v. ¢, ventral eth, vil. attach. pen. internod. “--pr. 10.9, Diagrammatic downy tarbule, Abbreviations: attach, attachment with barb; 'h, base; internad,, internode; nod., node: per pennulums br prongs; vil villi Messiaen | METHODS OF FEATHER IDENTIFICATION 2 nd Fio, 10. Photomicrograph of down typical of all families in the order Galliformes. ‘Melengrididae feathers bear both this type of down and that shown in Fig, 11. Contour Feathers (Fig. 4). The feathers which form the contour of a bird's body, growing only in th and always with well-developed shafts and lashes, ear covert, and the semiplumes are considered 8 modified contour feathers. Dorsal Spines (Fig. 8). Recurved spines on the flange of proximal barbules, opposite the ventral teeth. Down, or Downy Structure (Fig. 4). The type of feather structure that is produced by elongated, lamen- tous barbules, as opposed to = pennaceous structure, which is produced by differentiated distal and proximal harbules or modifications of them; that is, pennaceous barbules, as here used. Filoplumes. Degenerate, haitlike feathers growing at the base of contour feathers, composed of a slender quill not differentiated into shalt and calamus, and much re- duced vanes, the latter usually consisting. of only a few barbs and barbules at the extreme tip. Flange (Figs. 7, 8). The thickened dorsal edue of the bases of pennaceous barbules, generally recurved in proxi- smal barbules, and frequently so in distal barbules also. Flexules. A term used to designate the curved barbi- cels occurring on the dorsal edge of the bases of distal and proximal barbules of the trunk feathers in some sroups of bieds. Hooklets (Fig. 7). Ventral barbicels which are strong ly hooked at the tip, occurring only on the proximal por- tion of the pennulum of distal barbules. Also called haruli by some. Inferior Umbilicus. The proximal end of the calamus, where the papilla finally closes alter the maturity of the feather. Ledge (Fig. 6). Longitudinal grooved ledges on the lateral sides of the rami, into which the barbules ft and which tend to hold them in place. Nodes (Fig. 9). The junction of the cells of the pennu- tum of down barbules, usually characterized by swellings ‘of outgrowths of some sort. Pennsilum (Fig. 9). The more ot less attenuated distal portions of a barbule bearing the hooklets and cilia, or, in the ease of down, the nodes, Plumales. Small, downy feathers, more or less con- cealed, and with shaft never highly developed. ‘They row cither im the apteria or pterylac, or both, often arranged in a definite manner around the contour fea- thers; absent in some birds. Prongs (Fig. 9). Short, spiny outgrowths at the nodes of the down of many binds, difering from other barbicels in that three or more may occur on the distal end of the single cell, whereas there are never more than two cilia of other kinds of barbicels on a single cell. Quill (Fig. 4). The main stem of feather, includ: ing both shaft and calamus. 12 Ramus (Figs. 5, 6). A primary branch of the shaft, forming the main stem of lamella of a barb, upon which are normally borne barbules. Shafe (Fig. 4). The portion of the quill distal to the superior umbilicus upon which are borne the vanes. Superior Umbilicus. The pote at the distal end of the calamus, at the junction of shaft and aftershaft, or, in some feathers, where the inner and outer vanes meet. Vane (Fig. 4). That portion of the feather borne on cone side of the shaft, composed of barbs, usually with barbules. The inner vane is that which is overlapped by the outer vane of the adjacent feather. Vanule (Fig. 5)- All the barbules of either the distal ‘or proximal series, bearing the same relation to the barb that the vane bears to the feather plate. Ventral Ridge (Figs. 5, 6). A horny keel on the ventral side of the ramus, usually narrow, though sometimes very highly developed. Venéral Teeth (Figs. 7, 8). Anteriorly projecting, ven- tral, basilar barbicels of both distal and proximal barbules of nearly all birds, often lobate or leaflike in distal bar- bules, usually roothtike in proximal barbules. Fio. 11. Photomicrograph of down from body feather of the Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). WETHERILL MESA [Mesoms, 19 FeaTHers IDENTIFIED FROM WETHERILL Mesa ‘The identifications made in this study are listed below. Unless otherwise noted, catalog numbers are those of the Wetherill Mesa Proj- ect. American Museum of Natural History Down blanker from a burial (Morris 1948) sss+ sss Meleagris gallapavo: Mummy House Number 3, Colorado State Museum Down blanker .... M. gallopavo: 01741, Caloado State Museum Downy and pennaceous barbs from feather blanket . os M. gallopavo 01741, Colorado State Museum ‘Side selvage from feather blanket ......M. gallopavo 01743, Colorado State Museum Piece of a feather blanket .. M. gallopavo 04052, Colorado State Museum Portion of down barb from a paho cf. eagle Portion of down barb from paho at arrow -. cf. eagle 0927, Colorado State Museum Unknown arti sos M. gallopavo. Note the Iength of the prongs at the four proximal nodes and diminishing length of the more distal prongs. ‘Messinare ] 12469/700 Feather-wrapped cord .... +-M. gallopavo 182716/703 ‘Calamus and about 25 mm. of the shaft of a pena M. gallopavo 18271¢/703 Penna <+M. gallopavo 182714/703 Penna, a complete alula = M. gallopavo 182711/703 ‘Midshafe of a pena, badly weathered .. M. gallopavo 18271g/703 Large mass of down, ceseesesesM. gallopavo 18331/703 Pieces of down from three bits of split quill

    S-ar putea să vă placă și