z-logo
Premium
Morphofunctional structure of the lingual papillae in three species of South American Camelids: Alpaca, guanaco, and llama
Author(s) -
Erdoğan Serkan,
Villar Arias Silvia,
Pérez William
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
microscopy research and technique
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.536
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1097-0029
pISSN - 1059-910X
DOI - 10.1002/jemt.22604
Subject(s) - lingual papilla , apex (geometry) , dorsum , anatomy , biology , major duodenal papilla , tongue , taste , pathology , medicine , food science
ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to compare the anatomical and functional characteristics of the lingual papilla among the Camelidae. For this purpose, tongues of alpaca, guanaco, and llama were used. Numerous long and thin filiform papillae were located in the median groove and none were detected on the rest of the dorsal surface of the lingual apex in alpaca. Secondary papillae originated from the base of some filiform papillae on the ventral surface of alpaca tongue. The bases of some filiform papillae of the lateral surface of the lingual apex were inserted into conspicuous grooves in guanaco and tips of filiform papillae on the dorsal surface of the lingual body were ended by bifurcated apex. On the dorsal surface of the lingual apex of llama, there were no filiform papillae but there were numerous filiform papillae on both the lateral margins of the ventral surface of the lingual apex. Fungiform papillae were distributed randomly on dorsal lingual surface and ventral margins of the tongues of all camelid species. Lenticular papillae were located on the lingual torus and varied in size and topographical distribution for each species. Circumvallate papillae had irregular surfaces in llama and alpaca, and smooth surface in guanaco. In conclusion, llama and alpaca tongues were more similar to each other, and tongues of all camelid species displayed more similarities to those of Bactrian and dromedary camels in comparison with other herbivores and ruminants. Microsc. Res. Tech. 79:61–71, 2016 . © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here