Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

volume 38 issue 2 (july to december 2004) : 150 - 152

COMPARATIVE GROSS ANATOMICAL STUDIES ON THE MUZZLE OF MITHUN (BOS FRONTAUS), YAK (BOS GRUNNIENS) AND ZEBU (BOS INDICUS)

H
H.C. Kalita
P
P.C. Kalita
1Department of Anatomy and Histology, College of Veterinary ~iences and Animal Husbandry, Central Agricultural University, Selesih, Aizawl, Mizoram

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Kalita H.C., Kalita P.C. (2025). COMPARATIVE GROSS ANATOMICAL STUDIES ON THE MUZZLE OF MITHUN (BOS FRONTAUS), YAK (BOS GRUNNIENS) AND ZEBU (BOS INDICUS). Indian Journal of Animal Research. 38(2): 150 - 152. doi: .

ABSTRACT

The gross studies of muzzle were carried out in mithun, yak and zebu. The muzzle appeared to be moist in mithun and yak containing large number of distinct areolae with variable shapes. These areolae were found to be smaller and less moist in zebu, while this was distinct in yak. The muzzle of yak was angular in shape in its ventral part. The philtrum was distinct in yak, while it was found to be shallow in mithun and zebu. The result of analysis of variance showed that the difference in the width of dorsal and ventral margin of muzzle was highly significant (P < 0.01). The critical difference tests revealed that the average width of muzzle was found to be significantly lower in yak in comparison to zebu and mithun

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Baranov, A.S. et al. (1993). J. Anim. Breed and Genetics, 111: 335-90.
    2. Dyce, K.M. et aJ. (1996). Text-Book of Veterinary Anatomy. 2nd Edn., WB. Saunders Co., London, Philadelphia.
    3. Frandson, R.D. (1986). Anatomy and Physiology of Farm Animals. 4th Edn. Lea and Febiger, London.
    4. Heli, T. etal. (1995).lndian J. Anim. Sci., 65: 1088-14
    5. Nickel, R. et al. (1979). The Viscera of the Domestic Mammals. 2nd Edn., Verlag Paul, Parey, Berlin.
    6. Sisson, S. and Grossman, J.D. (1953). The Anatomy of the Domestic Animals. 4th Edn., WB. Saunders Co., London.
    7. Snedecor, G.w. and Cochran, WG. (1994). Statistical Methods, 8th Edn:1owa State University Press, Ames Iowa.
    8. Su:Ihakar. LS. andSharma, D.N. (1994). In: Proc.IXAnnuaiCorMmtionof,IndianAssociation of\kterinary Anatomists, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh.
    Published In
    Indian Journal of Animal Research
    Article Metrics
    Metrics Icon
    0
    Views
    0
    Citations
    Reviewed By
    Share Article
    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      volume 38 issue 2 (july to december 2004) : 150 - 152

      COMPARATIVE GROSS ANATOMICAL STUDIES ON THE MUZZLE OF MITHUN (BOS FRONTAUS), YAK (BOS GRUNNIENS) AND ZEBU (BOS INDICUS)

      H
      H.C. Kalita
      P
      P.C. Kalita
      1Department of Anatomy and Histology, College of Veterinary ~iences and Animal Husbandry, Central Agricultural University, Selesih, Aizawl, Mizoram

      • Submitted|

      • First Online |

      • doi

      Cite article:- Kalita H.C., Kalita P.C. (2025). COMPARATIVE GROSS ANATOMICAL STUDIES ON THE MUZZLE OF MITHUN (BOS FRONTAUS), YAK (BOS GRUNNIENS) AND ZEBU (BOS INDICUS). Indian Journal of Animal Research. 38(2): 150 - 152. doi: .

      ABSTRACT

      The gross studies of muzzle were carried out in mithun, yak and zebu. The muzzle appeared to be moist in mithun and yak containing large number of distinct areolae with variable shapes. These areolae were found to be smaller and less moist in zebu, while this was distinct in yak. The muzzle of yak was angular in shape in its ventral part. The philtrum was distinct in yak, while it was found to be shallow in mithun and zebu. The result of analysis of variance showed that the difference in the width of dorsal and ventral margin of muzzle was highly significant (P < 0.01). The critical difference tests revealed that the average width of muzzle was found to be significantly lower in yak in comparison to zebu and mithun

      KEYWORDS

        REFERENCES

        1. Baranov, A.S. et al. (1993). J. Anim. Breed and Genetics, 111: 335-90.
        2. Dyce, K.M. et aJ. (1996). Text-Book of Veterinary Anatomy. 2nd Edn., WB. Saunders Co., London, Philadelphia.
        3. Frandson, R.D. (1986). Anatomy and Physiology of Farm Animals. 4th Edn. Lea and Febiger, London.
        4. Heli, T. etal. (1995).lndian J. Anim. Sci., 65: 1088-14
        5. Nickel, R. et al. (1979). The Viscera of the Domestic Mammals. 2nd Edn., Verlag Paul, Parey, Berlin.
        6. Sisson, S. and Grossman, J.D. (1953). The Anatomy of the Domestic Animals. 4th Edn., WB. Saunders Co., London.
        7. Snedecor, G.w. and Cochran, WG. (1994). Statistical Methods, 8th Edn:1owa State University Press, Ames Iowa.
        8. Su:Ihakar. LS. andSharma, D.N. (1994). In: Proc.IXAnnuaiCorMmtionof,IndianAssociation of\kterinary Anatomists, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh.
        In this Article
          Contact us
          Follow us
          Published In
          Indian Journal of Animal Research

          Editorial Board

          View all (0)