Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-14T07:44:39.361Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the use of muzzle prints in the diagnosis of monozygosity of cattle twins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. Wiener
G. Wiener
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding Research Organization, Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Past work on muzzle patterns of individuals and of twins is reviewed.

2. A technique of obtaining muzzle prints by making plaster casts is described.

3. Using casts, muzzle patterns from one-egg and two-egg twin pairs were scored for similarity on a 1– 5 scale. Patterns of one-egg twins were significantly more similar than those of two-egg twins, and the largest part of the total variance was due to the difference between these two groups. The score distributions for monozygous and dizygous twins did not completely overlap, indicating that muzzle pattern is inherited. However, the extent of overlap observed confines the usefulness of muzzle pattern in twin diagnosis to confirmatory evidence at the extremes of the similarity scale.

4. Parts of the muzzle pattern (central groove, cell length, and cell margins) were judged on an arbitrary scale. Two-egg twins were not found sufficiently less similar than one-egg twins for the characters to be useful in diagnosis. Twins were more alike than random pairs, but significantly so only for central groove and MZ cell length.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , June 1954 , pp. 288 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Boehme, H. (1909). Dissertation, Berne. (Quoted by Hering and Salomon.)Google Scholar
Bonnier, G. (1946). Acta agric. suec. 1, 139.Google Scholar
Bonnier, G. & Hansson, A. (1948). Heredity, 2, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dracy, A. E., Graham, E. F. & Hirsch, M. (1953). J. Dairy Sci. 36, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dry, F. W. (1942). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod.Google Scholar
Haak, D. (1943). Z. Tierz. ZüchtBiol. 54, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habu, Y. (1935). Bull. Imp. Zootech. Exp. Sta. ChibaShi, Japan, 31, 1. (Abstract 9381 in Biological Abstracts, 1936, 10).Google Scholar
Hancock, J. (1949). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. 31, 1.Google Scholar
Hering, W. (1931). Z. Zücht. B, 21, 275.Google Scholar
Hirsch, M., Graham, E. F. & Dracy, A. E. (1952). J. Dairy Sci. 35, 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, I. & Venge, O. (1951). Z. Tierz. ZüchtBiol. 59, 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, K. & Niedoba, T. (1937). Z. Zücht. B 37, 245.Google Scholar
Kronacher, C. (1932). Z. Zücht. B 25, 327.Google Scholar
Kronacher, C. & Sanders, D. (1936). Z. Zücht. B 34, 133.Google Scholar
Littwitz, G. (1924). Dissertation, Leipzig. (Quoted by Hering, Nadai, Salomon and others.)Google Scholar
Nadai, J. (1949). Z. Tierz. ZüchtBiol. 58, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, E. W. (1922). J. Dairy Sci. 5, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomon, S. (1930). Dissertation, Hanover.Google Scholar
Sanders, D. (1935). Z. Zücht. B 32, 223.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J. & Kliesch, J. (1938). KühnArchiv, 49, 65.Google Scholar