Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Veterinary Medicine and Science logoLink to Veterinary Medicine and Science
. 2024 Mar 5;10(2):e1396. doi: 10.1002/vms3.1396

Morphometric analysis of the skulls of a ram and ewe Romanov sheep (Ovis aries) with 3D modelling

Barış Can Güzel 1,✉, Fatma İşbilir 1
PMCID: PMC10915369  PMID: 38444190

Abstract

Background

With the development of technology, 2D images have left their place for 3D models. The 3D modelling technique is widely used in plastic surgery, orthopaedic surgery, neurosurgery, traumatology, dentistry and medical education. The skull is important in terms of containing the starting parts of systems with vital functions.

Objective

The aim of the study is to reveal the difference between male and female and other species by 3D (three‐dimensional) modelling and craniometric measurements of Romanov heads.

Methods

In our study, skulls of Romanov sheep (10 females and 10 males) older than 1‐year‐old were used. The heads of Romanov sheep were scanned with computed tomography and modelled in 3D.

Results and Conclusions

In the study, it was determined that there was a statistically significant difference between male and female sheep in terms of the largest nose length, facial width, molar row length, viscerocranium length, and foramen magnum height parameters (p < 0.05). It was determined that the greatest width of the foramen magnum measurement parameter and the skull index showed statistically significant differences between the genders at the p < 0.01 level. No statistically significant difference was found in other measurements (p > 0.05). The data obtained as a result of the study will help in the racial discrimination and classification of bones obtained from zoo archaeological excavations.

Keywords: 3D modelling, craniometric analyse, reconstruction, Romanov sheep (Ovis aries)

This study is to reveal the difference of the measurements taken from the determined points by creating a 3D model of Romanov sheep from other species. It was determined that there was a statistically significant difference between males and females in the measurements of the greatest length of nasals, facial breadth, length of the molar row, viscerocranium length and height of the foramen magnum. It has been revealed that the anatomical structures in the skull are different compared to other sheep species.

graphic file with name VMS3-10-e1396-g005.jpg

1. INTRODUCTION

The skull bones are divided into two parts, the cranium and the facies. The skull contains the brain, vision, hearing and balance centres. It is also very important because it contains the initial parts of the digestive and respiratory systems (König & Liebich, 2020; Schaller & Constantinescu, 2007). The phenotypic characteristics of animals may vary according to geography, race and nutritional status. These changes can be visible in the skull as well as in the skeletal system individually (Elbroch, 2006). Also, skull morphometry is used for the distinction of species and races, as well as is used for the distinction of sexes individually (Kobryńczuk et al., 2013). Changes due to gender differences are observed in the skull and jawbones in animals (Gündemir et al., 2020; Marzban et al., 2020). Craniometric studies make a great contribution to the field of taxonomy in sheep breeds where there is a lot of polymorphism (Kaymakçı, 2010; Karimi et al., 2011; Mohamed et al., 2016; Özcan et al., 2010; Soysal et al., 2003). Morphometric studies on skulls reflect the effects of genetic factors on the development of living things (Wehausen & Ramey, 2000). In addition, cranial morphometry is important for the diagnosis of cranial or dental deformities in the design of implants or instruments produced for dentistry (Tecirlioğlu, 1983; Teo et al., 2017).

With radiography, which is one of the medical imaging systems, important structures in the body can be shown in two dimensions (2D). Obtained two‐dimensional images can be rendered three‐dimensional (3D) with different methods (Demircioğlu & Gezer İnce, 2020; Freitas et al., 2011; Özkadif & Eken, 2015; Sergovich et al., 2010; Yılmaz & Demircioğlu, 2021). Two‐dimensional (2D) conventional imaging methods have some disadvantages. These disadvantages increase the importance of three‐dimensional (3D) studies. With the developing technology, 3D images and measurements of anatomical structures are obtained in studies in which modelling is carried out in many areas (Allowen et al., 2016; Aydoğdu et al., 2021; Lloyd et al., 2018; Mirjana et al., 2014). Models in the medical sector are realised through cross‐sectional imaging methods. Detailed examination of the 3D modelling structure helps in the treatment and prognosis of diseases (Demircioğlu & Gezer İnce, 2020; Morone et al., 2019; Parthasarathy, 2014). At the same time, the three‐dimensional (3D) modelling technique is widely used in plastic surgery, orthopaedic surgery, neurosurgery, traumatology and medical education (Krupa et al., 2007).

In determining the changes caused by biometric differences between the sexes, measurements made on skulls with three‐dimensional modelling software from images obtained by computerised tomography (CT) are used (Rooppakhun et al., 2010). For this purpose, many three‐dimensional, radiological and different modelling studies have been carried out on bones. (Baygeldi et al., 2022; Demircioğlu et al., 2020; Guzel et al., 2022; Güzel et al., 2022; Gündemir et al., 2023a; Gündemir et al., 2023b; Gündemir et al., 2023c; Hadžiomerović et al., 2023; Yılmaz & Demircioğlu, 2020; Yılmaz & Demircioğlu, 2021; Szara et al., 2023). However, no study has been found that examines the skulls of Romanov sheep in detail.

The Romanov sheep breed is known for its high fertility and its skin of feature of fur. The race, which is characterised by its black‐grey body, short head‐legs, and tail structure, was first bred in the Yaroslavl region of Russia. It has been reported that Romanov sheep reported to be characterised by an extremely long season of sexual activity and early sexual maturity, which were favoured by breeders to shorten the mating and thus production interval and increase annual election progress (Şen, 2020). In Turkey, pure breeding (Kutluca Korkmaz & Emsen, 2016) is carried out in the Eastern Anatolia Region, which has the closest climatic characteristics to the natural living conditions of Romanov sheep. In addition, it has been recorded that breeding is carried out in a total of 12 provinces in Turkey (Kandemir & Taşkın, 2022).

This study aims to make three‐dimensional modelling of the skull of Romanov sheep using computerised tomography to show their anatomical structures, obtain morphometric measurement values, and reveal the biometric differences between these measurement values with genders and other breeds.

2. MATERIAL AND METHOD

2.1. Samples

Romanov sheep skulls (10 females and 10 males) older than 1 year were used in this study. Romanov skulls were collected from slaughterhouses in Diyarbakir province. All procedures in the study were approved by the Siirt University Experimental Animals Application and Research Centre with the ethics committee report numbered 05/2023.

2.2. 3D reconstruction, craniometric measurements and statistical analysis

Sheep skulls were scanned with 64 detector multislice Siemens computed tomography devices at 80 kV, 200 MA, 639 mGY and 0.625 mm section thickness. The resulting images were saved in DICOM format. Then, 3D reconstruction images were created from the images with MIMICS 20.1 (Materialize, Leuven, Belgium) software.

In our study, a total of 38 metric measurements were taken from each skull. Measuring points (Gündemir et al., 2020; Özcan et al., 2010; Parés‐Casanova, 2014; von den Driesch, 1976) were determined by reference to the studies. The metric measurement parameters are reported in Figures 1, 2, 3, 4. Skull, facial, basal, palatal, orbital, and foramen magnum indices were calculated with the obtained data. Statistical analysis of the data was performed using the SPSS 22.0 program. After testing the normality of the data, the independent t‐test was used for normally distributed data to determine sexual dimorphism, and the Mann–Whitney U test was used for nonnormally distributed data. All craniometric data were expressed as mean ± standard error (SE).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Measurement of the skull of Romanov sheep dorsal view.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Measurement of the skull of Romanov sheep ventral view.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Measurement of the skull of Romanov sheep lateral view.

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Measurement of the skull of Romanov sheep caudal view.

2.3. Craniometric parameters

 

  1. The total skull length

  2. Greatest breadth of the skull

  3. Akrokranion‐bregma

  4. Frontal length greatest length of nasal bones

  5. Upper neurocranium length

  6. Facial length

  7. Akrokranion‐infraorbitale of one side

  8. The greatest length of nasal bone

  9. Short lateral facial length

  10. Least breadth of the parietal bone

  11. Greatest neurocranium breadth

  12. Greatest breadth across the orbits

  13. Least breadth between the orbits

  14. Facial breadth

  15. Greatest breadth across the nasals

  16. Greatest breadth across the premaxillae

  17. The condylobasal length – from incisive bone to the occipital condyles

  18. Basal length

  19. Short skull length

  20. Premolare‐prosthion

  21. Dental length

  22. Oral palatal length

  23. Length of the cheek tooth row

  24. Length of the molar row

  25. Length of the premolar row

  26. Greatest palatal breadth

  27. Neurocranium length

  28. Viscerocranium length

  29. Greatest length of the lacrimal bone

  30. From the aboral (Between the foramen infraorbital and the upper point of the foramen magnum)

  31. Lateral length of the premaxilla

  32. Greatest inner length of the orbit

  33. Greatest inner height of the orbit

  34. Greatest mastoid breadth of the paraoccipital processes,

  35. Greatest breadth of the occipital condyles,

  36. Greatest breadth at breadth of the paraoccipital processes

  37. Greatest breadth of the foramen magnum

  38. Height of the foramen magnum

In this study, craniofacial indices were calculated as follows (Gündemir et al., 2020; Özcan et al., 2010; Yılmaz & Demircioglu, 2020).

  • Skull index: Greatest breadth of the skull (2)/Total length (1) × 100

  • Facial index 1: Facial breadth (14) /Viscerocranium length (28) × 100

  • Facial index 2: Greatest breadth of the skull (2) /Viscerocranium length (28) × 100

  • Basal index: Greatest breadth of the skull (2) /Basal length (18) × 100

  • Palatal index: Greatest palatal breadth (26) /Dental length (21) × 100

  • Orbital index: Greatest inner height of the orbit (33)/Greatest inner length of the orbit (32) × 100

  • Foramen magnum index: Height of the foramen magnum (38)/Greatest breadth of the foramen magnum (37) × 100

3. RESULTS

In the first macroscopic examination performed in this study, it was found that the skull structures of the sheep were macroscopically large and long in accordance with the literature. They also had an arched nasal superstructure. The skull was covered with black and short hairs. No clinical findings were observed and the skulls were found to be healthy.

After macroscopic examination, 38 measurement parameters and 7 indices were calculated from 3D modelling images of Romanov sheep skulls. The mean, standard error and p values of the obtained data are shown in Tables 1, 2, 3.

TABLE 1.

The craniometrical measurements of the skull of the Romanov sheep (mm).

Gender N Mean SE p
1 Male 10 205.29 1.75 NS
Female 10 199.94 2.25
2 Male 10 104.54 1.25 NS
Female 10 101.51 1.17
3 Male 10 18.82 0.69 NS
Female 10 17.60 0.74
4 Male 10 102.60 0.62 NS
Female 10 98.57 0.55
5 Male 10 84.45 0.93 **
Female 10 85.54 2.18
6 Male 10 108.15 0.70 NS
Female 10 106.27 0.85
7 Male 10 151.33 1.09 NS
Female 10 143.76 0.95
8 Male 10 74.62 1.21 *
Female 10 72.66 0.73
9 Male 10 111.99 1.24 NS
Female 10 96.63 1.31
10 Male 10 44.32 1.07 NS
Female 10 45.87 1.79
11 Male 10 62.92 0.59 NS
Female 10 54.38 0.85
12 Male 10 101.48 0.56 NS
Female 10 96.86 1.32
13 Male 10 71.28 0.50 NS
Female 10 70.16 0.78
14 Male 10 63.34 0.92 NS
Female 10 56.18 0.67
15 Male 10 21.90 0.86 NS
Female 10 22.65 0.75
16 Male 10 24.46 1.05 NS
Female 10 32.83 1.57
17 Male 10 195.99 1.56 NS
Female 10 187.83 1.17
18 Male 10 176.47 1.88 NS
Female 10 181.29 1.85
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: NS, not significant (p > 0.05); SE, standard error of the mean.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

TABLE 2.

The craniometrical measurements of the skull of the Romanov sheep (mm) (continued).

Gender N Mean SE p
19 Male 10 125.47 1.78 NS
Female 10 127.97 1.17
20 Male 10 53.14 0.98 NS
Female 10 44.18 1.54
21 Male 10 102.19 0.87 NS
Female 10 98.78 0.86
22 Male 10 66.52 1.92 NS
Female 10 71.76 1.14
23 Male 10 53.55 2.28 NS
Female 10 47.75 1.28
24 Male 10 31.47 1.32 *
Female 10 29.68 0.77
25 Male 10 16.95 0.83 NS
Female 10 15.05 0.56
26 Male 10 55.11 0.95 NS
Female 10 52.49 1.70
27 Male 10 111.23 0.75 NS
Female 10 109.36 1.07
28 Male 10 115.22 1.68 *
Female 10 112.10 1.16
29 Male 10 25.88 1.04 NS
Female 10 30.33 1.09
30 Male 10 140.96 0.79 NS
Female 10 138.89 0.86
31 Male 10 64.64 1.12 NS
Female 10 62.71 1.10
32 Male 10 32.55 0.90 NS
Female 10 34.06 1.03
33 Male 10 32.89 0.98 NS
Female 10 32.16 0.98
34 Male 10 63.76 1.48 NS
Female 10 63.01 1.80
35 Male 10 49.28 1.16 NS
Female 10 46.28 1.65
36 Male 10 58.55 0.79 NS
Female 10 58.04 0.61
37 Male 10 18.77 0.70 **
Female 10 16.82 1.71
38 Male 10 17.29 1.04 *
Female 10 18.41 0.64
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: NS, not significant (p > 0.05); SE, standard error of the mean.

*p < 0.05.

**p < 0.01.

TABLE 3.

Cranial and facial indices in Romanov sheep skull.

Gender N Mean SE p
Skull index Male 10 54.34 3.38 **
Female 10 51.47 1.49
Facial index 1 Male 10 54.94 0.90 NS
Female 10 50.12 0.59
Facial index 2 Male 10 90.72 1.08 NS
Female 10 90.82 1.72
Orbital index Male 10 98.76 4.92 NS
Female 10 105.90 4.47
Basal index Male 10 59.25 1.20 NS
Female 10 56.17 0.67
Palatal index Male 10 102.19 0.87 NS
Female 10 98.75 0.82
Foramen magnum index Male 10 91.58 6.08 NS
Female 10 108.77 9.12
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: NS, not significant (p > 0.05); SE, standard error of the mean.

**p<0.01.

In our study, it was determined that there was a statistically significant difference between males and females in the measurements of the greatest length of nasals, facial breadth, length of the molar row, viscerocranium length and height of the foramen magnum (p < 0.05). The greatest breadth of the foramen magnum measurement parameter and skull index statistically showed a significant difference at the level of 0.01 between sexes (p < 0.01). No statistically significant difference was detected in other measurements (p > 0.05).

4. DISCUSSION

It is known that the Romanov sheep breed, whose homeland is Russia, spread to the world from the Volga River. The importance of the breeds whose cultivating is known to date back to the past is increasing in zooarchaeological excavations. The data obtained in the excavations increases the information load of that region. Although there are craniometric studies in different species and races, three‐dimensional (3D) studies are limited. The study aims to reveal the species‐specific characteristics of the Romanov sheep breed with different phenotypes and to compare them with different breeds revealed in the excavations.

Dayan et al. (2022) determined the total length parameter in Hamdani sheep as 228.51 ± 7.89 mm in males and 216.71 ± 3.42 mm in females. Gündemir et al. (2020) reported the same parameter as 257.98 ± 15.81 mm in males and 245.25 ± 10.24 mm in females in their study on Bardhoka native sheep, Dalga et al. (2018) reported it as 241.20 ± 25.17 mm in Hemşin sheep. Karimi et al. (2011) determined the total length of Mehraban sheep as 200.06 ± 1.71 mm in their measurements; 200.9 ± 4.77 mm in the skull of Iranian native sheep (Monfared, 2013), 265.51 ± 22.24 mm in Xisqueta sheep (Pares‐Casanova et al., 2010) and 325 ± 9.9 mm in Yankasa rams (Shehu et al., 2019) have been reported. In our study, we detected the total height measurement results as 205.29 ± 1.75 mm in males and 199.24 ± 2.25 mm in females. In general, the total length parameter was determined to be smaller than the measured sheep. In addition, the results were similar to Mehraban sheep and Iranian native sheep.

Dayan et al. (2022) reported the greatest length of nasals parameter as 83.66 ± 3.23 mm in males and 82.99 ± 3.11 mm in females, while Dalga et al. (2018) reported it as 82.51 ± 7.89 mm. Özcan et al., in their study in 2010, determined the greatest length of nasals measurement result as 70.34 ± 6.77 mm in the Morkaraman sheep breed and 68.65 ± 3.16 mm in the Tuj sheep breed (Özcan et al., 2010). In our study, the same length was determined as 74.62 ± 1.21 mm in male sheep and 72.66 ± 0.73 mm in female sheep. As a result of the statistical evaluation, it was observed that the greatest length of the nasal parameter had a statistically significant difference between male and female sheep (p < 0.05).

Viscerocranium length was reported as 10.03 ± 0.53 cm in Akkaraman sheep and 10.36 ± 1.03 cm in Kangal Akkaraman sheep (Baş Ekici et al., 2023). In addition, this parameter was determined as 113.34 ± 7.53 mm in Morkaraman sheep and 109.34 ± 2.96 mm in Tuj sheep (Özcan et al., 2010). In our study, it was determined that this value was larger in the Romanov sheep breed compared to Akkaraman, Kangal Akkaraman and Tuj sheep both in females and males. Male Romanov sheep had this value larger than Morkaraman sheep and female Romanov sheep had this value smaller.

Facial breadth was determined as 63.34 ± 0.92 mm in males and 56.18 ± 0.67 mm in females. The length of the molar row was determined as 31.47 ± 1.32 mm in male sheep and 29.68 ± 0.77 mm in female sheep. In addition, statistical difference was determined between sexes in terms of these two parameters (p < 0.05). It was determined that the facial breadth parameter was smaller than South Karaman sheep breed (Özüdoğru et al., 2022) and larger than Hamdani sheep breed (Dayan et al., 2022). The length of the molar row value was lower in South Karaman (Özüdoğru et al., 2022), Morkaraman, Tuj sheep breeds (Özcan et al., 2010) and Bardhoka sheep breeds (Gündemir et al., 2020).

Gapert et al. (2009) mentioned that the shape of the foramen magnum is an important dimorphic feature. In some studies, important information has been recorded for the measurement points of the foramen magnum. It has been reported in Anthropology that foramen magnum dimensions are used in sex determination (Günay & Altınkök, 2000; Süzer et al., 2018). Dayan et al. (2022) detected the greatest breadth of the foramen magnum parameter as 20.48 ± 0.64 mm in males and 20.77 ± 0.60 mm in females in their study on Hamdani sheep, while Parés‐Casanova et al. reported the same parameter as 20.00 ± 2.00 mm in a study conducted on Rasquera White goats in 2014. In our study on Romanov sheep, we determined the parameter of the greatest breadth of the foramen magnum as 18.77 ± 0.70 mm in males and 16.82 ± 1.71 mm in females. As a result of the statistical evaluation, a significant difference at the p < 0.01 level was determined between female and male sheep.

Jashari et al. (2022) determined the height of the foramen magnum as 21.45 ± 1.21 mm in females and 20.03 ± 2.20 mm in males in their study of Sharri sheep. Özcan et al. (2010) reported the same parameter as 19.41 ± 1.14 mm in Morkaraman and 17.83 ± 1.54 mm in Tuj sheep. The height of the foramen magnum parameter in Romanov sheep was measured as 17.29 ± 1.04 mm in males and 18.41 ± 0.64 mm in females. Similar to previous studies, the height of the foramen magnum was detected to be greater in females compared to males. As a result of statistical evaluation, it was determined that there was a significant difference between the sexes (p < 0.05).

Yılmaz and Demircioğlu (2020) stated that the widest skull length is the Ectorbitale‐Ectorbitale distance, which reaches 113.38 ± 8.92 mm in males and 116.76 ± 6.37 mm in females in Awassi sheep, but the difference between the sexes is statistically insignificant. The widest length was reported as 102.98 ± 2.52 mm in Morkaraman sheep, 101.66 ± 1.69 mm in Tuj sheep (Özcan et al., 2010), 113.31 ± 3.61 mm in males and 106.09 ± 2.51 mm in females in Hamdani sheep (Dayan et al., 2022). The Ectorbitale‐Ectorbitale distance was measured in our study, and no statistically significant difference was determined, similar to studies.

Onar et al. (2001) stated in their study that skull indices and proportions are very important in distinguishing or defining morphological types. The skull index value was reported as 41.83 ± 1.74 in females and 41.84 ± 1.73 in males in the Sharri sheep breed (Jashari et al., 2022), while it was reported as 41.53 ± 2 in females and 41.69 ± 1.74 in males in Bardhoka sheep breed (Gündemir et al., 2020). The same index value was reported as 53.57 ± 3.26 in Mehraban sheep (Karimi et al., 2011). In our study of Romanov sheep, it was determined that the skull index value was higher than the mentioned sheep breeds. Also, a statistically significant difference was observed between the sexes (p < 0.05).

Parés‐Casanova et al. (2010) reported the orbital index value as 109.77 ± 10.23 in female Xisqueta ewes and the same index value as 112.27 ± 3.50 in female Awassi ewes and 97.82 ± 9.32 in male Awassi ewes (Yılmaz & Demircioğlu, 2020). In our study, the orbital index was determined as 98.76 ± 4.92 in males and 105.90 ± 4.47 in females Romanovs. As a result of the statistical evaluation, there was no statistically significant difference between the female and male sheep (p > 0.05).

In our study, foramen magnum index value was determined as 91.58 ± 6.08 in male sheep and 108.77 ± 9.12 in female sheep. The same index value was reported as 106.92 ± 10.11 in Akkaraman sheep and 107.76 ± 14.71 in Kangal Akkaraman sheep (Baş Ekici et al., 2023). In addition, foramen magnum index was determined as 87.35 ± 6.11 in Sharri sheep breeds (Jashari et al., 2022).

In this study, the facial index value of Romanov sheep breed was smaller than Akkaraman, Kangal Akkaraman (Baş Ekici et al., 2023), Morkaraman and Tuj sheep (Özcan et al., 2010), and higher than Hemshin (Dalga et al., 2018), Mehraban (Karimi et al., 2011) and Sharri sheep (Jashari et al., 2022). Similarly, basal index values of Romanov sheep were higher than Hemshin sheep (Dalga et al., 2018), Morkaraman and Tuj sheep breeds (Özcan et al., 2010).

As a result, it was seen that studies on sheep breeds were made from the images obtained by computerised tomography with the developing technology. Our study is the first 3D modelling study performed craniometrically in the Romanov sheep breed. With the data obtained from the study, measurements of the skulls of Romanov sheep and many index calculations were made. It was determined that the calculation results showed similarities and differences with other sheep breeds. Based on the results of morphometric measurements, it can be said that Romanov sheep breeds are similar to Hamdani and Morkaraman sheep breeds in Turkey. The study will aid the identification and taxonomy of skulls from zooarchaeological excavations. In addition, while contributing to the anatomy literature, it will create data for studies in this field.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

BCG and FI Romanov collected the skulls from the slaughterhouse. BCG wrote the article. FI edited the article. BCG completed critical review.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the study.

FUNDING INFORMATION

No financial support was received from any institution or organisation in our article.

ETHICS STATEMENT

Siirt University Experimental Animals Application and Research Centre with the ethics committee report numbered 05/2023.

PEER REVIEW

The peer review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1002/vms3.1396.

Güzel, B. C. , & İşbilir, F. (2024). Morphometric analysis of the skulls of a ram and ewe Romanov sheep (Ovis aries) with 3D modelling. Veterinary Medicine and Science, 10, e1396. 10.1002/vms3.1396

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study can be requested from the corresponding author.

REFERENCES

  1. Adebisi, S. (2009). Forensic anthropology in perspective: The current trend. The Internet Journal of Forensic Science, 4(1), 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  2. Allowen, E. , Thibaud, S. , Ardern, H.‐B. , Carly, A. , Richard, A. , Pietro, V. , Greger, L. , Thomas, C. , & Keith, D. (2016). The use of close range photogrammetry in zooarchaeology: Creating accurate 3D models of wolf crania to study dog domestication. Journal of Archaeolgical Science:Reports, 9, 87–93. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.06.028 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Aydoğdu, S. , Eken, E. , & Koçak, M. (2021). Sexual dimorphism in the sheep corpus callosum using 3 tesla MRI. Eurasian Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 37(4), 225–234. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baş Ekici, H. , Beşoluk, K. , & Bozbıyık, N. (2023). A morphometric comparison of the skulls of Akkaraman and Kangal Akkaraman sheep on a three‐dimensional model using computed tomography. Veterinary Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, 8(1), 37–43. 10.24880/maeuvfd.1222154 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baygeldi, S. B. , Güzel, B. C. , Kanmaz, Y. A. , & Yilmaz, S. (2022). Evaluation of skull and mandible morphometric measurements and three‐dimensional modeling of computed tomographic images of porcupine (Hystrix cristata). Anatomia Histologia Embryologia, 51(4), 549–556. 10.1111/ahe.12830 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bicici, Ö. (2020). Evaluation of metabolic profiles and investigation of adiponectin, leptin, and ghrelin levels in the periparturient period in Romanov sheep. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University health sciences institute(PHD thesis).
  7. Dalga, S. , Aslan, K. , & Akbulut, Y. (2018). A morphometric study on the skull of the adult Hemshin sheep. Van Veterinary Journal, 29, 125–129. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dayan, M. O. , Demircioğlu, İ. , Koçyiğit, A. , Güzel, B. C. , & Karaavci, F. A. (2022). Morphometric analysis of the skull of Hamdani sheep via three‐dimensional modeling. Anatomia Histologia Embryologia, 52(2), 215–222. 10.1111/ahe.12873 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Demircioğlu, I. , & Gezer Ince, N. (2020). Three‐dimensional modeling of computed tomography images of limb bones in gazelles (Gazella subgutturosa). Anatomia Histologia Embryologia, 49(6), 695–707. 10.1111/ahe.12564 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Demircioğlu, İ. , Kirbaş Doğan, G. , Aksünger Karaavcı, F. , Gürbüz, İ. , & Demiraslan, Y. (2020). Three‐dimensional modeling and morphometric investigation of computed tomography images of brown bear's (Ursus arctos) ossa cruris (Zeugopodium). Folia Morphologica, 79, 811–816. 10.5603/FM.a2019.0125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Elbroch, L. M. (2006). Animal skulls: a guide to North American species. Stackpole Books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanov_sheep
  12. Freitas, E. N. , Noritomi, P. , & Silva, J. (2011). Use of rapid prototyping and 3D reconstruction in veterinary medicine. InTech, 10.5772/23303 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gapert, R. , Black, S. , & Last, J. (2009). Sex determination from the foramen magnum: discriminant function analysis in an eighteenth and nineteenth‐century British sample. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 123(1), 25–33. 10.1007/s00414-008-0256-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Günay, Y. , & Altinkök, M. (2000). The value of the size of the foramen magnum in sex determination. Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine, 7(3), 147–149. 10.1054/jcfm.2000.0430 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gündemir, O. , Duro, S. , Jashari, T. , Kahvecioğlu, O. , Demircioğlu, İ. , & Mehmeti, H. (2020). A study on morphology and morphometric parameters on the skull of the Bardhoka autochthonous sheep breed in Kosovo. Anatomia Histologia Embryologia, 49(3), 365–371. 10.1111/ahe.12538 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gündemir, O. , Duro, S. , Szara, T. , Koungoulos, L. , Jashari, T. , Demircioğlu, İ. , & Melnyk, O. O. (2023a). Skull variation in different breeds sheep from Balkan countries. Annals of Anatomy‐Anatomischer Anzeiger, 249, 152083. 10.1016/j.aanat.2023.152083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gündemir, O. , Koungoulos, L. , Szara, T. , Duro, S. , Spataru, M. C. , Michaud, M. , & Onar, V. (2023b). Cranial morphology of Balkan and West Asian livestock guardian dogs. Journal of Anatomy, 243(6), 951–959. 10.1111/joa.13929 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gündemir, O. , Szara, T. , Yalin, E. E. , Karabagli, M. , Mutlu, Z. , Yilmaz, O. , & Parés‐Casanova, P. M. (2023c). Examination of shape variation of the skull in British shorthair, Scottish fold, and Van cats. Animals, 13(4), 614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Güzel, B. C. , Koçyiğit, A. , Demircioğlu, İ. , & Demiraslan, Y. (2022). Investigating metacarpi of Hamdani sheep via different measurement and modeling methods: a methodological study. Anatomia Histologia Embryologia, 51(4), 484–491. 10.1111/ahe.12816 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hadžiomerović, N. , Gundemir, O. , Tandir, F. , Avdić, R. , & Katica, M. (2023). Geometric and morphometric analysis of the auditory ossicles in the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Animals, 13(7), 1230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jashari, T. , Duro, S. , Gündemir, O. , Szara, T. , Ilieski, V. , Mamuti, D. , & Choudhary, O. P. (2022). Morphology, morphometry and some aspects of clinical anatomy in the skull and mandible of Sharri sheep. Biologia, 77(2), 423–433. 10.1007/s11756-021-00955-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kandemir, Ç. , & Taşkın, T. (2022). Doğu Anadolu Bölgesinde Yetiştirilen Koyun Irklarının Mevcut Durumu. Hayvansal Üretim, 63(1), 57–66. 10.29185/hayuretim.1085924 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Karimi, I. , Onar, V. , Pazvant, G. , Hadipour, M. , & Mazaheri, Y. (2011). The cranial morphometric and morphologic characteristics of Mehraban sheep in Western Iran. Global Veterinaria, 6(2), 111–117. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kaymakçı, M. (2010). İleri Koyun Yetiştiriciliği. Meta Basım Matbaacılık. İzmir.
  25. Kobryńczuk, F. , Krasińska, M. , & Szara, T. (2013). Sexual dimorphism in skulls of the lowland European Bison, Bison Bonasus Bonasus, 45, 335–340. [Google Scholar]
  26. König, H. E. , & Liebich, H. G. (2020). Veterinary anatomy of domestic animals. Textbook and color atlas, Thieme Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  27. Krupa, P. , Krsek, P. , Javorník, M. , Dostál, O. , Srnec, R. , Usvald, D. , & Necas, A. (2007). Use of 3D geometry modeling of osteochondrosis‐like iatrogenic lesions as a template for press‐and‐fit scaffold seeded with mesenchymal stem cells. Physiological Research, 56(1), S107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kutluca Korkmaz, M. , & Emsen, E. (2016). Growth and reproductive traits of purebred and crossbred Romanov lambs in Eastern Anatolia. Animal Reproduction, 13, 3–6. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lloyd, A. C. , Miguel, Á. M. , Julia, A. , José, Y. , Diego, G. , & Manuel, D. (2018). Testing accuracy in 2D and 3D geometric morphometric methods for cut mark identification and classification. PeerJ, 5(6), e5133. 10.7717/peerj.5133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Marzban Abbasabadi, B. , Hajian, O. , & Rahmati, S. (2020). Investigating the morphometric characteristics of male and female zell sheep skulls for sexual dimorphism. Anatomical Sciences, 17(1), 13–20. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mirjana, D. , Concepción, R. , Patricia, G. , Inmaculada, A. , & Miguel, B. (2014). Morphometric sex estimation from 3D computed tomography os coxae model and its validation in skeletal remains. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 128, 879–888. 10.1007/s00414-014-1033-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Mohamed, R. , Driscoll, M. , & Mootoo, N. (2016). Clinical anatomy of the skull of the Barbados black belly sheep in Trinidad. International Journal of Current Research in Medical Sciences, 2, 8–19. [Google Scholar]
  33. Monfared, A. L. (2013). Clinical anatomy of the skull of Iranian native sheep. Global Veterinaria, 10(3), 271–275. [Google Scholar]
  34. Morone, P. J. , Shah, K. J. , Hendricks, B. K. , & Cohen‐Gadol, A. A. (2019). Virtual, 3‐dimensional temporal bone model and its educational value for neurosurgical trainees. World Neurosurgery, 122, e1412–e1415. 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.11.074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Onar, V. , Ozcan, S. , & Pazvant, G. (2001). Skull typology of adult male Kangal dogs. Anatomia Histologia Embryologia, 30, 41–48. 10.1046/j.1439-0264.2001.00292.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Özcan, S. , Aksoy, G. , Kürtül, İ. , Aslan, K. , & Özüdoğru, Z. (2010). A comparative morphometric study on the skull of the Tuj and Morkaraman sheep. Kafkas Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 111–114. [Google Scholar]
  37. Özkadı̇f, S. , & Eken, E. (2015). Contribution of virtual anatomic models to medical education. Atatürk Üniversitesi Veteriner Bilimler Dergisi, 10, 46–54. [Google Scholar]
  38. Özüdoğru, Z. , Özdemir, D. , Teke, B. E. , & Kırbaş, M. (2022). Morphological and craniometrical studies on the skull of the south Karaman sheep. Acta Morphologica et Anthropologica, 29(1‐2),  . [Google Scholar]
  39. Parés‐Casanova, P. M. (2014). Osteometric study of the Rasquera White goat. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 42(2), 177–185. 10.1080/09712119.2013.824887 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Pares‐Casanova, P. , Sarma, K. , & Jordana, J. (2010). On biometrical aspects of the cephalic anatomy of Xisqueta sheep (Catalunya, Spain). International Journal of Morphology, 28, 347–351. 10.4067/S0717-95022010000200001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Parthasarathy, J. (2014). 3D modeling, custom implants and its future perspectives in craniofacial surgery. Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery, 4(1), 9–18. 10.4103/2231-0746.133065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Rooppakhun, S. , Piyasin, S. , Vatanapatimakul, N. , Kaewprom, Y. , & Sitthiseripratip, K. (2010). Craniometric study of thai skull based on three‐dimensional computed tomography (CT) data. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet, 93, 90–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Schaller, O. , & Constantinescu, G. M. (2007). Illustrated veterinary anatomical nomenclature. Georg Thieme Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sen, M. (2020). Reproductive traits, growth, survivability, and some body measurements in Romanov sheep. Ondokuz Mayis University Institute of Health Sciences (PHD Thesis).
  45. Sergovich, A. , Johnson, M. , & Wilson, T. D. (2010). Explorable three‐dimensional digital model of the female pelvis, pelvic contents, and perineum for anatomical education. Anatomical Sciences Education, 3(3), 127–133. 10.1002/ase.135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Shehu, S. A. , Bello, A. , Danmaigoro, A. , Abdulrasheed, H. A. , Atabo, S. M. , & Mahmud, M. A. (2019). Osteometrical study on age related changes of the skull of Yankasa ram. Journal of Human Anatomy, 3(1), 000136. [Google Scholar]
  47. Soysal, M. İ. , Özkan, E. , & Gürcan, E. K. (2003). The status of native farm animal genetic diversity in Turkey and in the world. Trakia Journal of Sciences, 1(3), 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  48. Süzer, B. , Serbest, A. , Arıcan, İ. , Yonkova, P. , & Yılmaz, B. (2018). A morphometric study on the skull of the turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). Uludağ Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(2), 93–100. 10.30782/uluvfd.427228 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Szara, T. , Günay, E. , Boz, İ. , Batmankaya, B. , Gencer, H. , Gün, G. , çelik, E. C. V. , & Gündemir, O. (2023). Bill Shape Variation in African Penguin (Spheniscus demersus) Held Captive in Two Zoos. Diversity, 15(8), 945. [Google Scholar]
  50. Tecirlioglu, S. (1983). Makro‐Anatomische Untersuchungen über die Skelettkonchen von Hunden und der Hyane. Ankara Univiveristesi Veteriner Fakaültesi Dergisi, 30(1), 149–166. [Google Scholar]
  51. Teo, E.‐C. , Timothy, H. , & Haiblikova, S. (2017). 3D morphometric analysis of human vertebrae C3‐T3 using CT images reconstruction. Journal of Spine, 6,  . 10.4172/2165-7939.1000391 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Von den Driesch, A. (1976). A guide to the measurement of animal bones from archaeological sites (Vol. 1): Peabody Museum Press. [Google Scholar]
  53. Wehausen, J. D. , & Ramey, R. R., II. (2000). Cranial morphometric and evolutionary relationships in the northern range of Ovis canadensis . Journal of Mammalogy, 81(1), 145–161. 10.1644/1545-1542(2000)0813C;0145:CMAERI3E;2.0.CO;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Yilmaz, B. , & Demicioglu, İ. (2020). İvesi Koyunlarda (Ovis aries) Kafatasının Morfometrik Analizi. Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Veteriner Dergisi, 34(1), 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  55. Yilmaz, O. , & Demircioglu, I. (2021). Three‐dimensional reconstruction and morphometric analysis of the mandible in Van cats: a computed tomography (CT) study. Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 24(2), 261–270. 10.24425/pjvs.2021.137661 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Yilmaz, O. , & Demircioglu, İ. (2020). Computed tomography‐based morphometric analysis of the hip bones (Ossa coxae) in Turkish Van Cats. Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi, 27,  . 10.9775/kvfd.2020.24449 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study can be requested from the corresponding author.

Articles from Veterinary Medicine and Science are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES