Identification of species on the basis of histomorphometrical study of compact bone

VARINDER UPPAL; NEELAM BANSAL; ANURADHA ANURADHA

doi:10.56093/ijans.v85i9.51706

Authors

VARINDER UPPAL Associate Professor, Department of Veterinary Anatomy, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab 141 004 India
NEELAM BANSAL Professor cum Head, Department of Veterinary Anatomy, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab 141 004 India
ANURADHA ANURADHA Associate Professor, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab 141 004 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v85i9.51706

Keywords:

Bone histomorphometry, Forensic science, Species identification

Abstract

The study was conducted on femur of human, cattle, buffalo, horse, dog, deer and poultry birds. The tissues were collected from mid shaft (diaphysis) of femur, decalcified, processed and paraffin section were cut. The cut sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, Masson's trichrome, periodic acid Schiff and alcian blue. The species can be identified on the basis of absence of plexiform bone in humans and its presence in animal bone and where plexiform bone is not present, the histomorphometry (Haversian system diameter and Haversian canal diameter) plays an important role in identification. Such type of study should be expanded more so that this data can be applied in forensic science.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Benedix D. 2004. ‘Differentiation of fragmented bone from Southeast Asia: the histological evidence.’ Dissertation submitted to University of Tennessee Knoxville.

Dominguez V M and Crowder C M. 2012. The utility of osteon shape and circularity for differentiating human and nonhuman Haversian bone. In proceedings of 81st Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22097

Hillier L M and Bell L S. 2007. Differentiating human from animal bone: A review of histological methods. Journal of Forensic Science 52(2): doi: 10.1111/j.1556–4029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00368.x

Jowsey J, Kelly P J, Riggs B L, Bianco A J, Scholz D A and Gershon Cohen J. 1965. Quantitative microradiographic studies of normal and osteoporotic bone. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 47: 785–806. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-196547040-00014

Jowsey J.1966. Studies of Haversian systems in man and some other animals. Journal of Anatomy 100(4): 857–64.

Lu H L, Zheng J, Yao Y N, Wang H P, Chen L X and Guo J Y. 2006. Comparison on Haversian system between human and animal bones by imaging analysis. Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi 22(2): 97–100.

Lackey W L.2001. Distinguishing between human and canine bone using Haversian system size and Haversian canal diameter. In proceedings of 53rd Annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Seattle, WA, Colorado Springs, CO, USA.

Luna L G. 1968. Manual of histological staining methods of Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. 3rd edn, pp 34–157.McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.

Martiniakova M, Grosskopf B, Omelka R, Dammers K, Vondrakova M and Bauerova M. 2007. Histological study of compact bone tissue in some mammals: A method for species determination. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 17: 82–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.856

Martiniakova M, Grosskopf B, Omelka R, Vondrakova M and Bauerova M. 2006. Differences among species in compact bone tissue microstructure of mammalian skeleton: Use of a discriminant function analysis for species identification. Journal of Forensic Science 51(6): doi: 10.1111/j.1556–4029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00260.x

Whiteman E J. 2004. ‘Differentiating between human and nonhuman secondary osteons in human, canine and bovine tissue’. Thesis submitted to Michigan State University, USA.