Research Article
Print
Research Article
Functional and evolutionary insights from postnatal skull and cervical development in woodpeckers (Aves: Picinae)
expand article infoSebastián Lyons, Sergio D. Rosset, Mariana Picasso§, Carolina Acosta Hospitaleche|
‡ Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina
§ División Zoología Vertebrados, Museo de La Plata-Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata-CONICET, La Plata, Argentina
| División Paleontología Vertebrados, Museo de La Plata-Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata-CONICET, La Plata, Argentina
Open Access

Abstract

Woodpeckers possess specialised cranial and cervical skeletal adaptations that enable them to excavate wood, yet how these structures form and integrate during development is still largely unknown. While several cranial skeletal traits have been described in this context, their postnatal development has received little attention. This study examines the postnatal skeletal development of four species, from nestlings to juveniles, using cleared and stained specimens to assess ossification and bone fusion. Woodpeckers show delayed cranial and cervical skeletal ossification typical of altricial birds, with many elements remaining cartilaginous in the first post-hatching days. Lineage-specific features—including the dorsal process of the pterygoid and the rostral process of the paroccipital process—ossify later. The rostral process originates in the exoccipital, with minor contribution from the squamosal, supporting its reinterpretation as processus rostralis paroccipitalis (new term). The lacrimal is consistently absent, indicating a true secondary loss probably linked to cranial kinesis. The mesethmoid may contribute to the frontal overhang in species where present. The epiotic forms part of the external cranial vault, also reported in other birds, suggesting it is more widespread than previously assumed. Cervical vertebrae, in turn, follow the altricial pattern, with late ossification of the atlas and unfused neural arches at early stages, showing considerable heterogeneity among altricial birds. Collectively, these findings show how postnatal skeletal development integrates functional, mechanical, and evolutionary constraints, offering new insights into the ontogeny and specialisation of the woodpecker skull and neck.

Keywords

Cranial-cervical morphology, functional morphology, ossification sequence, Piciformes

Introduction

The study of postnatal development offers a unique perspective on how organisms gradually acquire the traits that sustain their lifestyles and adaptive strategies (Plateau and Foth 2020; Hanai et al. 2021). In birds, growth and ossification processes have been investigated across various groups, establishing patterns that link skeletal development with the emergence of key behaviours such as locomotion, feeding, and parental care (e.g., Starck and Ricklefs 1998; Hanai et al. 2021; Picasso 2025). Although numerous studies have examined precocial and altricial developmental modes (e.g., Rogulska 1962; Starck 1993; Starck and Ricklefs 1998; Blom and Lilja 2004; Maxwell 2008, 2009), research on postnatal ontogeny remains much less common than that on embryonic development (Plateau and Foth 2020; Skawiński et al. 2021). This is because most cranial ossifications and fusions occur prenatally, and the rapid postnatal fusion of bones obscures anatomical boundaries, complicating the study of later stages. Nevertheless, the limited available data indicate that both the chronology of ossification and the timing as well as the pattern of bone fusion vary considerably among species (Hogg 1978).

Postnatal development in birds is commonly categorised along the precocial–altricial spectrum, with intermediate conditions also recognised (Starck 1993; Starck and Ricklefs 1998). Most research has focused on precocial species such as Gallus gallus and Coturnix japonica, widely used as experimental or economic models (e.g., Jollie 1957; Rogulska 1962; Pourlis et al. 1998; Maxwell 2008, 2009). By contrast, altricial birds remain poorly studied, partly because obtaining developmental series is challenging: nestlings hatch in a highly dependent, embryo-like state and require prolonged parental care (Carril et al. 2021; Yan and Zhang 2021), and access to nests is often logistically difficult (Mitgutsch et al. 2011). As a result, many aspects of how altricial species acquire adult morphologies remain unclear. Developmental information has been reported for Myiopsitta monachus (Psittaciformes) (Carril and Tambussi 2017), Columba livia (Columbiformes) (Yan and Zhang 2021), and several passerines such as Acrocephalus scirpaceus, Geospiza fortis, Sturnus vulgaris, Troglodytes aedon and Turdus pilaris (Passeriformes) (Huggins et al. 1942; Blom and Lilja 2004; Genbrugge et al. 2011; Skawiński et al. 2021).

Woodpeckers belong to the family Picidae, which is subdivided into three subfamilies: Jynginae, Picumninae, and Picinae, the latter known as the “true woodpeckers” (Shakya et al. 2017). Within Picinae, Dufort (2016) adopted the tribal classification proposed by Winkler et al. (2014), who redefined three major clades originally identified by Webb and Moore (2005) as Campephilini, Picini, and Melanerpini, named after their most representative genera. This organisation received strong phylogenetic support in their supermatrix analyses including 226 species, confirming earlier findings (Benz et al. 2006; Fuchs et al. 2007, 2013).

Woodpeckers (Picidae, Piciformes) fall within the “altricial 2” category of Starck (1993), representing highly altricial birds whose chicks hatch blind, naked, and nearly immobile, fully dependent on parental care (Starck and Ricklefs 1998). In addition, woodpeckers are notable for excavating wood using their beak as a chisel (Oda et al. 2006), a behaviour requiring profound cranial and locomotor modifications. These include cranial and beak reinforcement (Spring 1965; Bock 1999), a tightly packed brain within a reduced subarachnoid space, a specialised hyoid apparatus (May et al. 1976, 1979), strong cervical muscles and vertebrae (Jenni 1981), and a frontal overhang, a thickening of the frontal bone above the maxilla at the frontonasal hinge, which likely limits excessive elevation of the upper beak (Bock 1999; Lyons et al. 2023). Although osteological modifications in adults are well documented (e.g., Donatelli 1996, 2012), their postnatal ontogeny remains virtually unknown. The only study addressing developmental aspects focused solely on external features (Weathers et al. 1990). Comparative approaches have revealed how morphology supports excavation (e.g., Spring 1965; Manegold and Töpfer 2013), but the timing and emergence of these specialisations during development remain unresolved.

Beyond their functional adaptations, woodpeckers pose key questions about the evolutionary history of cranial skeletal elements. For example, Cracraft (1968) proposed that the lacrimal in Picidae is either absent or secondarily fused to the ectethmoid. Developmental data are essential to test this, since adult bone fusion can obscure such features. Ontogenetic series offer crucial evidence distinguishing genuine loss from incorporation into adjacent structures (Kubicek 2022), and for clarifying the functional consequences of these transformations.

Postnatal ontogeny in woodpeckers also shed light on pecking adaptations and offers a unique chance to determine whether extreme traits appear early or gradually during juvenile stages. This developmental perspective is important because adult woodpeckers experience extreme mechanical demands during pecking, and how their skull deals with these forces remains debated. For instance, tau protein accumulation in their brains, resembling chronic traumatic encephalopathy in humans, questions the assumption that they are immune to impact injuries (Farah et al. 2018). Understanding these potential risks requires examining how woodpeckers manage the intense mechanical loads generated during pecking. Although different studies agree that woodpeckers tolerate extremely high linear decelerations during pecking (Wang et al. 2011; Van Wassenbergh et al. 2022a), they diverge in their interpretations of how this is achieved. Wang et al. (2011) proposed that specific anatomical features—such as the unequal upper–lower beak lengths and the elongated hyoid apparatus—may help dissipate or modulate impact stresses, whereas Van Wassenbergh et al. (2022a) concluded that the woodpeckers head function as rigid systems, keeping inertial brain loads below primate concussion thresholds.

Examining how cranial and cervical skeletal structures develop and integrate can clarify when the bases of impact resistance are established and help fill broader gaps in our understanding of altricial development. Moreover, cervical skeletal development is critical for head stabilisation during pecking (Jenni 1981) but remains scarcely studied in birds (Atalgin and Kürtül 2009; Sosa and Acosta Hospitaleche 2018, 2022).

Furthermore, although numerous studies have addressed the biomechanics and ecological functions of adult pecking (e.g., Spring 1965; Lawrence 1967; Bock 1999; Winkler and Christie 2002; Van Wassenbergh et al. 2022a), little is known about when this behaviour first appears during development or when woodpeckers begin to use their tongue effectively. Observations of nestling development in the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Leuconotopicus borealis) suggest that pecking behaviour begins early in ontogeny: by day 18, while still in the nest, chicks already display pecking-like movements when handled, and newly fledged juveniles remain partially dependent on their parents for several months, gradually learning foraging techniques such as bark removal and prey extraction (Ligon 1970). Although behavioural information remains scarce, developmental data from postnatal morphology can nonetheless provide clues about when the anatomical foundations for pecking and tongue-based foraging become functional.

We examined the postnatal ontogeny of four Picinae species, from hatching to advanced juvenile stages. This is the first detailed study of cranial and cervical skeletal development in woodpeckers, documenting the morphological and osteological changes from chick to adult and linking ontogeny with function and evolution.

Materials and methods

Specimens

We examined six nestlings of Colaptes melanochloros, two nestlings of Colaptes campestris, one juvenile of Campephilus leucopogon, and one juvenile of Melanerpes candidus (Picinae). Nestlings were collected after dying of natural causes during ecological fieldwork in Punta Indio, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina, during the 2017–2018 breeding season. Thanks to daily nest monitoring, the approximate age at death was known. All clear and stained nestling specimens were preserved in 70% ethanol and are housed in the ornithological collection of the Fundación Félix de Azara (CFA), whereas juvenile skeletons are deposited in the ornithological collection of the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia” (MACN).

The following specimens were examined during the course of this study: Colaptes campestris Vieillot, 1818 – day 11–12 (CFA-OR-2963), and day 27–28 (CFA-OR-2967); Colaptes melanochloros Gmelin, 1788 – day 2–3 (CFA-OR-2955), day 9–10 (CFA-OR-2966), day 13–14 (CFA-OR-2962), day 15–16 (CFA-OR-2964), day 17–18 (CFA-OR-2968), and day 20–21 (CFA-OR-2965); Campephilus leucopogon Valenciennes, 1826 – juvenile (MACN-OR-68518); Melanerpes candidus Otto, 1796 – juvenile (MACN-OR-68272).

Specimen preparation

For anatomical analysis, skulls and necks were separated approximately at the level of the notarium, except for the youngest specimen (2–3 days), which was entirely eviscerated and skinned. Specimens were cleared and stained following Taylor and Van Dyke (1985) with minor modifications: fixation in formalin was omitted (since all individuals had already been preserved in ethanol), and the bone staining step with alizarin red was combined with the initial digestion of soft tissues. Transparency was achieved either with a saturated borax solution or with 2% KOH at ~30°C until adequate clearing. Finally, specimens were transferred through a graded glycerine series (60%, 80%, 100%) and stored in pure glycerine with thymol crystals as a preservative.

The onset of ossification was determined by the first appearance of alizarin staining, while fusion between bones was assessed by the persistence of a transparent line separating adjacent elements (Hogg 1978). Observations were made under a stereomicroscope (40×), and photographs were taken with a Nikon Coolpix L820 and a Samsung A32 adapted to the scope.

Terminology, abbreviations and regional organisation

In the main text, bone names are given in English to facilitate readability. Abbreviations used in the figures follow the osteological terminology of Baumel et al. (1993), supplemented by Livezey and Zusi (2006) and Manegold and Töpfer (2013). All abbreviations used in the figures are listed next: aa = arcus atlantis; ac = ansa costotransversaria; an = os angulare; ap = ala parasphenoidalis; ar = os articulare; at = atlas; av = arcus vertebrae; ax = axis; bce = basis cranii externa; bh = basihyale; bo = os basioccipitale; cb = ceratobranchiale; cl = condylus lateralis; cm = condylus medialis; co = condylus occipitalis; C = cervical vertebra (number indicates the vertebra); d = os dentale; da = dens axis; dl = dorsal lamina; dmf = dorsal margin of foramen fossae; e = os epioticum; eb = epibranchiale; ec = os ectethmoidale; ecc = os ectethmoidale cartilage; en = entoglossum; eo = os exoccipitale; f = os frontale; fa = facies articularis; fac = facies articularis caudalis; facr = facies articularis cranialis; h = hypapophysis; j = os jugale; la = os laterosphenoidale; lda = lamina dorsalis arcus; md = ossa mandibulae; me = os mesethmoidale; mx = os maxillare; n = os nasale; o = os orbitosphenoidale; occ = occiput; occa = ossification centre of corpus atlantis; op = os opisthoticum; p = os parietale; pa = os palatinum; par = os prearticulare; pc = processus costalis; pca = processus caroticus; pdp = processus dorsalis pterygoidei; pes = pes pterygoidei; pf = processus frontalis; pm = ossa premaxillare; pmx = processus maxillaris; por = processus orbitalis; pot = processus oticus; pp = processus paroccipitalis; ppa = processus palatinus; pr = os prooticum; ps = processus spinosus; psy = pars symphysialis; ptr = processus transversarium; pt = os pterygoideum; pvc = processus ventralis corporis; q = os quadratum; qj = os quadratojugale; r = rib; rp = rostrum parasphenoidale; rpb = rostral process base; rpc = rostral process cartilage; rpco = rostral process centre of ossification; rpp = rostral process of processus paroccipitalis; rtf = rostral tip of os frontale; sa = os supraangulare; si = septum interorbitale; so = os supraoccipitale; sp = os spleniale; sq = os squamosum; taz = tuberculum articularis zygomaticus; tv = thoracic vertebrae; uh = urohiale; zca = zygapophysis caudalis; zcr = zygapophysis cranialis.

The anatomical description follows the regional organisation proposed by Baumel et al. (1993), including: cranial bones, maxillary and palatal bones, mandibular bones, hyoid apparatus, and cervical vertebrae. Some structures could not be analysed due to loss or damage during specimen preparation; in particular, the hyoid apparatus was unavailable in Colaptes campestris nestlings, in several Colaptes melanochloros specimens (days 9–10, 13–14, 17–18, and 20–21), and in both juveniles.

Results

Nestlings

Colaptes melanochloros

Cranial bones. At 2–3 days after hatching, cartilaginous templates of the supraoccipital, laterosphenoid, orbitosphenoid, mesethmoid, and otic elements are present, while the basioccipital, squamosal, parasphenoid rostrum, and parasphenoid lamina are already ossified (Fig. 1A, B). The parietal and frontal display small intramembranous ossification centres, weakly stained and surrounded by mesenchymal tissue (Fig. 1A). An ossification centre is visible in the exoccipital (Fig. 1B). No evidence of ectethmoid or lacrimal is observed. By 9–10 days after hatching, the supraoccipital, laterosphenoid, mesethmoid, otic elements are ossified, and the parietal and frontal show a marked expansion of their ossified areas (Fig. 1C, D, G). The exoccipital and basioccipital also enlarge their ossified regions but retain cartilaginous portions in the paroccipital process and occipital condyle (Fig. 1G), except for the dorsolateral portion of the paroccipital process, which lacks a cartilaginous precursor. At this stage, the opisthotic and prootic fuse with each other and with the exoccipital, the epiotic fuses to the internal lateral margin of the supraoccipital and extends dorsally to reach the external surface of the cranial vault (Fig. 1D), and the parasphenoid lamina is fully fused to the parasphenoid rostrum and partially to the basioccipital (Fig. 1G). At 13–14 days after hatching, ossification expands throughout all elements. The squamosal is fully ossified but unfused, contacting the exoccipital caudoventrally, the parietal dorsally, and the laterosphenoid rostrally (Fig. 2A, B). The orbitosphenoid begins with ossification (Fig. 2B). The cartilaginous precursor of the dorsolateral paroccipital process appears (Fig. 2A), extending rostroventrally from the lateral margin of the exoccipital and contacting the squamosal dorsally. The exoccipitals are completely fused with the basioccipital, supraoccipital, and epiotic (Fig. 2A). From 15–16 days after hatching, ossification intensifies in the parietal and frontal (Fig. 2C, D), with progressive ossification of the ventromedial paroccipital process and parasphenoid ala. In dorsal view, the rostral ends of the frontals extend laterally, with the circular dorsal lamina of the mesethmoid visible between them (Fig. 2C). At 20–21 days after hatching, an ossification centre appears in the cartilage that will form the dorsolateral portion of the paroccipital process (Fig. 2F). At this stage, the occipital condyle, the ventromedial portion of the paroccipital process, and the parasphenoid ala are fully ossified (Fig. 2E). The parietal and frontal appear thinner and more translucent compared with earlier stages.

Figure 1. 

Skull of Colaptes melanochloros at different postnatal stages: days 2–3 (A, B) and days 9–10 (C–G). A right lateral view of the skull and neck, B dorsal view of the skull and first cervical vertebrae, C dorsal view of the skull, D detail of the relationship between the os supraoccipitale and os epioticum, E os mesethmoidale in right lateral view, F os mesethmoidale in dorsal view, G Dorsal view of the basis cranii interna and first cervical vertebrae. Scale bars: 5 mm (A–C, G), 2 mm (D–F).

Figure 2. 

Skull of Colaptes melanochloros at different postnatal stages: days 13–14 (A, B), days 15–16 (C, D), and days 20–21 (E, F). A ventral view, B right lateral view, C dorsal view, D right lateral view, E ventral view, F detail of the left margin of E, showing the cartilage of the rostral process. Scale bars: 10 mm (A–E), 2 mm (F).

Maxillary and palatal bones. At 2–3 days after hatching, ossification centres are present in the quadrate (corpus and proximal otic process) and nasal, while the pterygoid, palatine, jugal, quadratojugal, maxilla, and premaxilla are ossified (Fig. 1A, B). The quadratojugal is weakly stained, indicating incipient ossification. The jugal and maxilla are fused (Fig. 1A), and the paired premaxillae are fused rostromedially (Fig. 1B). At 9–10 days after hatching, the quadrate shows complete ossification of the mandibular and orbital processes (Fig. 1G). By 13–14 days after hatching, ossification expands, and the quadrate develops ossification in the orbital process, mandibular process, and zygomatic articular tubercle. Ossification of the orbital process of the quadrate progresses at 15–16 days after hatching, and all maxillary bones show more intense staining (Fig. 2C). By 17–18 days after hatching, the quadrate is fully ossified (Fig. 3C, D). At 20–21 days after hatching, all elements appear thinner and more translucent than at the preceding stage (Fig. 2E).

Figure 3. 

Development of cranial elements of the maxilla et palati region, mandible, and os quadratum of Colaptes melanochloros at different postnatal stages. A ventral view of the skull, days 2–3, B dorsal view of the maxilla, days 20–21, C os quadratum in rostrolateral view, days 17–18, D os quadratum in caudomedial view, days 17–18. Scale bars: 5 mm (A, B), 2 mm (C, D).

Mandibular bones. At 2–3 days after hatching, the dentary, splenial, angular, supraangular, and prearticular are ossified (Figs 1A, 3A), with an ossification centre in the articular at the medial mandibular process. In the mounted specimens (Figs 1A, 2B, D), where the upper and lower jaws could be examined in articulation—the lower beak consistently projected slightly beyond the upper beak. The dentary displays an elongate fenestra. At 9–10 days after hatching, the articular, splenial, and dentary remain unfused, while the angular fuses with the supraangular, and the prearticular is partially fused to the articular (Fig. 4A). At 13–14 days after hatching, the paired dentaries are partially fused rostrally (Fig. 2A). Ossification of the dentary increases at 15–16 days after hatching, and all mandibular bones show more intense staining (Fig. 2D). By 17–18 days after hatching, caudal elements are fully ossified and fused, while the splenial remains separate, and the dentaries are fused to each other at the mandibular symphysis (Fig. 4B, C). At 20–21 days after hatching, the mandible appears thinner and less fused than in the preceding stage (Fig. 4D).

Figure 4. 

Mandibular development of Colaptes melanochloros at different postnatal stages. A medial view, days 9–10, B lateral view of the caudal part, days 17–18, C ventral view, days 17–18. D ventral view, days 20–21. Scale bar: 10 mm.

Hyoid apparatus. At 2–3 days after hatching, the entoglossum and basihyal are ossified, while the urohyal, ceratobranchial, and epibranchial remain cartilaginous (Figs 1A, 3A). By 15–16 days after hatching, the morphology of the entoglossum is clearly distinguishable, being arrow-shaped with paired foramina; the basihyal is ossified in its caudal two-thirds; the ceratobranchial is completely ossified; the urohyal remains cartilaginous; and the right epibranchial shows a proximal ossification centre (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. 

Apparatus hyobranchialis of Colaptes melanochloros at days 15–16. Scale bar: 10 mm.

Cervical vertebrae. At 2–3 days after hatching, ossification centres are visible in the vertebral bodies of all cervical vertebrae except the atlas, which remains cartilaginous (Figs 1A, B, 6A). Bilateral ossification centres occur in the neural arches of all cervical vertebrae, including the atlas (Fig. 6A). At 9–10 days after hatching, an ossification centre appears in the body of the atlas, and the neural arches of the atlas are ossified but unfused dorsomedially (Fig. 6B). Other cervical vertebrae show fusion of arches and bodies, except for the rostroventral junction, which remains cartilaginous between the costotransverse ansa and cranial articular surface (Fig. 6B). The dens of the axis is cartilaginous, and cranial and caudal articular facets, zygapophyses, ventral processes, neural spines, costal processes, dorsal tubercles, transverse processes, carotid processes, and hypapophyses of the cervical series are incompletely ossified. At 13–14 days after hatching, ossification expands in all structures except the condylar fossa of the atlas, which remains cartilaginous (Fig. 6C). No further changes occur at 15–16 days after hatching. By 20–21 days after hatching, the ventral and lateral portions of the condylar fossa of the atlas are ossified, the dens of the axis is fully ossified, and the ventral processes and transverse processes are completely ossified. Ossification also expands in the neural spines and costal processes (Fig. 6D).

Figure 6. 

Development of cervical vertebrae of Colaptes melanochloros at different postnatal stages. A dorsal view, days 2–3, B dorsal view, days 9–10, C right lateral view, days 15–16, D right lateral view, days 20–21. Scale bar: 10 mm.

Colaptes campestris

Cranial bones. At 11–12 days after hatching, all neurocranial elements are ossified except the orbitosphenoid and ectethmoid, with varying degrees of fusion in the ventral and occipital regions (Fig. 7A), but no fusion between the frontals and parietals dorsally (Fig. 8A). The exoccipital is partially fused with the supraoccipital and the epiotic, and the latter two begin to fuse externally on the cranial vault (Fig. 7B). The paroccipital process of the exoccipital is absent. The basioccipital is completely fused to the parasphenoid lamina, and the base of the occipital condyle is ossified (Fig. 7A). Ossification begins in the parasphenoid ala (Fig. 7A). On each side of the mesethmoid septum, cartilage precursors of the ectethmoid are visible (Fig. 7C), while no recognizable cartilaginous tissue is present where the lacrimal typically develops. By 27–28 days after hatching, ossification appears at the base of the dorsolateral portion of the paroccipital process (Fig. 7D). The squamosal is fused with the basioccipital and laterosphenoid. The frontals and parietals are fully ossified but remain unfused. The mesethmoid shows expanded ossification contributing to both its medial septum and dorsal lamina, while the ectethmoid develops laterally through ossification of its cartilaginous precursors (Fig. 7E).

Figure 7. 

Skull and mesethmoid of Colaptes campestris at days 11–12 (A–C) and days 27–28 (D–F). A skull in ventral view, B detail of the relationship between os epioticum and os supraoccipitale in caudolateroventral view, C os mesethmoidale in cranial view, D skull in ventral view, E os mesethmoidale in cranial view. Scale bar: 5 mm.

Maxillary and palatal bones. At 11–12 days after hatching, the pterygoid is ossified except for its dorsal process (Fig. 8A), which remains cartilaginous. In the quadrate, the orbital process, mandibular process, and zygomatic articular tubercle remain cartilaginous (Fig. 8A). Elements of the maxilla and part of the palatine were lost during preparation. By 27–28 days after hatching, the base of the pterygoids’ dorsal process is ossified (Fig. 8D). The maxillary elements are completely ossified, and the premaxillae are fused rostromedially at the base of their frontal processes (Fig. 8C). The palatine, jugal, and quadratojugal are completely ossified but remain unfused from other elements.

Figure 8. 

Development of cranial elements of the maxilla et palati region and mandible of Colaptes campestris at different postnatal stages. A skull in dorsolaterocranial view, days 11–12, B mandible in medial view, days 11–12, C maxilla in ventral view, days 27–28, D right pterygoid in craniodorsal view. Scale bar: 10 mm.

Mandibular bones. At 11–12 days after hatching, all mandibular elements are ossified. Partial fusion is observed among caudal elements, while the dentary and splenial remain unfused (Fig. 8B). By 27–28 days after hatching, all mandibular elements are ossified and the splenial is fused with the dentary.

Cervical vertebrae. At 11–12 days after hatching, the atlas corpus is ossified, except for the condylar fossa, and fused to the neural arch. The two centres of the neural arch are fused dorsally. The proximal portion of the dens of the axis is ossified. In the remaining cervical vertebrae, corpus and neural arches are completely ossified and fused (Fig. 9A). Cranial and caudal articular facets, zygapophyses, neural spines, ventral processes, costal processes, carotid processes, transverse processes, dorsal tubercles, and hypapophyses show early or incomplete ossification (Fig. 9A). By 27–28 days after hatching, all cervical vertebrae are completely ossified (Fig. 9C), except for the atlas, in which the dorsal part of the condylar fossa remains cartilaginous (Fig. 9B).

Figure 9. 

Development of cervical vertebrae of Colaptes campestris at different postnatal stages. A lateral view, days 11–12, B atlas in cranial view, days 27–28, C lateral view, days 27–28. Scale bar: 10 mm (A, C), 2 mm (B).

Comparison between Colaptes melanochloros and Colaptes campestris

At comparable stages, no major differences were observed in the general pattern of ossification between the two species. The C. melanochloros specimen at 9–10 days after hatching and the C. campestris specimen at 11–12 days exhibit very similar developmental features. However, due to the loss of maxillary and palatal elements during preparation in the C. campestris specimen, their degree of ossification could not be evaluated. In C. melanochloros, these bones remain largely cartilaginous at this stage, suggesting that in C. campestris they may have been in a similar condition and thus more prone to loss during preparation. In contrast, comparison of the C. campestris specimen at 27–28 days after hatching with the C. melanochloros specimen at 20–21 days after hatching reveals a more advanced degree of development in the former, consistent with the age difference. Beyond this chronological offset, no marked differences were detected in the sequence of ossification or in the fusion of skeletal elements between the two species.

Juveniles

Campephilus leucopogon

Cranial bones. The elements forming the cranial bones and occiput are completely ossified and fused (Fig. 10C). In the calvaria, the frontals and parietals remain unfused, both to each other and to adjacent bones (Fig. 10A, B). In the temporal region, the squamosal is not fused with the exoccipital or parietal and it barely contacts the frontal due to the rostral extension of the lateral margin of the parietal and the caudal development of the laterosphenoid between them. The squamosal contributes to the rostral process of the paroccipital process, although only the base of this structure is ossified. The laterosphenoid entirely forms the postorbital process, which remains unfused with the frontal. The interorbital septum is incompletely ossified at the level of the interorbital fonticulus (Fig. 10B).

Figure 10. 

Skull, mandible, and cervical vertebrae of a juvenile Campephilus leucopogon of undetermined age. A skull in dorsal view, B skull in right lateral view, C skull in caudal view, D mandible in dorsal view, E C6 in dorsal view, F mandible in right lateral view, G C10 in dorsal view. Scale bars: 10 mm (A–D, F); 5 mm (E, G).

Maxillary and palatal bones. In the maxilla, the frontal processes are not fully fused. The quadrate and pterygoid are fully ossified (Fig. 10B), while the other palatal elements are absent in the specimen and therefore could not be described.

Mandibular bones. In the mandible, both the articular and the dentary show incomplete ossification. Mandibular elements, including the angular, prearticular, surangular, and splenial, remain incompletely fused (Fig. 10D, F).

Cervical vertebrae. In cervical vertebrae C6 and C10, the vertebrae are fully developed except for the dorsal lamina of the neural arch, which remains incompletely ossified in its rostral half (Fig. 10E, G). The other vertebrae were absent in the available specimen and therefore could not be analysed.

Melanerpes candidus

Cranial bones. The frontals remain unfused, except rostrally where instead they are fused to the dorsal lamina of the mesethmoid, which appears as a porous unpaired ossified structure (Fig. 11A). The mesethmoid is externally visible on the forehead between the frontals, whose rostral ends project laterally around it. It is also fused to adjacent cranial bones, including the caudal and ventrocaudal surfaces of the frontal processes of the premaxillary and the nasals (Fig. 11A). The frontals remain unfused and show no fusion with the parietals (Fig. 11A, C, D). However, the frontals still are fused with the surrounding cranial elements. In the temporal region, the rostral processes of the paroccipital process are markedly thinner compared with adult specimens of the genus, suggesting incomplete ossification (Fig. 11G).

Figure 11. 

Skull, maxilla, mandible, and cervical vertebra of a juvenile Melanerpes candidus of undetermined age. A skull in dorsal view, B maxilla in right rostrolaterodorsal view, C skull in right lateral view, D skull in caudal view, E mandible in right lateral view, F atlas (C1) in caudal view. Scale bars: 10 mm (A–E); 2 mm (F).

Maxillary and palatal bones. In the maxilla, the nasal is not completely fused with the maxilla or with the frontal process of the premaxilla (Fig. 11B). The frontal processes remain unfused caudally. The jugal and quadratojugal are also unfused (Fig. 11A).

Mandibular bones. In the mandible, the articular is fully ossified and fused with the prearticular, angular, and supraangular. However, the angular has not completed its fusion with these elements. The splenial and dentary are fused to each other but remain unfused to the supraangular and angular.

Cervical vertebrae. The atlas shows the condylar fossa partially ossified dorsally. The ansa costotransversaria exhibits incomplete development in its ventral region and remains free, without fusion to the vertebral body (Fig. 11F). The remaining cervical vertebrae are completely ossified.

Comparison between Campephilus leucopogon and Melanerpes candidus

At comparable juvenile stages, both species show broadly similar patterns of skeletal development, but M. candidus generally exhibits more advanced fusion of cranial and mandibular elements. In the neurocranium, the basioccipital and occipital elements are fully ossified and fused in both species. The frontals and parietals remain unfused in both, although in M. candidus a porous unpaired structure is present at the rostral end, absent in C. leucopogon. In the temporal region, the rostral process of the paroccipital process is only ossified at its base in C. leucopogon, whereas in M. candidus it is fully ossified.

In the maxillae and palatal region, elements forming the upper beak are incompletely fused in both species. Several palatal elements were missing in the available specimens, preventing precise comparison.

Mandibular elements in M. candidus show more advanced development, with the articular fully ossified and fused to adjacent bones. In contrast, the articular in C. leucopogon remains incompletely ossified, and other mandibular elements in both species are only partially fused.

Cervical vertebrae comparison is limited by the absence of most vertebrae in M. candidus. In C. leucopogon, C6 and C10 are fully developed except for the dorsal lamina of the neural arch. In M. candidus, the atlas shows partial ossification of the condylar fossa, and the ansa costotransversaria remains incompletely developed ventrally; other vertebrae could not be analysed.

Discussion

Comparative developmental patterns of woodpeckers and other birds

Ontogenetic patterns of ossification and fusion

Woodpeckers displayed a delayed onset of cranial and cervical ossification, with many elements still cartilaginous in the first post-hatching days, a condition typical of altricial birds (Genbrugge et al. 2011; Mitgutsch et al. 2011; Carril and Tambussi 2017; Skawiński et al. 2021). In contrast, precocial species ossify most skeletal elements before hatching (Hogg 1978; Starck 1993). The timing of cranial fusions parallels other highly altricial taxa, such as Myiopsitta monachus (Psittacidae, Psittaciformes) (Carril et al. 2021) and Geospiza fortis (Thraupidae, Passeriformes) (Genbrugge et al. 2011), where basicranium and occipital integration begins early and progresses rapidly throughout the postnatal period. In both M. monachus and G. fortis, some mandibular fusions occur prenatally, whereas in woodpeckers these unions take place exclusively postnatally. In all three altricial taxa, however, the articular ossifies during the first post-hatching days and remains separate from the prearticular until late nestling stages, reflecting a conserved altricial pattern (Genbrugge et al. 2011; Carril and Tambussi 2017).

Variation was also detected within the woodpeckers examined in this study, with the specimen of 20–21 days showing lower ossification than that of 17–18 days. Similar intraspecific variability is documented in Taeniopygia guttata (Estrildidae, Passeriformes) indicating natural developmental heterogeneity rather than methodological artifacts (Mitgutsch et al. 2011). Such differences among individuals of comparable age are common in avian ontogenetic series (Starck and Ricklefs 1998; Maxwell 2008) and may reflect environmental influences or intrinsic growth plasticity (Blom and Lilja 2004). Recognizing this variability is essential for interpreting developmental timing across taxa and for distinguishing genuine interspecific patterns from individual variation (Morris et al. 2024).

Cervical vertebrae development followed the altricial pattern: the atlas ossified later, and neural arches remained unfused to centra at early stages (Carril and Tambussi 2017; Skawiński et al. 2021), contrasting with Acrocephalus scirpaceus (Acrocephalidae, Passeriformes), where fusion from C3 is visible early (Skawiński et al. 2021). This highlights considerable heterogeneity in cervical skeletal development among altricial birds, suggesting that neck ossification may evolve under lineage-specific functional demands rather than following a uniform altricial pattern (Carril and Tambussi 2017; Skawiński et al. 2021). In woodpeckers, this delayed cervical maturation could reflect the late onset of behaviours—particularly pecking— that require head stabilisation (Jung et al. 2016).

The ossification sequence of the basicranium and occipital bones followed the ventrodorsal and caudorostral fusion model (Jollie 1957; Hogg 1978; Plateau and Foth 2020). In juveniles, these regions were fully ossified and fused, whereas frontals and parietals showed variable states: in Campephilus leucopogon, both remained unfused; in Melanerpes candidus, parietals were fused to each other but not to frontals, suggesting a more advanced developmental stage despite unknown age. Additional evidence supporting this interpretation includes the complete ossification of the rostral process of the paroccipital process in M. candidus (only incipient in C. leucopogon) and a more mature mandible, with the articular fully ossified and fused to adjacent elements. Together, these features indicate that the M. candidus specimen likely represents a later juvenile stage than the C. leucopogon individual.

A distinctive feature of woodpeckers is the late ossification of the orbitosphenoid around days 13–14, delayed relative to G. fortis (Genbrugge et al. 2011) but earlier than in precocial Gallus gallus (days 77–84, Hogg 1978). This reflects the broader trend that postnatal ossification progresses slowly in precocial birds but accelerates in altricials during the first three weeks (Hogg 1978; Blom and Lilja 2004). Elements essential for pecking performance, such as the dorsal process of the pterygoid, the rostral process of the processus paroccipitalis, and the ectethmoid contacting the jugal bar (Spring 1965; Donatelli 1996; Manegold and Töpfer 2013), ossify later, supporting delayed emergence of clade-specific traits (Starck and Ricklefs 1998).

The ossification sequence of the hyoid apparatus in woodpeckers shows that by days 2–3 the entoglossum and basihyal are ossified, while the ceratobranchiale and epibranchiale ossify only after days 15–16 and the urohyal remains unossified. The pronounced elongation of the epibranchial horns (Bock 1999) may reflect an extended cartilaginous stage prior to ossification (Ortega et al. 2004). This ossification pattern contrasts with the monk parakeet M. monachus, where these elements are already ossified by days 0–5 (Carril and Tambussi 2017), reflecting an earlier functional readiness of the tongue in psittacids. In woodpeckers, despite the tongue’s extreme specialization (Bock 1999; Villard and Cuisin 2004), full functionality is achieved only post-fledging (Blume 1971). Such delayed ossification challenges the “functional hypothesis” which predicts early ossification of performance-critical elements (Mabee et al. 2000; Maxwell 2008), and aligns woodpeckers more closely with other altricial taxa, such as the Darwin’s finch Geospiza fortis, where the urohyal and epibranchiale also ossify late (Genbrugge et al. 2011). However, because the woodpecker tongue operates as a functionally complex system whose mechanics do not straightforwardly depend on the degree of skeletal ossification (Jung et al. 2016), the implications of delayed hyoid ossification should be interpreted with caution. Additionally, we confirm the presence of a urohyal in woodpeckers (Donatelli 1996), contradicting earlier claims of its absence (Jung et al. 2016).

Overall, woodpeckers fit within the altricial developmental spectrum, with early ossification of broadly functional regions but delayed maturation of lineage-specific specialisations.

A further cranial feature observed in the earliest post-hatching stages is a slight projection of the lower beak relative to the upper one. This condition is shared with other members of Picocoraciae—a clade uniting Piciformes, Coraciiformes, and Bucerotiformes (Prum et al. 2015)—as coraciiform and bucerotiform neonates also hatch with a prognathic lower beak that persists for several days (Gamble 2014). Interestingly, woodpeckers retain this trait into adulthood: although externally masked by the longer rhamphotheca of the maxilla, the bony mandible is slightly longer than the premaxilla (Wang et al. 2011). This suggests that the neonatal prognathous condition may be paedomorphically conserved in woodpeckers. Although Wang et al. (2011) suggested that this retention might contribute to absorbing impact stresses, its functional relevance for pecking or cranial loading dynamics remains to be tested.

The rostral process of the processus paroccipitalis

We identified the rostral process, a distinctive apomorphic feature of Picinae (Manegold and Töpfer 2013). Our developmental observations clarify its origin, showing that this process forms predominantly from the exoccipital, with a smaller contribution from the ventral portion of the squamosal. This indicates that it constitutes a rostral projection of the processus paroccipitalis rather than an independent structure. These results support the interpretation that the so-called “rostral process” of Manegold and Töpfer (2013) is a modified component of the processus paroccipitalis. Accordingly, we propose to designate this apomorphic feature of Picinae as the processus rostralis paroccipitalis (new term).

Epiotic contribution to the external cranial surface

Another relevant observation concerns the epiotic bone. Contrary to the commonly accepted view that this element becomes entirely covered by the exoccipital and supraoccipital during early development (Livezey and Zusi 2006), in Colaptes the epiotic remains exposed and contributes directly to the external skull surface. Evidence of external epiotic exposure has been documented in several taxa, suggesting that it may be more common than previously thought, including Paleognathae (Struthio, Rhea, Dromaius) and Neognathae (Passer domesticus, Hirundo, Turdus, Buteo jamaicensis) (Jollie 1957). In penguins, photographic material presented by Sosa and Acosta Hospitaleche (2018) also shows the epiotic as part of the cranial surface. These observations indicate that epiotic exposure is not unique to woodpeckers but has evolved repeatedly across birds, in both basal and more derived lineages, as well as in precocial and altricial birds, and is likely underestimated in traditional accounts of cranial anatomy. A comprehensive comparative survey will be required to determine whether the exposed or covered state represents the ancestral avian condition.

Functional implications

Postnatal skeletal development is central to shaping avian skull morphology and its evolutionary trajectory. Delayed ossification and variable bone fusion timing can influence adult form, either constraining or facilitating evolutionary change (Bhullar et al. 2016; Smith-Paredes et al. 2018; Picasso 2025). In this context, analyses of woodpecker postnatal sequences provide insights into the developmental origins of their cranial specialisations.

Implications of lacrimal loss in kinetics

One of the most striking findings of this study is the complete absence of the lacrimal bone across all examined stages. Since this element normally ossifies early in avian ontogeny (Carril and Tambussi 2017; Arnaout et al. 2021), its absence in Picinae supports a true secondary loss rather than fusion with the ectethmoid, as previously suggested by Cracraft (1968), and later by Simpson and Cracraft (1981). Rather than weakening the skull, the loss of the lacrimal likely reflects a functional reorganisation. In other amniote lineages, particularly during the evolution from premammalian cynodonts to early mammals, simplification of cranial elements has been shown to redistribute stresses and enhance performance (Lautenschlager et al. 2023). More specifically in birds, the loss of the lacrimal bar has been associated with the evolution of cranial kinesis, facilitating the transfer of quadrate motion to the upper beak via the jugal bar and palate (Bout and Zweers 2001).

Classical studies emphasised the role of the lacrimal–ectethmoid complex as a retractor stop, preventing excessive depression of the upper jaw during kinesis (Fisher 1955; Bock 1964; Cracraft 1968). These stops were thought to buffer abnormal external forces acting on the bill, such as accidental impacts against hard objects, which could otherwise disrupt the kinetic hinge. Interestingly, woodpeckers habitually subject their skulls to extreme external forces during pecking, yet they entirely lack this structural stop. In woodpeckers, the cranial system has been observed to reorganise in a different way to accommodate such forces (Lyons 2025).

A key element of this reorganization is the unusual prokinesis in Picidae: Rather than the typical elevation of the upper beak coupled with mandibular depression, woodpeckers exhibit a consistent downward displacement of the upper beak (Lyons et al. 2023). In this context, the lacrimal—located more rostrally than the ectethmoid—could represent a structural obstacle to upper beak depression, a motion that woodpeckers actively use during the rapid retraction of a beak that becomes lodged in wood (Van Wassenbergh et al. 2022b). Its absence may thus remove kinetic constraints, while the ectethmoid, positioned more caudally, can still maintain contact with the jugal bar and preserve functional connectivity. The loss of the lacrimal, therefore, could represent an adaptive modification enhancing both cranial kinesis and the redistribution of stresses.

Altogether, these observations suggest that the secondary loss of the lacrimal in woodpeckers is not a byproduct of cranial simplification, but an evolutionary adaptation aligned with their distinctive kinetic regime.

Functional role of mesethmoid development

Beyond the absence of the lacrimal, additional modifications in the frontonasal hinge may contribute to the distinctive kinetic system of woodpeckers. In some species, bony projection known as the frontal overhang restricts movements of the upper beak (Bock 1999; Lyons et al. 2023). This structure has been interpreted as an apomorphy of the clade including Picumninae and Picinae (Manegold and Töpfer 2013), although its degree of development varies among lineages: it reaches its greatest development within the tribe Melanerpini, while it is absent in Picini and strongly reduced in Campephilus species (Donatelli 1996; Manegold and Töpfer 2013; Lyons 2025). Our observations suggest that in juveniles, the highly porous, unpaired bone located rostrally between the frontal bones correspond to the dorsal lamina of the mesethmoid, rather than the frontals, which are usually fused to each other until reaching the frontal processes of the premaxilla or those of the nasals (e.g., Livezey and Zusi 2006; Plateau et al. 2024). Consequently, what is usually referred to as the frontonasal hinge is, to a large extent, formed by the junction between the mesethmoid and the premaxilla, with only a relatively small contribution from the contact between the frontals and nasals at the lateral margins of the hinge (Fig. 11A). Thus, the dorsal lamina of the mesethmoid appears to constitute the main component of the so-called frontal overhang, a structure likely to play a key role from a functional perspective.

Functionally, this configuration has two major implications: first, it places the mesethmoid as a key structural element reinforcing both the interorbital septum and the cranial roof immediately posterior to the base of the upper beak (Van Wassenbergh et al. 2022a); second, by forming the main component of the frontal overhang, it restricts the elevation of the upper beak during cranial kinesis, as originally suggested by Bock (1999) and further supported by recent experimental evidence showing that the upper beak elevates only minimally in woodpeckers compared to other birds (Lyons et al. 2023).

These observations indicate that the mesethmoid plays a complex functional role in woodpecker cranial architecture, not only as structural support beneath the frontal bones but also as a central component in the integration of impact resistance and kinetic capabilities in Picidae.

Conclusions

This study provides the first detailed account of postnatal cranial and cervical skeletal development in woodpeckers, contributing to the understanding of their functional morphology, and expanding current knowledge of their ontogeny and evolutionary history. Woodpeckers show delayed ossification and bone fusion in many cranial and cervical elements, consistent with extreme altriciality. Several evolutionary modifications become evident during postnatal development: The consistent absence of the lacrimal, likely enhancing cranial kinesis; the mesethmoid contributes to the interorbital septum and cranial roof and, in Melanerpini, forms the frontal overhang that constrains upper beak movements during cranial kinesis and pecking; the processus rostralis paroccipitalis, clarified here as a projection of the exoccipital with a small squamosal contribution; and the external exposure of the epiotic, a condition more widespread among birds than previously recognised. Despite the limited sample size, a common challenge in studies of wild birds, these results demonstrate how postnatal development can illuminate hidden aspects of skull morphology, linking developmental patterns with the functional and evolutionary innovations that define Picidae.

Acknowledgments

We thank Y. Davies for granting access to the MACN collections and for assisting with the deposition of specimens in the FFA bird collection. We also thank A. Jauregui for donating the nestling specimens, and A. Carlini and F. Riccillo for providing material used in the clearing and staining protocols. To the reviewers and the editor for their suggestions that improved this contribution. This work was supported by a doctoral fellowship awarded to S.L. from the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET, Argentina). This work is part of the projects PIP0086 (CONICET) and N1044 (Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina).

References

  • Arnaout B, Lantigua KE, MacKenzie EM, McKinnell IW, Maddin HC (2021) Development of the chicken skull: A complement to the external staging table of Hamburger and Hamilton. Anatomical Record 304: 2726–2740. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24603
  • Baumel J, King A, Breazile J, Evans H, Vanden Berge J (1993) Handbook of Avian Anatomy: Nomina Anatomica Avium. 2nd Edition. Nuttall Ornithology Club, Cambridge, MA, 779 pp.
  • Benz BW, Robbins MB, Peterson AT (2006) Evolutionary history of woodpeckers and allies (Aves: Picidae): Placing key taxa on the phylogenetic tree. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 40: 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2006.02.021
  • Bhullar BAS, Hanson M, Fabbri M, Pritchard A, Bever GS, Hoffman E (2016) How to make a bird skull: Major transitions in the evolution of the avian cranium, paedomorphosis, and the beak as a surrogate hand. Integrative and Comparative Biology 56: 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icw069
  • Blume D (1971) Spechte fremder Länder. A. Ziemsen Verlag, Wittenberg-Lutherstadt, 117 pp.
  • Carril J, Tambussi CP (2017) Skeletogenesis of Myiopsitta monachus (Psittaciformes) and sequence heterochronies in Aves. Evolution & Development 19: 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/ede.12211
  • Carril J, Tambussi CP, Rasskin-Gutman D (2021) The network ontogeny of the parrot: Altriciality, dynamic skeletal assemblages, and the avian body plan. Evolutionary Biology 48: 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-020-09522-w
  • Cracraft J (1968) The lacrimal-ectethmoid bone complex in birds: A single character analysis. American Midland Naturalist 316–359. https://doi.org/10.2307/2423530
  • Donatelli RJ (1996) The jaw apparatus of the Neotropical and of the Afrotropical woodpeckers (Aves: Piciformes). Arquivos de Zoologia 33: 1–70.
  • Dufort MJ (2016) An augmented supermatrix phylogeny of the avian family Picidae reveals uncertainty deep in the family tree. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 94: 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2015.08.025
  • Fisher HI (1955) Some aspects of the kinetics in the jaws of birds. Wilson Bulletin 67: 175–188.
  • Fuchs J, Pons JM, Liu L, Ericson PG, Couloux A, Pasquet E (2013) A multi-locus phylogeny suggests an ancient hybridization event between Campephilus and melanerpine woodpeckers (Aves: Picidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 67: 578–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2013.02.014
  • Gamble KC (2014) Coraciiformes (kingfishers, motmots, bee-eaters, hoopoes, hornbills). Fowler’s Zoo and Wild Animal Medicine 8: 225–230.
  • Genbrugge A, Heyde AS, Adriaens D, Boone M, Van Hoorebeke L, Dirckx J, Aerts P, Podos J, Herrel A (2011) Ontogeny of the cranial skeleton in a Darwin’s finch (Geospiza fortis). Journal of Anatomy 219: 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2011.01388.x
  • Hanai T, Iwami Y, Tomita N, Tsuihiji T (2021) Postnatal cranial ontogeny and growth strategies in the black-tailed gull Larus crassirostris breeding on Kabu Island, Aomori, Japan. Journal of Zoology 315: 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12907
  • Hogg DA (1978) The articulations of the neurocranium in the postnatal skeleton of the domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus). Journal of Anatomy 127: 53.
  • Jenni L (1981) Das Skelettmuskelsystem des Halses von Buntspecht und Mittelspecht Dendrocopos major und D. medius. Journal für Ornithologie 122: 37–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01643442
  • Jung JY, Naleway SE, Yaraghi NA, Herrera S, Sherman VR, Bushong EA, Ellisman MH, Kisailus D, McKittrick J (2016) Structural analysis of the tongue and hyoid apparatus in a woodpecker. Acta Biomaterialia 37: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2016.03.030
  • Jollie MT (1957) The head skeleton of the chicken and remarks on the anatomy of this region in other birds. Journal of Morphology 100: 389–436.
  • Kubicek KM (2022) Developmental osteology of Ictalurus punctatus and Noturus gyrinus (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae) with a discussion of siluriform bone homologies. Vertebrate Zoology 72: 661–727. https://doi.org/10.3897/vz.72.e85144
  • Lautenschlager S, Fagan MJ, Luo ZX, Bird CM, Gill P, Rayfield EJ (2023) Functional reorganisation of the cranial skeleton during the cynodont–mammaliaform transition. Communications Biology 6: 367. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-04742-0
  • Livezey BC, Zusi RL (2006) Higher-order phylogenetics of modern Aves based on comparative anatomy: I. Methods and characters. Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 37: 1–544.
  • Lyons S (2025) Adaptaciones al golpe en pájaros carpinteros (Aves: Picidae): estudio morfofuncional del cráneo-mandíbula y cuello. PhD Thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Buenos Aires, 333 pp.
  • Lyons S, Baeckens S, Van Wassenbergh S (2023) Upper beak depression instead of elevation dominates cranial kinesis in woodpeckers. Biology Letters 19: 20230148. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2023.0148
  • Manegold A, Töpfer T (2013) The systematic position of Hemicircus and the stepwise evolution of adaptations for drilling, tapping and climbing up in true woodpeckers (Picinae, Picidae). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 51: 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzs.12000
  • Maxwell EE (2008) Ossification sequence of the avian order Anseriformes, with comparison to other precocial birds. Journal of Morphology 269: 1095–1113. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.10644
  • May PRA, Fuster JM, Haber J, Hirschman A (1979) Woodpecker drilling behavior – An endorsement of the rotational theory of impact brain injury. Archives of Neurology 36: 370.
  • Mitgutsch C, Wimmer C, Sánchez-Villagra MR, Hahnloser R, Schneider RA (2011) Timing of ossification in duck, quail, and zebra finch: Intraspecific variation, heterochronies, and life history evolution. Zoological Science 28: 491. https://doi.org/10.2108/zsj.28.491
  • Morris ZS, Colbert MW, Rowe TB (2024) Variation and variability in skeletal ossification of the gray short-tailed opossum, Monodelphis domestica. Integrative Organismal Biology 6: obae024. https://doi.org/10.1093/iob/obae024
  • Oda J, Sakamoto J, Sakano K (2006) Mechanical evaluation of the skeletal structure and tissue of the woodpecker and its shock absorbing system. JSME International Journal A 49: 390–396.
  • Picasso MB (2025) Postnatal development in a specialized bird: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of pelvic girdle morphological changes in Rhea americana (Aves, Palaeognathae). Journal of Anatomy 247: 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.14219
  • Plateau O, Foth C (2020) Birds have peramorphic skulls, too: Anatomical network analyses reveal oppositional heterochronies in avian skull evolution. Communications Biology 3: 195. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-0914-4
  • Plateau O, Green T, Gignac PM, Foth C (2024) Comparative digital reconstruction of Pica pica and Struthio camelus and their cranial suture ontogenies. Anatomical Record 307: 5–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.25275
  • Pourlis AF, Magras IN, Petridis D (1998) Ossification and growth rates of the limb long bones during the prehatching period in the quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia 27: 61–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0264.1998.tb00157.x
  • Prum RO, Berv JS, Dornburg A, Field DJ, Townsend JP, Lemmon EM, Lemmon AR (2015) A comprehensive phylogeny of birds (Aves) using targeted next-generation DNA sequencing. Nature 526: 569–573. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15697
  • Rogulska T (1962) Differences in the process of ossification during the embryonic development of the chick (Gallus domesticus L.), rook (Corvus frugilegus L.) and black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus L.). Acta Zoologica Poloniae 12: 223–236.
  • Skawiński T, Borczyk B, Hałupka L (2021) Postnatal ossification sequences in Acrocephalus scirpaceus and Chroicocephalus ridibundus (Aves: Neognathae): The precocial–altricial spectrum and evolution of compound bones in birds. Journal of Anatomy 238: 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.13303
  • Smith-Paredes D, Núñez-León D, Soto-Acuña S, O’Connor J, Botelho JF, Vargas AO (2018) Dinosaur ossification centres in embryonic birds uncover developmental evolution of the skull. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2: 1966–1973. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0713-1
  • Sosa MA, Acosta Hospitaleche CIA (2018) Ontogenetic variations of the head of Aptenodytes forsteri (Aves, Sphenisciformes): Muscular and skull morphology. Polar Biology 41: 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-017-2183-3
  • Sosa MA, Acosta Hospitaleche CIA (2022) Postnatal ontogeny of the spine of the emperor penguin Aptenodytes forsteri (Aves, Sphenisciformes) and modularity of the neck. Polar Biology 45: 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-021-02986-2
  • Starck JM, Ricklefs RE (1998) Patterns of development: The altricial-precocial spectrum. In: Starck JM, Ricklefs RE (Eds) , Avian Growth and Development. Oxford Ornithology Series, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 3–30.
  • Taylor WR, Van Dyke GC (1985) Revised procedures for staining and clearing small fishes and other vertebrates for bone and cartilage study. Cybium 9: 107–109.
  • Van Wassenbergh S, Andries T, Pauly E, Abourachid A (2022b) Cranial kinesis facilitates quick retraction of stuck woodpecker beaks. Journal of Experimental Biology 225: jeb243787. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.243787
  • Van Wassenbergh S, Ortlieb EJ, Mielke M, Böhmer C, Shadwick RE, Abourachid A (2022a) Woodpeckers minimize cranial absorption of shocks. Current Biology 32: 3189–3194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.05.052
  • Villard P, Cuisin J (2004) How do woodpeckers extract grubs with their tongues? A study of the guadeloupe woodpecker (Melanerpes herminieri) in the French West Indies. Auk 121: 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/121.2.509
  • Weathers WW, Koenig WD, Stanback MT (1990) Breeding energetics and thermal ecology of the acorn woodpecker in central coastal California. Condor 92: 341–359. https://doi.org/10.2307/1368232
  • Webb DM, Moore WS (2005) A phylogenetic analysis of woodpeckers and their allies using 12S, Cyt b, and COI nucleotide sequences (class Aves; order Piciformes). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 36: 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2005.03.015
  • Winkler H, Christie DA (2002) Family Picidae (Woodpeckers). Handbook of the Birds of the World 7, 296–555.
  • Winkler H, Gamauf A, Nittinger F, Haring E (2014) Relationships of Old World woodpeckers (Aves: Picidae). New insights and taxonomic implications. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien B 116: 69–86.
  • Yan J, Zhang Z (2021) Post-hatching growth of the limbs in an altricial bird species. Veterinary Medicine and Science 7: 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.357
login to comment