During lab today, I looked at several different bones of varying species all of which were mammals. The main focus of the lab was to be able to identify the bones as well as trying to understand the skull morphology. Being able to identify between an anapsid, diapsid, and synapsid was one of the goals of the activity. There were three skulls laid out in front of me which consisted of a goat skull, turtle skull, and crocodile skull. An anapsid skull would be lacking an opening in its skull called temporal fenestrae. The turtle skull is an example of an anapsid, the turtle when consuming food is not able to chew it. This is because it lacks the opening which is where jaw muscles are able to attach. An example of a diapsid would be the crocodile. A diapsid skull contains two openings on both sides of the skull, these openings are where muscles are able to attach allowing crocodiles to move their mouths up and down when chewing. The third example is of a synapsid is a goat skull. The goat skull contains a large opening where multiple muscles are allowed to attach. Mammals are synapsid and therefore able to move their mouth up and down as well as side to side when chewing. The opening called the temporal fenestrae is the key factor in determining what type of skull it is.
Comments
The way some of your
The way some of your sentences are structured makes them sound quite stilted, and a little difficult to follow. Also, watch out for continuity: for example where you say "Mammals are synapsid and therefore able to move their mouth", "their mouth" should have been "their mouths" as you refer to mammals in the plural.
agree with previous comment.
just watch out for proper matching the pluralization of "mammals" with "mouths". Also could combine the sentence describing what an anapsid skull is with the one stating a turtle as an example of an organism with such a skull.
overall well written
Overall I enjoyed reading this paragraph and the way that you went into detail about the skulls and the different types of skulls made it very clear and easy to imagine. The analysis of the skulls was well thought out and well writeen as well. I think the structure of some of the sentences could be changed as well as the fluidity of the informatiom as it seems like you were just listing details. For example, "the turtle skull would be an example of an anapsid, as anapsids are characterized as lacking a temporal fenestrae which minimizes the turtles ability to chew food".
sentence move
This paragraph was well written. I think the last sentence would sound better in between "There were three skulls laid out in front of me which consisted of a goat skull, turtle skull, and crocodile skull. An anapsid skull would be lacking an opening in its skull called temporal fenestrae." and then the second sentence could be reworded to "an anapsid skull would lack this opening."