Morphological diversity of facial vibrissae in Chaetophractus vellerosus (Mammalia, Xenarthra, Dasypodidae) and differential mechanoperception

Abstract

Vibrissae are specialized and complex mechanoreceptor organs present in the skin of most mammals that respond to a diverse mechanical stimuli (e.g. tension, pressure, movement, vibrations) and provide information on distance to the object, its location/orientation, and general characteristics of its surface; also, it may play diverse roles during food acquisition and attacking potential prey. There are scarce papers on the vibrissae of armadillos, only considering their presence/absence and distribution, but no histological analyses have been made. The goal of our contribution is to perform a histological study of the head vibrissae of Chaetophractus vellerosus, identify their morphological features, the tissues that form them, interpret their possible functions, and attempt to link the characteristics with ecological aspects of this species like its digging habits. Our results suggest that Chaetophractus vellerosus possesses two types of vibrissae: macro- and micro-vibrissae. Both types are similar in gross morphology, characterized mainly by an absence of annular sinus and ringwulst, but having a trabecular sinus that extends along the entire length of the follicle; these features might be linked to a reduction of its sensory capacity. Unlike other mammals, the macro-vibrissae are in the genal, anterobital and intermandibular regions, while micro-vibrissae are distributed in the superior labial and mental regions. In addition to size differences, the macro-vibrissae possess intrinsic muscles composed of smooth muscular fibers. The genal macrovibrissae are very close to each other, with smooth muscle fibers connecting the capsules of adjacent ones (intrinsic muscles). Those from the superior labial and mental (micro-vibrissae), show bundles of striated muscle inserted on their capsules. These muscle fibers would be part of the facial musculature and could be considered as extrinsic muscles. The mobility of these two types of vibrissae must certainly be different, given that the respective muscles (intrinsic and extrinsic) have different origins and innervation. The presence of two types of vibrissae might indicate that these mechanoreceptors have differential perception capacities that would probably be complementary, thus providing more precise information about the environment. The presence of macro-vibrissae in the genal, anteorbital and intermandibular zone would be directly related to the life habits of Chaetophractus vellerosus.