Abstract
Biomaterials such as bone, teeth, nacre and silk are known to have superior mechanical properties due to their specific nanocomposite structures. Here we report that the woodpecker’s tongue exhibits a novel strength and flexibility due to its special composite micro/nanostructure. The tongue consists of a flexible cartilage-and-bone skeleton covered with a thin layer tissue of high strength and elasticity. At the interface between the cartilage-and-bone skeleton and the tissue layer, there is a hierarchical fiber-typed connection. It is this special design of the tongue that makes the woodpeckers efficient in catching the insects inside trees. The special micro/nanostructures of the woodpecker’s tongue show us a potential method to enhance the interfacial connection between soft and hard material layers for bio-inspired composite system designs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ji B H, Gao H J. Mechanical properties of nanostructure of biological materials. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 2004, 52, 1963–1990.
Vollrath F, Madsen B, Shao Z Z. The effect of spinning conditions on the mechanics of a spider’s dragline silk. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 2001, 268, 2339–2346.
Shao Z Z, Vollrath F. Surprising strength of silkworm silk. Nature, 2002, 418, 741.
Zhao H P, Feng X Q, Shi H J. Variability in mechanical properties of Bombyx mori silk. Materials Science and Engineering C, 2007, 27, 675–683.
Song F, Xiao K W, Bai K, Bai Y L. Microstructure and nanomechanical properties of the wing membrence of dragonfly. Materials Science and Engineering A, 2007, 457, 254–260.
Wang X S, Li Y, Shi Y F. Effects of sandwich microstructures on mechanical behaviors of dragonfly wing vein. Composites Science and Technology, 2008, 68, 186–192.
Moore K L, Dalley A F. Clinically Oriented Anatomy, 4th ed, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 1999.
Goodge W R. Anatomical evidence for phylogenetic relationships among woodpecker. The Auk, 1972, 89, 65–85.
Short L L. Woodpeckers of the World, Weidner & Sons Publishing, Merchantville, 1982.
Homberger D G, Meyers R A. Morphology of the lingual apparatus of the domestic chicken, Gallus gallus, with special attention to the structure of the fasciae. The American Journal of Anatomy, 1989, 186, 217–257.
Bock W J. Functional and evolutionary morphology of woodpeckers. The Ostrich, 1999, 70, 23–31.
Rusty R. Anatomy and Evolution of the Woodpecker’s Tongue, [2003-05-06], http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html
Villard P, Cuisin J. How do woodpeckers extract grubs with their tongues? A study of the guadeloupe woodpecker (melanerpes herminieri) in the french west indies. The Auk, 2004, 121, 509–514.
Heinze T F. Who Designed Woodpeckers?, [2008-06-10], http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.html
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhou, P., Kong, X.Q., Wu, C.W. et al. The novel mechanical property of tongue of a woodpecker. J Bionic Eng 6, 214–218 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1672-6529(08)60126-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1672-6529(08)60126-2