The Bearable Density of Bird Bones

Songbird bones may be hollow, but they're actually denser than the bones of mammals of the same size. The resulting strength and stiffness is what you want in an airframe. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


For earthbound creatures like us, flight just seems so fantastical. How do birds and bats and other flying beasties manage to get off and stay off the ground? Well, having wings obviously helps. And bird bones are hollow and seem delicate, which should help lighten the load.

Or so you’d think. But a new study shows that songbirds’ bones are actually pretty tough. In fact, they’re more dense than the bones of mammals of the same size. The results appear in the Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences. [See http://bit.ly/aODM0G]

For centuries, biologists have known that bird bones are thin and hollow. Yet bird skeletons don’t actually weigh any less than the skeletons of similarly sized mammals. To sort out this seeming discrepancy, Elizabeth Dumont of the University of Massachusetts Amherst studied the skulls and limb bones of song birds, rodents and bats. And she found that, on average, bird bones are the densest, with bat bones coming in a close second.

That denseness makes Tweety’s thin little bones surprisingly strong and stiff, good structural features for flight. And thus for keeping those bones from winding up in the mouth of a hungry mammal. Sorry, Sylvester.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe