4.2 Article

Morphological Variation of Primary Reproductive Structures in Males of Five Families of Neotropical Bats

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ar.22613

关键词

Chiroptera; epididymis; quiescence; testes; Vespertilionidae

资金

  1. Brazilian Research Foundation (CAPES)
  2. Sao Paulo State Research Foundation (FAPESP)
  3. Sao Paulo State Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2009/16181-9, 2009/03470-2]
  4. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [09/03470-2] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bats present unique features among mammals with respect to reproduction, and although neotropical bats do not have a hibernation period, many of their reproductive characteristics vary seasonally and interspecifically. Thus, this work aimed to examine the reproductive structures of 18 species belonging to five families of Brazilian bats. The gross anatomy of the testes varied little; however, the epididymis of Emballonuridae and Vespertilionidae showed exceptional structures with a large elongation of the caudal region. We observed a wide variation in the positioning of the testes: Phyllostomidae and Noctilionidae presented external testes; Emballonuridae and Molossidae presented migratory testes that may be in intra-abdominal or external positions; and Vespertilionidae displayed scrotal testes. In the histological evaluation, we observed a different pattern in vespertilionid species, with testicular regression and sperm retention/storage in the cauda epididymis in the five species analyzed. Similar testicular regression was observed in Molossops temminckii; however, sperm retention/storage was not observed in this species. These data suggest that although the species analyzed are tropical species that do not present a prolonged period of torpor (hibernation), they still maintain a period of seminiferous tubule regression and sperm storage very similar to that observed in hibernating bats. Anat Rec, 296: 156-167, 2013. (C) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据