[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaur "baculae"
At 5:46 PM 9/11/95, Paul Willis wrote:
>>As for dinosaurs, its pretty unlikely that they possessed either a baculum
>>or a true penis, as neither crocodylians or birds possess either.
>Crocs actually have pretty good dongers that occasionally evert during
>intraspecific combat as well as more conventional moments of passion. I
>also understand that duck dicks are a reality which are rather long and
>In a more general context, this would imply that the penis was lost
>(bobbittised?) between crocs and birds with some birds having a reversion.
>I would hazard a guess that the penile loss occurred close to birds
>probably associated with flight modifications (more weight reduction that
>aerodynamic drag). This leaves the question of dino appendages somewhat up
>in the air (!?!) but almost certianly without the assistance of a baculum.
Oddly put, but true in some circumstances. As for crocs', however,
they do not possess a true penis. Instead, they possess the corpora
cavernosa penis, a pair of ridges that expand when filled w/ blood to form
the lateral and ventral walls of the semenal passageway. This does extend
beyond the cloaca, and is inserted in the female. Yes, the reduction in
size of the genitalia in many birds could be an adaptation for load
lightening, associated w/ flight. The testicles of some species even
atrophy when not in mating season. You can't say that dinosaurs possessed
true penises, because the penis has only been inherited through the lineage
of one particular group: for a real bunch of dicks, try mammals.
Jason J. Head
V.P. graduate student
Dept. of Geological Sciences
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, Tx. 75275