Seed Media Group

Reality is always more complicated than you think.

Profile

jake-head-shot.jpgJake Young is a MD/PhD student at Mount Sinai School of Medicine focusing in Neuroscience. He is due to graduate in 2032. He received a BS and a MS in Biological Sciences from Stanford University -- where he spent most of his time drinking heavily and building vegetable catapults instead of learning information that would now be eminently useful. When he is not failing terrifically to perform his sworn duties, he enjoys watching bad movies, ethnic food, and running.

Pure Pedantry is a blog about science -- social sciences and otherwise -- as well as academic and scientific culture. No one can live on science alone, so I also like to dwell on pop culture, periodically explore the humanities, and indulge in other types of geeky goodness.

Jake is joined periodically by two wonderful guest bloggers: Kara Contreary and Kate Seip. See the About Page.

DISCLAIMERS: 1) Jake Young is not a licensed physician (yet). He is merely a medical student. The information published on this site is not intended for use in medical decision making. Please seek advice from a licensed, medical professional before making any health decisions. 2) The opinions expressed are my own or those of my co-bloggers. They do not represent the views of SEED magazine or the educational establishments we currently attend.

Search this blog

Archives

Blogroll


raptor.jpg

« Incredible Medical Donation | Main | The "Ruthlessness" Gene -or- 4 Caveats in Interpreting Behavioral Genetics Studies »

Elephant testes signal an aquatic past?

Category: Evolution
Posted on: April 9, 2008 11:10 AM, by Kate

As a research studying maternal behavior, I come across a lot of sex & reproduction research. As a (very) general rule of thumb, most small mammals are either sexually receptive or parentally responsive - your sex circuits remain on until you have offspring to tend to, at which point your parental circuit overrides your sex circuit so that you can tend full-time to your kids. These opposing mechanisms are evolutionarily strategic - it's bad form to be out reproducing with wanton members of the opposite sex while you should be taking care of your kids back in the nest - your kids are carrying your DNA, so its most advantageous to ensure their survival. If you don't have kids back in the nest...well, get out there and have some fun!

So, as sex and parental research can be considered two sides of the same coin, I end up learning a good deal about one while studying the other. And recently, I stumbled across something startling.

Apparently, a male elephant lacks a scrotum.

Not only is this rare amongst mammals, but it turns out that this "missing part" is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence suggesting that modern-day elephants arose from an aquatic ancestry.

There's a good deal of paleontological evidence suggesting that elephants and sea cows (e.g. manatees, dugongs) shared a common, semi-aquatic ancestor in the group Tethytheria. As the groups diverged, one becoming terrestrial and one becoming fully aquatic, the male reproductive tract retained striking similarities between the two emergent species.

First, the testes of male elephants remained intra-abdominal. In humans and many other terrestrial mammals, testes descend into a scrotal sack, where they remain at a slightly cooler temperature than that of the human body. As warm temperatures can reduce both testicular weight and sperm count (and, actually, has been suggested as a possible method of contraception), testicular descent is important for most terrestrial mammals to retain optimal reproductive function.

But excessive cooling can also threaten sperm production, and the cool temperatures of aquatic habitats make an inhospitable environment for spermatogenesis. So, the testes of most aquatic mammals and fish never descend, instead remaining at a nice cosy intra-abdominal location where they can be kept warm.

As it turns out, elephants have always had intra-abdominal testes - researchers can't find any evidence (e.g. this or this) that their testes ever descended and were subsequently retracted. So, elephants are considered a primary testicond species - their testes never descend and they have never been considered scrotal animals.

Whales, however, do show residual structures suggestive of retracted testes and scrota - a supposed reminant of their former terrestrial ancestry. In elephants, this isn't the case.

So...why is this so interesting?
Not only is primary testicondia unusual in mammals, it reflects a major adaptation with evolutionary significance. Elephants' phylogenetic history has presumably altered the mechanisms currently in place that support spermatogenesis at slightly elevated (core body) temperatures, due to the intra-abdominal location of the testes. And, it paints an elegant picture (if male reproductive anatomy can be considered, uh, "elegant") of the supposed origins of these grand mammals.

As Gaeth et al. summarize:

[elephant testes] were adapted to its aquatic environment and...some of these unusual anatomical adaptations have persisted in present-day terrestrial elephants.

Cocktail-party conversation, if I've ever heard it :)


Bizarre semi-related link: elephants are afraid of bees

Comments

Oh noes! Not the Aquatic Proboscidean Hypothesis!

Just kidding... I actually haven't heard much about this before, although I know that male elephant testes were inside their body rather than in a scrotum (which makes them a prime candidate for the Behemoth in Job - "His tail [penis] sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.")

As far as I'm aware, the early Eocene mammal Moeritherium is considered to be one of the earliest elephant relatives known, and may have been semi-aquatic like a hippo. Moeritherium was not a direct ancestor to elephants, instead representing a sister group that left no descendants and died out, but it might provide clues as to what close relatives that did give rise to elephants might have looked like.

Posted by: Laelaps | April 10, 2008 8:23 AM

Are we sure this isn't just a cube-square issue? I mean, they can get up to a pretty fast gallop, and ...

On the other hand, perhaps mammals with dangling testes can't evolve to be larger than a certain size. Now *that* would be an interesting evolutionary hypothesis. Would explain why the dinosaurs got so big, and land mammals never did.

Posted by: ringo | April 10, 2008 9:32 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.)





Having problems commenting? (UPDATED)

Blogs in the Network

Advertisement

Top Five: Most German

Search All Blogs