do roosters have penis?

i think not so also t-rex doesn't have penis?

what do you think they have? syringes?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Avian_cloaca.jpg/187px-Avian_cloaca.jpg

?

you are high

y/n?

jungian collective penis.

i don't think mordy's high, he's just talking like one of the wacky characters on his favorite cartoon shows

adventure time?

sure, why not

http://www.the-other-view.com/images/foghorn1.jpg

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/639

They're called cocks, I mean come on.

I'm helpless when it comes to posting relevant Seinfeld clips. (Embedding disabled.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MCtC_U4e2o&feature=related

yw http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51c1NXmoNpL._SS500_.jpg

There were no gay dinosaurs?

http://blog.rifftrax.com/wp-content/photos/riptaylor.jpg

God, Frank Costanza was just the best. We were just watching the one where he calls the Seinfelds to tell them they're moving to Del Boca Vista too, "Thiiiiiiiiiiis! Is Frank! Costanza!"

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/28/secrets_of_t_rex_sex/

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/4517/robot20dinosaur20sex.jpg

http://io9.com/5802301/how-to-have-sex-with-a-mermaid

i still hear the phrase "do roosters have penis?" in the most annoying doopdee doo cartoon character voice

i hear it in the voice of jeff goldblum

jeff goldblum wouldn't talk in a weird ungrammatical way though

I hear it in Daffy Duck's voice

When Horses Aren't Enough: Mounting a Poll of Dinosaur/Fantasy Bestiality

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35898/title/Why-Many-Birds-Don-t-Have-Penises/

Although some species are parthenogenetic, both males and females are usually present, each with a single gonad located above the intestine. Two ducts run from the testis in males, opening through a single pore in front of the anus. In contrast, females have a single duct opening either just above the anus or directly into the rectum, which thus forms a cloaca.[18]
Tardigrades are oviparous, and fertilization is usually external. Mating occurs during the molt with the eggs being laid inside the shed cuticle of the female and then covered with sperm. A few species have internal fertilization, with mating occurring before the female fully sheds her cuticle. In most cases, the eggs are left inside the shed cuticle to develop, but some attach them to nearby substrate.[18]
The eggs hatch after no more than fourteen days, with the young already possessing their full complement of adult cells. Growth to the adult size therefore occurs by enlargement of the individual cells (hypertrophy), rather than by cell division. Tardigrades may moult up to twelve times.[18]

Does this mean you assume that a T-rex has two ducts running from the testis?

Because...if you do...TYRANNOSAURUS SEX: http://dsc.discovery.com/video-topics/other/dinosaur-videos/dinosaur-penis.htm

a tardigrade is no t-rex! a tardigrade is a WATER BEAR.

reading about these critters & their single culvert. intriguing. multi-lobed brain!

surviving outer space!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/wild_things/2013/10/31/bizarre_bat_behavior_oral_sex_pollinating_tequila_sharing_meals_drinking.html

Walrus sucks own dick - YouTube

re t-sex, it's immediately wrong from the get-go bc instead of comparing dinos to birds he's comparing them to crocodiles???

still like the ghost album

yes re ducks since starting this thread i've learnt that some birds do have penis organs and some have this cloaca thing i'm still very confused about the bird/dino reproduction link

Among the known species on Earth, there are some real stunners, which are captured in gorgeous color photos in Piper’s book. Ribbon worms, or Nemertea, are incredible. They’re the longest animals in the world—one was reported to measure 180 feet—but some only grow to 0.02 inches. And in some ribbon worm species, the birthing process is almost too weird to believe. “Since the female lacks a dedicated birth canal, the act of giving birth is brutal to say the least: the juveniles rupture their mother’s gonads, penetrate the gut wall and squeeze out of the anus,” Piper writes in the book.

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/10/from_duck_vaginas_to_bumblebee_sex_the_amazing_overlooked_science_of_genitals/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAE6Il6OTcs

Almost all species of velvet worm reproduce sexually. The sole exception is Epiperipatus imthurni, of which no males have been observed; reproduction instead occurs by parthenogenesis.[32]

All species are in principle sexually distinct and bear, in many cases, a marked sexual dimorphism: the females are usually larger than the males and have, in species where the number of legs is variable, more legs. The females of many species are fertilized only once during their lives, which leads to copulation sometimes taking place before the reproductive organ of the females are fully developed. In such cases, for example at the age of three months in Macroperipatus torquatus, the transferred sperm cells are kept in a special reservoir, where they can remain viable for longer periods.

Fertilization takes place internally, although the mode of sperm transmission varies widely. In most species, for example in the genus Peripatus, a package of sperm cells called the spermatophore is placed into the genital opening of the female. The detailed process by which this is achieved is in most cases still unknown, a true penis having only been observed in species of the genus Paraperipatus. In many Australian species, there exist dimples or special dagger- or axe-shaped structures on the head; the male of Florelliceps stutchburyae presses a long spine against the female's genital opening and probably positions its spermatophore there in this way. During the process, the female supports the male by keeping him clasped with the claws of her last pair of legs. The mating behavior of two species of the genus Peripatopsis is particularly curious. Here, the male places two-millimetre spermatophores on the back or sides of the female. Amoebocytes from the female's blood collect on the inside of the deposition site, and both the spermatophore's casing and the body wall on which it rests are decomposed via the secretion of enzymes. This releases the sperm cells, which then move freely through the haemocoel, penetrate the external wall of the ovaries and finally fertilize the ova. Why this self-inflicted skin injury does not lead to bacterial infections is not yet understood (though likely related to the enzymes used to deteriorate the skin or facilitate the transfer of viable genetic material from male to female).

Velvet worms are found in egg-laying (oviparous), egg-live-bearing (ovoviviparous) and live-bearing (viviparous) forms.

Ovipary occur solely in the Peripatopsidae, often in regions with erratic food supply or unsettled climate. In these cases, the yolk-rich eggs measure 1.3 to 2.0 mm and are coated in a protective chitinous shell. Maternal care is unknown.

The majority of species are ovoviviparous: the medium-sized eggs, encased only by a double membrane, remain in the uterus. The embryos do not receive food directly from the mother, but are supplied instead by the moderate quantity of yolk contained in the eggs—they are therefore described as lecithotrophic. The young emerge from the eggs only a short time before birth. This probably represents the velvet worm's original mode of reproduction, i.e., both oviparous and viviparous species developed from ovoviviparous species.

True live-bearing species are found in both families, particularly in tropical regions with a stable climate and regular food supply throughout the year. The embryos develop from eggs only micrometres in size and are nourished in the uterus by their mother, hence the description "matrotrophic". The supply of food takes place either via a secretion from the mother directly into the uterus or via a genuine tissue connection between the epithelium of the uterus and the developing embryo, known as a placenta. The former is found only outside the American continent, while the latter occurs primarily in America and the Caribbean and more rarely in the Old World. The gestation period can amount to up to 15 months, at the end of which the offspring emerge in an advanced stage of development. The embryos found in the uterus of a single female do not necessarily have to be of the same age; it is quite possible for there to be offspring at different stages of development and descended from different males. In some species, young tend to be released only at certain points in the year.[33]

A female can have between 1 and 23 offspring per year; development from fertilized ovum to adult takes between 6 and 17 months and does not have a larval stage. This is probably also the original mode of development. Velvet worms have been known to live for up to six years.

some sharks i knew were viviparous - apparently cockroaches + scorpions as well

https://www.extension.org/sites/default/files/w/1/16/Labeled_male_repro_tract.jpg

so what do we think sanpaku? were any dinos viviparous? i'm thinking not since there are no viviparous birds - this article speculates why:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2461543

some of the reasons seem relevant to dinos but others (flight) do not

vent

Fossils demonstrate beyond any doubt that Mesozoic dinosaurs laid eggs, as of course do all dinosaurs today. But back during the 1960s, 70s and 80s – back when Robert Bakker and his idea about dinosaur biology were regularly featured in magazines and other popular sources – the scientific community was (sarcasm alert) delighted and enthralled by Bakker’s proposal of sauropod viviparity.

Yes, mostly forgotten today is the idea that sauropod mothers were once suggested to give birth to a single, live, proportionally large baby, and to then engage in protracted parental care.

While Bakker is typically associated with this idea, it seems to have first been suggested by William Diller Matthew in 1910. Like many other palaeontologists of the time, Matthew assumed (very wrongly) that sauropods were amphibious or aquatic, and it was within this context that he proposed the possibility of sauropod viviparity (Matthew 1910). The thinking here was that viviparity would eliminate the need to lay eggs on land and hence allow a fully aquatic lifestyle. Copious evidence now shows that sauropods were strongly terrestrial – at best being about as ‘aquatic’ as are rhinos or elephants – and thus Matthew’s proposal can be completely ignored.

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2011/05/12/sauropod-viviparity-meme/

The definitive killer point on the whole viviparous sauropod idea comes from the discovery of numerous definitive sauropod eggs and embryos. It’s true that many Cretaceous eggs traditionally identified as those of sauropods* have never been shown beyond doubt to belong to these dinosaurs, but there are now many, many others. At Auca Mahuevo in Argentina, “over a dozen in situ eggs and nearly 40 egg fragments encasing embryonic material were recovered” (Chiappe et al. 1998, p. 258). Six more Auca Mahuevo eggs – this time revealing well-preserved, near-complete skulls – were published a few years later (Chiappe et al. 2001, Salgado et al. 2005) [embryonic Auca Mahuevo sauropod skulls shown here, from Chiappe et al. (2001)]. More recently, sauropod hatchlings discovered right next to hatched and unhatched eggs (oh, and preserved with the large snake Sanajeh indicus as well) have been reported from the Upper Cretaceous of India (Wilson et al. 2010) (the snake was evidently preying on the babies).

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/wp-content/blogs.dir/471/files/2012/05/i-04722991d201347df183ffa802abbb56-John-Bindon-1989-sauropod-live-birth-May-2011.jpg

"The other painting – quite probably inspired by, or based on, Henderson’s – is by John Bindon and appeared in a children’s book called Dinosaur Mysteries (1989, Hamlyn), written by Mary O’Neill. It’s shown here. The human is meant to be Robert Bakker."

oh shit -
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2011/08/12/prediction-confirmed-plesiosaurs-were-viviparous/

::crosses eyes, puts on groucho glasses, talks in pee wee herman voice:: HEY GUYS, HEY GUYS...DO ROOSTERS HAVE PENIS!?!?!?!?!?!

Before I scrolled down I suspected ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs, as the reptile requirement for laying eggs on dry land would severely limit adult morphology (imagine the larger ones climbing to the high tide line on beaches).

Pretty neat. Seems life has independently evolved functional equivalents to a placenta at least five times (some salamanders, some frogs, sharks, plesiosaurs, mammals). Shame we'll likely never know how the pleiosaurs managed the mechanic, at least till we find Nessie.

six times. Forgot skinks, probably others.

synaesthetically speaking, the skink might be the best-named animal

(2) Why do offspring remain in the natal group rather than dispersing and reproducing? Eusociality in mammals is by definition a special case of monogamy (more specifically: monogyny one female breeding), involving prolonged pair bonding for more than one breeding period. We argue that eusociality in mole-rats evolved from a monogamous mating system where cooperative brood care was already established. A tendency for group living is considered to be an ancestral (plesiomorph) trait among African bathyergid mole-rats, linking them to other hystricognath rodents. A solitary lifestyle seen in some genera, such as Bathyergus, Georychus, and Heliophobius, is assumed to be a derived trait that arose independently in different lineages of bathyergids, possibly as a consequence of selective constraints associated with the subterranean environment. In proximate terms, in eusocial mole-rats either puberty is assumed to be developmentally delayed so that under natural conditions most animals die before dispersal is triggered (e.g., in the case of Heterocephalus) or dispersal is induced only by an incidental encounter with an unfamiliar, yet adequate sexual partner (e.g., in the case of Cryptomys). Ultimately, a combination of strategies involving either dispersal and/or philopatry can be beneficial, especially in a highly unpredictable environment. If genetic relatedness among siblings is high (e.g., a coefficient of relatedness of 0.5 or more), then philopatry would not invoke an appreciable loss of fitness, especially if the cost of dispersing is higher than staying within the natal group. High genetic relatedness is more likely in a monogamous mating system or a highly inbred population. In this paper, we argue that the preconditions for eusociality in bathyergid mole-rats were a monogamous mating system and high genetic relatedness among individuals. We argue against the aridity food-distribution hypothesis (AFDH) that suggests a causal relationship between cooperative foraging for patchily distributed resources and the origin of eusociality. The AFDH may explain group size dynamics of social mole-rats as a function of the distribution and availability of resources but it is inadequate to explain the formation of eusocial societies of mole-rats, especially with respect to providing preconditions conducive for the emergence of eusociality.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1456956

http://www.newyorkdick.org/storage/Turkey_penis2.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1333407620308

so eusociality apparently is 100% an evolved behavior - bc 1) we can trace species that demonstrate it evolutionary back to when they didn't display that particular behavior (particularly mammalian examples), and 2) evolved independently among a number of unrelated species. apparently darwin struggled w/ sterile casts, writing at one point that it was the "one special difficulty, which at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to my whole theory." his answer was to theorize that functionally sterile individuals can help relatives produce offspring and thereby advance by natural selection.

what do they call ppl who study behavioral psychology more along the dramatic lines of the evolution into eusociality vs hacks talking about 50s gender types?

i guess it would fall into this field? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_ecology

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Bat-research-by-Israeli-scientist-alters-concepts-on-mammal-hibernation-402716

The sleeping habits of a tiny bat may change our understanding of mammalian hibernation, Israeli researchers say.

Hibernation was believed to occur only in low temperatures, as mammals sleep through three to nine months of cold and hazardous winter with a very low heart rate and body temperature.

But this is not the case in two species of the mouse-tailed bat (the Rhinopoma microphyllum and the R. Cystops). Tel Aviv University researchers who were trying to find where these bats disappear every winter discovered them hibernating in warm caves with temperatures of 68°F (20 degrees Celsius) in the Syria-African Rift, a northern extension of Africa's Rift Valley.

Professor Noga Kronfeld-Schor, Chair of the Department of Zoology at the university's Faculty of Life Sciences, and doctoral student Dr. Eran Levin were surprised to discover that from October to February, these bats were in a deep sleep, breathing only once every 15-30 minutes, with extremely low energy expenditure. Most hibernating mammals usually breath more frequently.

"The surprising thing was that these animals hibernate at high temperatures. This changes the whole concept of hibernation because people consider hibernation as a strategy to cope with very cold winter conditions, with snow, no food available. And here we have bats hibernating at warm temperatures, which is really surprising," said Kronfled-Schor, whose research was published in 'Proceedings of the Royal Society of London'.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/science/100000003687731/if-i-had-a-hammer.html

the world has finally caught up to this thread:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/wild_things/2015/06/05/dinosaur_sex_t_rex_autopsy_on_national_geographic_channel.html

Let’s get the biggest question out of the way first: Did T. rex have a penis?

“I think we can give a firm ‘yes’ to the penis question,” says Brian Switek, science writer and author of the excellent My Beloved Brontosaurus. “And I apologize for the pun that just happened.”

Unlike many mammals, dinosaurs did not have bones in their penises. And because soft tissue doesn’t fossilize as readily as the hard stuff, we’re left without a specimen that could settle the penis debate. But we don’t actually need one.

By using what scientists call extant phylogenetic bracketing, or looking at T. rex’s closest living relatives, we can infer that the predator had a penis tucked up inside that cloaca.

“Crocodilians all have what’s politely called an ‘intromittent organ,’” says Switek. “And if you look at birds, the most basal or primitive lineages—the ratites, the waterfowl—they also have penises.”

It’s very unlikely penises would have evolved separately in crocs and cassowaries. Instead, having a penis is more likely the default setting among all of them, T. rex included, and their common ancestor.

As to what that monstrous member would have looked like, well, that’s still up for debate. Penis size is extremely variable across the animal kingdom. Gorillas, though they can grow up to 400 pounds, have penises that are just 1.25 inches long. (Yes, that would be erect.) Ducks, on the other hand, have relatively large sex organs for their small body size, not to mention explosive erections—but that’s another story.

Of course, the question of T. rex penis size is of more than just prurient interest. This detail would inform what sorts of positions were anatomically possible for the animals. For instance, if it turned out T. rex had some sort of long, prehensile penis, like whales do, then it’s possible they could just sidle up to one another and inseminate from relatively afar. (This is an especially appealing scenario for the armored and spiked dinosaurs like stegosaurus, if a little unlikely.) Otherwise, the cloacae would have to be in close contact.
And for that, T. rex would have to pretty flexible.

https://www.nature.com/news/ostrich-penis-clears-up-evolutionary-mystery-1.9600

A long-running question about how the largest species of birds achieve erect penises seems to have been settled. In a study published this week in the Journal of Zoology1, researchers report that male ostriches and emus enlarge their penises using a burst of lymphatic fluid rather than a blood vascular system like that found in reptiles and mammals.

The finding, based on dissections, matches what is known about other species of birds — only 3% of which have penises — and could have important implications for the understanding of the shared, and divergent, evolutionary heritage of birds and reptiles.

The ostrich is one of very few birds to have a penis.

"Our findings reveal that the evolution of a lymphatic erection mechanism likely occurred in the ancestor of all birds rather than within birds," says Patricia Brennan, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and one of the authors of the study.

Ostriches and emus are members of the ratites, a group of flightless birds that also includes rheas and kiwis. All male ratites sport penises — as do ducks and some other species — but most birds mate instead with a brief 'cloacal kiss', during which the male passes sperm to the female through the cloaca, the same port used for excreting waste.

The existence of a lymphatic penis in some birds presents an evolutionary puzzle, says Richard Prum, an ornithologist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and co-author of the paper. “What is weird about birds is that they evolved not just a new structure, but a novel way to do something that was already being done,” he says.