Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!tdatirv!sarima From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: sci.bio Subject: Re: Walrus reproductive system Message-ID: <19@tdatirv.UUCP> Date: 4 Jun 91 19:42:30 GMT References: <1991Jun3.103857.1951@world.std.com> Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine Lines: 30 In article kell@cs.albany.edu (Brian A. Kell) writes: >And, on another wall were a few hundred "penis bones". The were, if I >remember correctly, about half the length and twice the thickness of a >pencil. This sounds about right. The 'penis-bone', or baculum, is certainly a likely candidate for preservation. >On a fully reconstructed dire wolf skeleton, the penis bone was >displayed in the appropriate location, suspended by a wire -- the bone >was not attached to any other part of the skeleton. Again, quite correct, it has only one purpose - the obvious one. >I am told (unathoritatively) that penis bones are normal in canines. >I have no idea about walrus, though. ;-) I believe that your source was correct. Many mammals have a baculum (in the males only, of course). It would not surprise me if all, or most, Carnivora had them. And since the pinnipeds (walruses, seals, sea-lions and such) are considered to be closely related to the Carnivora, they are another group that is likely to have them. Actually, I would almost like to see a list of mammalian groups that do *not* have baculi. The only one I can think of for certain right now is primates (including humans). (Hmmm, perhaps even some primates have them). -- --------------- uunet!tdatirv!sarima (Stanley Friesen)