Talk:List of related male and female reproductive organs

identification of non-functioning structures

I propose that special formatting, such as cell background or font, be used to identify structures in the adult which are considered rudimentary or non-functioning, i.e., testicular appendix, epoophoron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.193.159 (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks IP, that sounds like a fine idea. Wikipedia is made by volunteers like you, so please feel free to go ahead and do it (and why not create an account while you're at it?) Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

New title

How is the new title "List of related male and female reproductive organs" better than the previous title "List of homologues of the human reproductive system"? I mean, even though people understand the word related more than they understand the word homologue, "related" isn't exactly clear; it could mean anything. I don't think the move of this article is a good use of the WP:Technical guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That stated, the readers who don't know what "homologue" means (or "related" means in this context) will know what the article is about once they click on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• This may not be the best title but I have tried to rename this article to match its scope. I personally had no idea what homologues meant in this context and I do not expect many readers would either. The title certainly did not match the article's contents. I do not think as many readers will access this page if they don't even know what it means, and I do not think "homologues of the reproductive system" will be a reader's first search attempt. The old title("homologues of the human") leads one to expect we're going to get a list of multiple species, not just humans, and the use of the word "system" leads one to expect we're going to get homologous systems, not just organs as this article contains. Hence the rename to a title I think actually matches the scope. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "The title certainly did not match the article's contents." And I don't see how "List of homologues of the human reproductive system" indicates that "we're going to get a list of multiple species, not just humans." Plus, the current title is broader in scope, given my point about the term related, and given that it doesn't include the word human in it. I understand your point about use of the word system, though (especially since I also considered that as part of your reason for renaming the article). Anyway, I grasp why you renamed the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Table columns

Why are the male and female columns in the two tables reversed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:AC08:A600:648D:D753:3EA1:A647 (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Common misconception

It is a common misconception that the penis glans and the clitoral glans are homologous structures. The penis glans is the distal protrusion of the penile corpus spongiosum capping the distal ends of the penile corpus cavernosa. The clitoral glans on the other hand is the distal exterior protrusion of the clitoral corpus cavernosa which extends far beyond the clitoral corpus spongiosum. There is therefore talk of similar parts of two structures which are not homologous, the clitoral corpus cavernosa and the penile corpus spongiosum. The true homlogous structure to the glans penis is the pars intermedia where the vestibular bulbs join at there most distal extent. The true homologous structure to the glans clitoris is the distal tip of the penile cavernosa just under the penile glans.

It is not stated in Grays that the glans penis is homologous with the glans clitoris. It is described as "small rounded tubercle" and other structures are described as homologous where this is the case. It is therefore both incorrect factually and according to the principle source to state that these structures are homologous. I suggest the article is corrected in line with wiki policy of factual information notwithstanding the consternation this will surely cause in certain quarters! Tyreric (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

To repeat what I stated here, we go by what WP:Reliable sources state. In the case of anatomy content, we go by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. As is clear by this 2011 "Practical Urology: Essential Principles and Practice" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 67, "The glans penis is homologous to the clitoral glans, the corpora cavernosa are homologous to the body of the clitoris and the corpus spongiosum is homologous to the vestibular bulbs beneath the labia minora." There are no reliable sources, WP:WEDRS-compliant or otherwise, that state that the clitoral glans and penile glans are not homologous. And even if there were, they would be outlier sources and we would still give our WP:Due weight to the usual description that the clitoral glans and penile glans are homologous. We'd treat those outlier sources as WP:Fringe. Anyway, anatomy and medical sources are very clear that the clitoral glans and penile glans are homologous and why. We do not go by our own original research; see WP:Original research.

This Wikipedia article is going by Wikipedia policy. What Wikipedia policy do you think is on your side? And just for argument's sake, looking at this version you added, what reliable source is there stating that the vestibular bulbs and penile glans are homologous, for example? Also, research on anatomy has improved since Gray's. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm not seeing evidence for what Tyreric is saying, but rather evidence to the contrary. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

First thank you for the source which I think should be included in the article. Your argument here depends entirely on compliant sources. I shall therefore point out the resulting inconsistancy this results in, in different wiki articles and in fact what is in this article. In the article "Corpus spongiosum penis" it states: "Its anterior end is expanded in the form of an obtuse cone, flattened from above downward. This expansion, termed the glans penis,.." ie the glans penis is part of the structure corpus spongiosum penis. In the article "Bulb of vestibule" it states: "The vestibular bulbs are homologous to the bulb of penis and the adjoining part of the corpus spongiosum of the male..." and in the article "Bulb of penis": "The bulb is homologous to the vestibular bulbs in females" ie the female vestibular bulbs are homologous with the male corpus spongiosum which includes the glans penis. Whereas the female structure has the form of two bulbs in the male it has an elongated tubular form, with a bulb at one end and a cap at the other. There is no mention of the clitoral glans as being homologous to any of these three parts, in combination or part. How do you account for that when the compliant sources state that the clitoral glans is homologous with the penis glans?

You ask what wiki policy I think is on my side? I believe the overriding policy that policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense is on my side. Here we have contradictions which common sense says needs ironing out.

This has nothing to do with any research of mine, controversial evidence, nor has it to do with different POV, it has to do with consistancy, reason and logic. Put simply a part of a structure cannot be homologous with the part of a structure which is not a homologue of the other structure. Either the two structures som minimum have to be homologous or the two parts are not homologous. This holds true irrespective of compliant sources or not, support in or not in reliable sources etc. Tyreric (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Citation for homologous structures

This mentions "homologous" or related terms about 17 times. It is a "review of the literature on the anatomy of the lower female genital tract in therian mammals ... " & probably will be a useful citation for this article, as well as containing other useful citations in its own references section.

• Pavlicev, Mihaela; Herdina, Anna Nele; Wagner, Günter (2022-05-07). "Female Genital Variation Far Exceeds That of Male Genitalia: A Review of Comparative Anatomy of Clitoris and the Female Lower Reproductive Tract in Theria". Integrative and Comparative Biology. doi:10.1093/icb/icac026. ISSN 1540-7063. OCLC 9492618444.

Peaceray (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Photos

The photo on the left is not an "erect" clitoris, but a case of clitoromegaly. That is why the picture is in the clitoromegaly category.

A clitoral erection looks like on the photo down here on the right: It should not be ignored that the clitoral bulbs and the corpora spongiosa beneath the labia majora extend behind the vaginal opening. In the photo on the right you can see the swelling of the bulbs next to the vaginal opening close to the perineum. This photo on the right shows a real clitoral erection. The clitoral glans does not consist of erectile tissue, but the corpora cavernosa and the clitoral bulbs do. Sciencia58 (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

private part of male or female 202.47.46.205 (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)