Species Variation on Gross Morphology and Gross Morphometry of Accessory Sex Glands in One-Humped Camel Bull (Camelus dromedarius), Uda Ram and Red Sokoto Buck

Abstract

Species variation on gross morphology and gross morphometry of accessory sex glands of One-humped Camel Bull (OCB), Uda Ram (UR) and Red Sokoto Buck (RSB) were carried out. Fifteen reproductive systems were collected; the accessory sex glands were grossly examined, and measured for weight or length. All the three studied animals have ampulla, prostate gland and bulbourethral gland. However, there was no presence of vesicular gland (seminal vesicle) in the OCB. Gross morphologically, the ampulla was most pronounced in the UR and least in the OCB. The two ampullae attached to each other through genital fold connective tissues mostly in the UR followed by OCB and then in the RSB. The broadness of the ampulla was also in that order. The seminal vesicles were markedly lobulated, dark-greyed in color and were the largest of the accessory glands. Though curved in both UR and RSB, seminal vesicles were however more pronounced in the UR in which each pair presented a lateral central depression. The prostate gland consisted of only disseminated or scattered parts extending along the pelvic urethra in the UR and the RSB. In OCB, the prostate gland was the largest accessory sex gland. In OCB, prostate glands were found on the dorsolateral aspect of the pelvic urethra above the ischial arch with a thick interglandular septum between them and almond in shape. Also in the RSB, they were found in the same area as in the OCB, but with a relatively less space. Gross morphometrically, results of the mean ampulla lengths and weights of OCB, UR and RSB showed that the means were significantly different. The results of the mean vesicular gland weights of UR and RSB indicated a significant difference. The results of the mean lengths, weights and diameters of bulbourethral gland showed that the means were significantly different in the three studied species. It was concluded that although results show that the studied animals are different ruminant species they exhibit some similarities and interesting morphological differences in gross morphology and gross morphometry of their accessory sex glands compared to the majority of mammals. The basic morphological characterizations done in this study are important for future studies, such as comparison with other species of ruminants (whether true or pseudo).