Cricket sets Testicle size record

[Setzer]

http://www.livescience.com/animals/cric ... ne+Feed%29

By LiveScience Staff

posted: 09 November 2010 07:33 pm ET

A species of cricket has broken an unlikely world record: largest testicles in relation to body weight.

The Tuberous bushcricket's testicles account for 14 percent of its body weight. To put that in perspective, the testicles of a 200-pound man with that ball-to-body ratio would weigh 28 pounds.

The bushcricket, whose anatomical extremes are reported today (Nov. 9) in the journal Biology Letters, edges out the record of a species of fruit fly, Drosophila bifurca, whose testes to body weight ratio has been recorded as 10.6 percent.
Oddly enough, the researchers report, the cricket's large testicles don't produce greater volumes of semen per ejaculate. In fact, they produced less voluminous sperm than smaller testicles.

"Traditionally it has been pretty safe to assume that when females are promiscuous, males use monstrously-sized testicles to deliver huge numbers of sperm to swamp the competition - even in primates," study researcher James Gilbert of the University of Cambridge said in a statement. "Our study shows that we have to rethink this assumption. It looks as though the testes may be that big simply to allow males to mate repeatedly without their sperm reserves being exhausted."

The Tuberous bushcricket joins a veritable Who's-Who list of animals with strange genitalia, including:

* Single-testicled carabid beetles
* Rodents that enjoy a mating advantage thanks to their long penises
* Polar bears whose penises are shrinking because of pollutants
* Ducks with penises like corkscrews (and vaginas to match)
* Smart bats with small testicles

And to round out the list, some male fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) have testes that are 2.15 percent of their body mass, whereas their brains are only 1.70 percent.

Posted without comment

[Bakustra]

So I guess that you just didn't have the stones to comment, eh?

Seriously, this is a pretty interesting discovery from what the article suggests. It seems as though some models of sexual behavior may have to be rethought. Anybody more involved in biological research that wants to comment?