Talk:Bulbourethral gland

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nomenclature[edit]

Don't understand why this article has Bulbourethral gland / Cowper's gland as the name and the homologous structure in females is labeled Bartholin's glands / greater vestibular glands. This article itself calls the structure a Cowper's gland closer to the end.

There should be one style of naming for both structures - either bulbourethral and greater vestibular or Cowper's and Bartholin's. I'm inclined to side with the latter, having the former redirect.

Ultimately I see two issues here, namely the inconsistency in styling between the two articles and the choice of named or purely anatomical primary listings for each.

I propose we title both articles by the attributive names. If there is good reason to keep bulbourethral gland instead of Cowper's gland please feel free to share. For the inconsistency issue between articles I don't see any good explanation but I'd still like to hear your thoughts regardless. Thanks! Robinson0201 (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From 1918 edition of Gray's anatomy[edit]

This article is taken from the public domain text of the 1918 edition of Gray's anatomy, and so may not reflect modern anatomical knowledge -- please update as necessary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.40.233 (talk) 23:18, February 15, 2003 (UTC)

Purpose?[edit]

So what is its purpose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.88.193 (talk) 16:24, June 16, 2005 (UTC)

To provide information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.92.222 (talk) 13:21, November 9, 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction[edit]

The article states

Their existence is said to be constant: they gradually diminish in size as age advances.

Diminishing constants? The new variable? Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.76.75 (talk) 14:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is contradictory. And maybe completely unnecessary. The existence of arms and legs could be said to be constant as well. Suggest deleting the first part altogether, and simply state that they can diminish in size over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffro77 (talk • contribs) 05:06, November 24, 2005

Personal experience would indicate that they become more productive as age (65+) advances. Would this also mean that in fact they are not diminishing in size? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.103.165 (talk) 07:45, November 19, 2006 (UTC)

Error[edit]

The article states

...neutralizing traces of 'acidic urine' in urethra. With a pH of 10.5 - 11, urine is not acidic but caustic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.250.22.6 (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Contraceptive success rates[edit]

It has been shown that Coitus interruptus, or the withdrawal method of birth control, has a 4% success rate, compared to Male condom's 98%, female condom's 95% and diaphrams 94% (all with perfect use).

This is uncited and makes no sense -- if coitus interruptus has a 4% success rate as a birth control method, that would mean that sex using it has a 96% pregnancy rate (which is much higher than totally unprotected sex). I'm removing this line. 66.66.80.251 18:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics on contraception effectiveness are generally measured on a yearly basis. That wouldn't be a 96% pregnancy rate per-intercourse, but the annual pregnancy chance for "a couple engaging in regular sexual intercourse" (paraphrased). This is why couples using birth control (correctly) don't inevitably end up with a child within a year or two anyways, despite such high failure rates as 2-6%. All the same it makes no sense as an uncited number -- and the article on male contraception says it's a 4% annual failure rate if done perfectly, and is cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.137.116 (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research on presence of spermatozoa in pre-ejaculate[edit]

A 2010 (published online 2010, in print 2011) study suggests that some males always produce pre-ejaculate that contains motile spermatozoa, which may pose a pregnancy risk, and that this is not the result of sperm remaining in the urethra as a result of prior ejaculations. I am changing the following line to reflect this: "Though the pre-ejaculate does not contain sperm it is possible for this fluid to pick up sperm, remaining in the urethral bulb from previous ejaculations, and carry them out prior to the next ejaculation." See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21155689 for the source, or http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14647273.2010.520798 for the original electronic publication. I'm not certain I got the citation format correct, so someone with some experience entering them into Wiki might want to check me. 129.89.40.150 (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]