Science desk
< March 16	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 17

What would the spermatogenesis process look like without the epididymis?

Is a man surgically gets rid of both of his epididymeses (epididymi?) and his vas deferens subsequently grow and attach themselves to the place/spot on his testicles where his epididymises (epididymi?) used to be, what are the sperm that are subsequently going to come out of this man's body going to look like? As in, how would the process of spermatogenesis be affected if everything else was done other than a passage through the epididymis (on account of there no longer actually being any epididymises)? I know that testicular sperm cannot naturally achieve pregnancy and instead require IVF, but I was wondering if the same was also true for sperm that went directly from the testicles to the vas deferens (again, due to there no longer actually being any epididymises) and then came out of a man's body the normal way. I was also wondering just how fertile this man is actually going to be in this scenario after his vas deferens would have grown and attached themselves to the place/spot on his testicles where his epididymises used to be. Is this man actually going to be capable of causing any unplanned pregnancies? Or are the sperm that are going to come out of this man's body simply going to be too immotile for him to ever actually cause any unplanned pregnancies regardless of which women he will ever have penis-in-vagina sex with due to his sperm not actually having any epididymis to mature in? 68.96.93.207 (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Futurist is editing logged out again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you always have to publicly say whatever it is that you're privately thinking? 68.96.93.207 (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but in this case it's completely justified. You've already been told several times that a number of your questions about these sort of issues are inappropriate for the RD. If for some reason you cannot log in, you should at least make sure you properly declare who you are when posting, and use your account to confirm it when you can log in, in case there's concern over a joe job. It is inappropriate to use IP editing to evade scrutiny, that's a violation of WP:Sock. In other words, BB would not have to mention who you are, if you had properly declared who you are as you are required to do. Nil Einne (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought that the "socks" rule only applied to actual alternative Wikipedia accounts; so, thanks for clarifying that it also applies to editing when one is logged off from Wikipedia. I'll follow your advice from now on.

For what it's worth, though, from a scientific perspective, I do think that a question such as this one is perfectly legitimate considering that we actually have a Wikipedia article on spermatogenesis. Futurist110 (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The plural of epididymis is epididymides. But if you want to appear really learned to the cognoscenti, use the transliteration epididymide (without s) of the Ancient Greek dual ἐπιδιδυμίδε. --Lambiam 15:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Anyway, what about my general question here? Futurist110 (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you talked to a urologist about any of these questions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Futurist110 (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And they don't know??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They know that fertility will be reduced, but they're uncertain as to just by how much. Futurist110 (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that this question cannot be answered without empirical observations arising from one or more actual such cases. Epididymectomy is normally carried out following Epididymitis, and/or subsequent to Vasectomy to alleviate post-operative complications, and subsequent investigation would, I suggest, likely only be undertaken if prompted by a subsequent otherwise-unexplained pregnancy. A deep search of the relevant medical literature is beyond my scope, but conceivably one of our more medically qualified responders might care to undertake one. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.39 (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems like a good idea. Another good idea might be to perform an epididymectomy on non-human animals and then to attach their vas deferens to the place on their testicles where their epididymides used to be. Then, one could check just how fertile and motile the sperm of these non-human animals are in comparison to before their epididymectomy. Futurist110 (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be easy to convince the relevant ethics committee that such experimentation would be acceptable. While Animal testing on non-primate subjects is permitted wider scope than that on non-human primates, its necessity still has to be justified. Sheer intellectual curiosity would probably not suffice. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.39 (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't one argue that the value of this testing would be to determine just how much of an improvement this form of sterilization is actually going to be over a simple vasectomy? Futurist110 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The plural of Greek or Latin __is is never __i (let alone __ii). It's nearly always __es, __ides or __ites. —Tamfang (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]