Neotropical Entomology

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 306–310 | Cite as

Morphology of Male Reproductive Systems in Ephemeroptera: Intrinsic Musculature

Systematics, Morphology and Physiology


Although the Ephemeroptera have been studied over a long period of time, there are still few studies on the morphology of male reproductive system. The spermatic ducts are considered conserved among different Ephemeroptera groups. However, previous studies distinguished different organizational patterns of the spermatic duct intrinsic musculature. This study describes the morphology of the spermatic ducts, especially their musculature, in six species of Ephemeroptera, representing five families. We have observed variations in the organizational pattern of the spermatic ducts, even between species from the same family. Moreover, all species studied had intrinsic musculature in the spermatic ducts although with different organizational patterns. Thus, we believe that this musculature is important to move the spermatozoa along the ducts of all Ephemeroptera and not only of those with aflagellated spermatozoa (Leptophlebiidae). The variations in musculature organization must be related to differences in reproductive physiology (i.e., copula duration) and not only with spermatozoa characteristics.


Mating strategies reproductive system SEM spermatozoa TEM 


  1. Baccetti B, Dallai R, Giusti F (1969) The spermatozoa of Arthropoda. VI Ephemeroptera. J Ultrastruc Res 29:343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brinck P (1957) Reproductive system and mating in Ephemeroptera. Opusc Ent 22:1–37Google Scholar
  3. Brito P, Salles FF, Dolder H (2011) Characteristics of the male reproductive system and spermatozoa of Leptophlebiidae (Ephemeroptera). Neotrop Entomol 40:103–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dallai R, Afzelius BA (1990) Microtubular diversity in insect spermatozoa: results obtained with new fixative. J Struc Biol 103:164–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gaino E, Mazzini M (1991) Spermatozoon of mayflies (Ephemeroptera): an ultrastructural approach. In: Alba-Tercedor, Sanchez-Ortega (eds) Overview and strategies of Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera. The Sandhill Crane Press, USA, pp 27–38Google Scholar
  6. Grimm VR (1985) Vergleichend-anatomische Untersuchong der abdominalen Muskulatur und der Gonoducte manlicher Ephemeroptera-Imagines (Insecta). Stuttgarter Beitr Naturk 384:59Google Scholar
  7. Jamieson BGM, Dallai R, Afzelius BA (1999) Insects: their spermatozoa and phylogeny. Science Publisher, USA, p 555Google Scholar
  8. Pescador ML, Peters WL (1980) A revision of the genus Homoeoneuria (Ephemeroptera: Oligoneuriidae). T Am Entomol Soc 106:357–393Google Scholar
  9. Quadri MAH (1940) On the development of the genitalia and their ducts of orthopteroid insects. T Roy Entomol Soc Lond 90:121–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Soldán T (1979a) The structure and development of the male internal reproductive organs in six European species of Ephemeroptera. Acta Entomol Boh 76:22–33Google Scholar
  11. Soldán T (1979b) A comparative study of spermatozoa of some central European Ephemeroptera. Acta Entomol Boh 76:223–230Google Scholar
  12. Swammerdam J (1681) Ephemiri vita: or the natural history and anatomy of the Ephemeron. A fly that lives but five hours. Henry Faithorne and John Kersey, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Werner M, Simmons LW (2008) Insect sperm motility. Biol Rev 83:191–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Depto de Biologia Estrutural e FuncionalUNICAMPCampinasBrasil
  2. 2.Depto de Ciências Agrárias e BiológicasUniv Federal do Espírito SantoSão MateusBrasil

Personalised recommendations