COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE MORPHOLOGY AND HISTOLOGY OF TESTIS AND EPIDIDYMIS OF SLOTH BEAR (melursus ursinus) AND DOG
Loading...
![Thumbnail Image](assets/images/Item.jpg)
Date
2018-08
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
KARNATAKA VETERINARY, ANIMAL AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, BIDAR
Abstract
The comparative study of morphology and histology of testis and epididymis in
sloth bear and nondescript dog was conducted. Morphologically significant difference
were recorded between testes of sloth bears and nondescript dogs. Histologically, tunica
albuginia of sloth bears was thicker, having multiple muscular layers and dense fibrous
connective tissue. Seminiferous tubules of sloth bear were more convoluted, whereas
interstitial tissue between seminiferous tubules was more in nondescript dog, which were
sorrounded by layers of contractile cells. Seminiferous tubules showed sertoli cells and
adjacent spermatogonia cells were lined basally. Primary spermatocytes were larger than
spermatogonia cells and towards the lumen spermatids were seen in sloth bears and
nondescript dogs. The amount of reticular fibres surrounding leydig cells in the
interstitium of nondescript dog was more. Efferent ductules were covered by thick
collagen fibres in sloth bear, whereas in nondescript dog loose connective tissue existed.
Epididymis had 4 types of cells in lining epithelium namely tall columnar principle cells,
basal cells, apical cells and vacuolated cells were seen in sloth bears and nondescript
dogs. Surface epithelium showed undulated projections in tail of epididymis in sloth bear.
Secretory blebs were seen in lumen of both the species. Tail of the epididymis showed
sperm mass in lumen of nondescript dogs. Micrometrically, there was no significant
difference in seminiferous tubular diameter, whereas seminiferous tubules capsular
thickness, tubular diameter and capsular thickness of head, body and tail of epididymis of
both sloth bears and nondescript dogs showed significant difference. The tubular
diameter and capsular thickness of head and body of epididymis is more in nondescript
dogs where as in tail of epididymis, it was viseversa.