Vol. 20 No. 1 (2025)
Articles

A comparative analysis of female genitalia of seven Old World snake species using a silicone modeling technique

PDF
  • Kostadin Andonov,
  • Angel Dyugmedzhiev,
  • Borislav Naumov,
  • Nikolay Todorov,
  • Vladislav Vergilov
Kostadin Andonov
Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2 Gagarin Street, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
Angel Dyugmedzhiev
Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2 Gagarin Street, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
Borislav Naumov
Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2 Gagarin Street, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
Nikolay Todorov
Independent researcher, Krakra 30 street, Dragichevo, Bulgaria
Vladislav Vergilov
Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2 Gagarin Street, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/a_h-16881

Published 2025-05-06

Keywords

  • copulation,
  • morphology,
  • cloaca,
  • urodaeum,
  • pouches

How to Cite

Andonov, K., Dyugmedzhiev, A., Naumov, B., Todorov, N., & Vergilov, V. (2025). A comparative analysis of female genitalia of seven Old World snake species using a silicone modeling technique. Acta Herpetologica, 20(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.36253/a_h-16881

Copyright (c) 2025 Kostadin Andonov, Angel Dyugmedzhiev, Borislav Naumov, Nikolay Todorov, Vladislav Vergilov

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Genitalia diversity has long been an object of evolutionary and functional morphology studies, with a primary focus on male copulatory organs. Despite extensive studies on snake genitalia, particularly hemipenes, female copulatory organs remain understudied. This research aims to fill this gap by modifying a recently introduced silicone modeling methodology for preparation and by describing female snake genitalia for seven previously undescribed species. The methodology is based on employing a two-component condensation silicone into snakes’ genitalia to create internal models for intersexual comparative morphology. We conducted a comprehensive examination of seven Old World snake species – Boidae: Eryx jaculus, Colubridae: Dolichophis caspius, Zamenis longissimus, Elaphe quatuorlineata, Coronella austriaca, and Viperidae: Vipera ammodytes, and V. berus. Our results reveal significant variations in female genitalia morphology and we speculate that this is also reflected in copulation adjustment between the different types of species’ genitalia.

PDF

References

  1. Ah-King, M., Barron, A.B., Herberstein, M.E. (2014): Genital evolution: why are females still understudied? PLOS Biol. 12:e1001851.
  2. Andonov, K., Natchev, N., Kornilev, Y.V., Tzankov, N. (2017): Does Sexual Selection Influence Ornamentation of hemipenes in Old World snakes? Anat. Rec. 300: 1680-1694.
  3. Arnqvist, G. (1997): The evolution of animal genitalia: distinguishing between hypothesis by single species studies. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 60: 365-379.
  4. Arnqvist, G. (1998): Comparative evidence for the evolution of genitalia by sexual selection. Nature 393: 784-786.
  5. Biserkov, V., Naumov, B., Tsankov, N., Stoyanov, A., Petrov, B., Dobrev, D., Stoev, P. (2007): Guide to the amphibians and reptiles in Bulgaria. Sofia, Green Balkans.
  6. Blackburn, D.G. (1998): Structure, function, and evolution of the oviducts of squamate reptiles, with special reference to viviparity and placentation. Jour. of Exp. Zool. 282: 560-617.
  7. Brennan, P.L., Prum, R.O. (2015): Mechanisms and evidence of genital coevolution: The roles of natural selection, mate choice, and sexual conflict. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 7: a017749.
  8. Brennan, P.L. (2022): Evolution and morphology of genitalia in female amniotes. Integr. Comp. Biol. 62: 521-532.
  9. Cadle, J. (2007): The snake genus Sibynomorphus (Colubridae: Dipsadinae: Dipsadini) in Peru and Ecuador, with comments on the systematics of Dipsadini. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 158: 183-283.
  10. Cohn, M.J. (2011): Development of the external genitalia: conserved and divergent mechanisms of appendage patterning. Dev. Dyn. 240: 1108-1115.
  11. Cope, E.D. (1895): The classification of the Ophidia. Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc. 18: 186-219.
  12. Cope, E.D. (1898): The Crocodilians, Lizards, and Snakes of North America. Kept. US Nat. Mus. 1898: 153-1270.
  13. Darwin, C. (1871): The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Modern Library, New York.
  14. De-Lima, A.K.S., Paschoaletto, I.P., Pinho, L.dO., Benmamman, P., Klaczko, J. (2019): Are hemipenial traits under sexual selection in Tropidurus lizards? Hemipenial development, male and female genital morphology, allometry and coevolution in Tropidurus torquatus (Squamata: Tropiduridae). PLOS ONE 14: e0219053.
  15. Dowling, H.G., Savage, J.M. (1960): A guide to the snake hemipenis: a survey of basic structure and systematic characters. Zool. 45: 17-28.
  16. Dufour, L. (1844): Anatomie générale des diptères. Ann. Sci. Nat. 1: 244-264.
  17. East, M.L., Hofer, H., Wickler, W. (1993): The erect ‘penis’ is a flag of submission in a female-dominated society: greetings in Serengeti spotted hyenas. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 33: 355-370.
  18. Eberhard, W.G. (1985): Sexual selection and the evolution of animal genitalia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  19. Eberhard, W.G. (2010): Evolution of genitalia: theories, evidence, and new directions. Genetica 138: 5-18.
  20. Edgren, R.A. (1953): Copulatory adjustment in snakes and its evolutionary implications. Copeia 1953: 162-164.
  21. Friesen, C.R., Uhrig, E.J., Squire, M.K., Mason, R.T., Brennan, P.L.R. (2013): Sexual conflict over mating in red-sided garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis) as indicated by experimental manipulation of genitalia. P. Roy. Soc. B. Biol. Sci. 281: 20132694.
  22. Gabe, M., Saint-Girons, H. (1965): Contribution à la morphologie comparée du cloaque et des glandes épidermoïdes de la région cloacale chez les lépidosauriens. Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat. XXXIII: 149-332
  23. Giacomini, E. (1893): Sull’ovidutto del Sauropsidi. Monit. Zool. Ital. 4: 202-265.
  24. Granados, G.L., Greenwood, L., Secor, S., Shan, S., Hedrick, B.P., Brennan, P.L. (2022): Examining the shape and size of female and male genitalia in snakes using three-dimensional geometric morphometrics, Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 136: 466-476.
  25. Gredler, M.L., Larkins, C.E., Leal, F., Lewis, A.K., Herrera, A.M., Perriton, C.L., Sanger, T.J., Cohn, M.J. (2014): Evolution of external genitalia: insights from reptilian development. Sex. Dev. 8: 311-326.
  26. Hosken, D.J., Stockley, P. (2004): Sexual selection and genital evolution. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 19: 87-93.
  27. Inger, R.F., Marx, H. (1962): Variation of hemipenis and cloaca in the colubrid snake Calamaria lumbricoidea. Syst. Zool. 11: 32-39.
  28. Jadin, R.C., King, R.B. (2012): Ontogenetic effects on snake hemipenial morphology. J. Herpetol. 46: 393-395.
  29. Jurkfitz, R.C., Silva, K.M.P., Almeida-Santos, S.M. (2023): Sperm storage in Crotalus durissus (Serpentes: Crotalinae): histological insights about the female reproductive tract of pit vipers. Zoomorphology, 142: 487-496.
  30. Keogh, J.S. (1999): Evolutionary implications of hemipenial morphology in the terrestrial Australian elapid snakes. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 125: 239-278.
  31. King, R.B., Jadin, R.C., Grue, M., Walley, H.D. (2009): Behavioural correlates with hemipenis morphology in New World natricine snakes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 98: 110-120.
  32. Langerhans, R.B., Anderson, C.M., Heinen-Kay, J.L. (2016): Causes and consequences of genital evolution. Integr. Comp. Biol. 56: 741-751
  33. Ludwig, M., Rahn, H. (1943): Sperm storage and copulatory adjustment in the prairie rattlesnake. Copeia, 1943: 15-18.
  34. Mayr, E. (1963): Animal species and evolution. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
  35. Moore, B.C., Kelly, D.A., Piva, M., Does, M., Kim, D.K., Simoncini, M., Leiva, P.M.L., Pina, C.I. (2022): Genital anatomy and copulatory interactions in the broad snouted Caiman (Caiman latirostris). The. Anat. Rec. 305: 3075-3087.
  36. Myers, C.W., McDowell, S.B. (2014): New taxa and cryptic species of neotropical snakes (Xenodontinae), with commentary on hemipenes as generic and specific characters. Bull. A. Mus. Nat. His. 385: 1-112.
  37. Orbach, D.N., Hedrick, B.P., Würsig, B., Mesnick, S.L., Brennan, P.L.R. (2018): The evolution of genital shape variation in female cetaceans. Evolution 72: 261-273
  38. Orbach, D.N., Brassey, C.A., Gardiner, J.D., Brennan, P.L.R. (2021): 3D genital shape complexity in female marine mammals. Ecol. Evol. 11: 3210-3218.
  39. Pesantes, O.S. (1994): A method for preparing the hemipenis of preserved snakes. J. Herpetol. 28: 93-95.
  40. Pisani, G.R. (1976): Comments on the courtship and mating mechanics of Thamnophis (Reptilia, Serpentes, Colubridae). J. Herpetol. 10: 139-142.
  41. Pope, C.H. (1941): Copulatory adjustment in snakes. Fieldiana Zool. 24: 149-152.
  42. Shapiro, A.M., Porter, A.H. (1989): The lock-and-key hypothesis: evolutionary and biosystematic interpretation of insect genitalia. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 34: 231-245.
  43. Showalter, I., Todd, B.D., Brennan, P.L.R. (2014): Intraspecific and interspecific variation of female genitalia in two species of watersnake. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 111: 183-191.
  44. Siegel, D.S., Miralles, A., Chabarria, R.E., Aldridge, R.D. (2011): Female reproductive anatomy: cloaca, oviduct, and sperm storage. Chapter 9. In: Reproductive biology and phylogeny of snakes, pp 347-409. Aldridge R., Sever D.M. Eds, Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press.
  45. Siegel, D.S., Miralles, A., Trauth, S.E., Aldridge, R.D. (2012) The phylogenetic distribution and morphological variation of the ‘pouch’ in female snakes. Acta Zool.-Stockholm 93: 400-408.
  46. Stojanov, A., Tzankov, N., Naumov, B. (2011): Die Amphibien und Reptilien Bulgariens. Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main.
  47. Thornhill, R. (1983): Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Am. Nat. 122: 765-788.
  48. Ware, A., Opell, B.D. (1989): A test of the mechanical isolation hypothesis in two similar spider species. J. Arachnol. 17:149-162.
  49. Zaher, H. (1999): Hemipenial morphology of the South American xenodontine snakes: with a proposal for a monophyletic Xenodontinae and a reappraisal of colubroid hemipenes. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. 240: 1-168.
  50. Zaher, H., Prudente, A.L.C. (2003): Hemipenes of Siphlophis (Serpentes, Xenodontinae) and techniques of hemipenial preparation in snakes: a response to Dowling. Herpetol. Rev. 34: 302-307.