Talk:Spermatozoon

message: oops, there's already spermatogenesis that talks about the production of sperm. i'll fix another day. T 09:41, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: spermatogenesis

message: Can someone give a pronunciation for speramtozoon? It's such a strange-looking word! Adambisset 22:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: So what's the difference between sperm (the secretion, not the spermatozoa) and semen? Up to now, no one has explained the difference on Wikipedia. When I say sperm, I mean the mass noun, not the count noun. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
The difference is that you're using it wrong, sperm are the sex cells that are the "active ingrediant", if you will, of semen. I believe Sperm is a plural without any real singular, best to say sperm cell... Could be wrong, of course... --StarkRG 08:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences

message: The article reads "Generally, the sex of the offspring is determined by the sperm cells, ... X & Y ...". If I'm remembering my high-school biology correctly, this is only true for mammals, amphibians use W & Y, with the female being heterogeneous, the male is homogeneous (I think it's WW but I might be wrong), reptiles use gestation temperature, fish and non-vertebrates use assorted other systems. CS Miller 23:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex determination 

message: Over at Sexual intercourse there's been a claim added to the article about how long sperm can survive within a woman after intercourse.  Varying claims of nine and four days have been added.  Does anyone here have a reliable source on spermatozoic lifespan in humans?  How long after intercourse is a sperm still capable of fertilizing an egg?  Kasreyn 02:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifespan of sperm in the female? 

message: Quality of sperm declines as men age, Physorg.com, http://www.physorg.com/news68790025.html 203.100.208.24 11:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image from this page used in news article 

message: That the research may aid in treating infertility for males with dysfunctional sperm is stated no less than 4 times, in slightly different ways. I believe the section should be rewritten a bit, although without leaving out former information of course. -- Northgrove 13:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In Female Humans" section 

message: I thought that sperm was the same as the 'fluid', aka 'cum', although I doubt if that is an official word. But if it is the same as a sperm cell, then what is the official word for 'cum'? DirkvdM 18:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nit-picky, but semen is NOT a liquid. It is a fluid. A fluid which contains dispersed or colloidal solid particles (such as sperm).
Turns out that words matter. Who knew? (in non-technical usage, liquids and fluids are often conflated.) Sand is a fluid, it can flow, but no one would call it a liquid, I hope.72.16.99.93 (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  sperm = spermatozoon? 

message: Isn't a spermatozoon a single celled organism? If it is, shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? 68.215.47.224 00:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single celled organism 

message: Some species such as C.elegans have
amoeboid sperm that lack the flagellum and the axonem,
but posses a unique pseudopod-cytoskeleton by which they move
(like ceratocyte crawling?).
Shall this exception be included into the article?
A reference is
The Journal of Cell Biology, Vol 108, 55-66, Copyright © 1989 by The Rockefeller University Press
S Sepsenwol, H Ris and TM Roberts 
A unique cytoskeleton associated with crawling in the amoeboid sperm of the nematode, Ascaris suum
--Benjamin.friedrich 13:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amoeboid Sperm 

message: Is it possible for a male to have only male, or Y, sperm and therefore produce only male offspring?
In short -- no. From a theoretical perspective, maybe genetic engineering can produce such an abomination.
Even from a theoretical perspective, X chromosome carries vital genetic material and without it the organism cannot be viable.
:This is not a problem. The ovum always supplies an X chromosome for the offspring. The male (father) necessarily has got X chromosomes in his normal cells, but it's not necessary that the spermatozoons carry X chromosomes 193.171.121.30 12:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender determination 

message: I'm looking for information on the excretion or disposal of dead sperm. Are the cells disposed of in some way, or is there no mechanism for this? I am refering more specifically to humans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.249.152.110 (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead sperm cell disposal 

message: Do we really need that little bit at the very beginning that states "Also known as cum."? That seems rather low-brow. And anyway, wouldn't "cum" refer to "semen," rather than sperm? (EarthRise33 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We did not need it, and I already reverted it. This article is specifically concerning reproductive sperm cells. AKAing that to "cum" is innacurate and non-encyclopedic. I reverted the change as vandalism. (Not to mention, the insertion was badly formatted and cut into the proper definiation.) --Willscrlt 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cum

message: Does this article attract enough vadalism to warrant requiring editors to login? I have recently restored missing content three times. Curiously, the content went missing, not from vandalism, but from flawed attempts to revert vandalism. I figure if we reduce the vandalism, entire sections of the article will also disappear less often. adanko 2006-12-18
I vote for the sentence "Women particularly like to have their orifices filled with this substance." to be left in for comic relief. LOL. Dxnihilo 09:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: According to Wikipedia's policy on article naming, this article should be name "Sperm." ~ UBeR 07:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: In the article - <"Unlike females, when males jack off egg comes out of their penis.">....as low brow as it can get. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.133.198.56 (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content edit needed 

message: It is incorrect that Sperm cell redirects here. Spermatozoons are motile sperm cells with flagella. However, plants and other organisms produce non-motile sperm cells which are not spermatozooa. They are still sperm cells though. Therefore, the redirection is kind of like redirecting dog to poodle. - tameeria 20:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sperm cell versus spermatozoon 

message: This page currently claims: "All humans are made up of 50% sperm." I assume this is due to overlooked vandalism (unless it's a poor attempt at stating that all humans received 50% of their chromosomes from their father). I clicked through some earlier versions and they also have it. I don't have the time right now to hunt down where the change happened. Can someone else look into it? - tameeria 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old vandalism 

message: I've created a separate page for sperm to replace the redirect here to account for the fact that not all sperm cells are spermatozoa. The new page contains a link here, as well as sections on spermatia and other non-motile sperm variants. - tameeria 01:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sperm page 

message: Unless my high school biology teacher was SEVERELY lax, there are no other reproductive cells within the human male. I'm changing it to read "...reproductive cell."DrExtreme 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main reproductive cell? 

message: I have a question with regards to a common rumour which is making the rounds down in Brazil, namely that male spermatozoa are faster or slower or live longer or whatever, and that it is thus possible to choose the sex of the offspring by having intercourse at a certain point of ovulation, or using certain positions. I have been refuting this theory in discussions, and could not find a credible scientific source covering it, only this sort of thing -- http://biblia.com/baby.html. I would love to hear from a medical/biol science source  201.18.112.29
Heh, I remember hearing that same old story from my biology teacher in high school! I'm not sure if it has a scientific basis. This article I found: Seidel GE Jr (1999): Sexing mammalian spermatozoa and embryos--state of the art. J Reprod Fertil Suppl. 54: 477-87, says the only difference between spermatozoa carrying the X-chromosome (female) or the Y-chromosome (male) is that the first kind contains 3-5% more DNA (2.8% in humans, X being the larger chromosome compared to Y). This can be used in the lab using DNA staining and a cell sorter to sort sperm into "male" and "female" spermatozoa (yielding about 90% accuracy) which can then be used to artificially inseminate a female with the spermatozoa fraction carrying the desired sex chromosome. I'm not sure if this is done in human reproductive medicine yet though. All articles I could find were testing this on animals, e.g. pigs, sheep, cats etc. Another more recent article: Grant VJ, Chamley LW (2007): Sex-sorted sperm and fertility: an alternative view. Biol Reprod. 76(2): 184-8, suggests that mammalian females might be able to influence the sex of the baby by influencing which type sperm will be successful in fertilization (e.g. through developing ova that are more or less penetrable/receptive to X and Y sperm), so that even sorted spermatozoa aren't a guarantee for success. So my guess would be that all those ideas on choosing your baby's sex through timing/position do not have a scientific basis at all. - tameeria 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sex Determination 2

message: What´s with the focus, of this article. So, if we are talking about sperm, why is the next logical step, sperm within women fertilizing them? why not vasectomys? and even if we go down the fertilizing route, why is there no information, as to the lifespan of sperm, or how to prevent becoming pregnant? the motto of the article seems to be:
"the sperm shalt exist, and it shalt fertilize the woman, and thou shalt not question your choice in that matter, but be scared of the sex has it has grave consequences."
with regards, female in distress!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.5.107.45 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposing a shift of focus - What´s with Vasectomys? 

message: I find these sentences confusing and therefore perhaps more information is needed. Spermatozoa cannot have a reynolds number. It must be the semen (or whatever the whole sperm plus fluid is called) that you are referring to. If you have a pure lump of spermatozoa it will simply be a tissue. It is the seminal fluid produced by the seminal vesicles and such like secretory gland that provides the characteristic nature of semen. Lisa256B (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laminar flow of sperm 

message: It would be nice to have additonal information about the maturation of the spermatozoa once they have been released from the seminferous tubules. Including in the epididymis, ampulla of vas and also after ejaculation once the spermatozoa have reached the vagina dnd uterus (Capacitation- i'm unclear of what this actually entails) and also within the proximity of the oocyte (acrosome reactions). Perhaps this would be more clear if this was listed as a separate heading and reshuffle the information in order to make it more clear.Lisa256B (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional information on the maturation of seprmatozoa 

message: The otherwise lovely drawing of a spermatozoon refers to a "front view" of it. Perhaps one then needs another diagram to explain which side of the sperm is its "front"? Otherwise, why not use less-confusing language, such as dorsal, ventral, etc.
212.99.205.117 (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Front view" of a spermatozoon??? 

message: I dont see anything mentioning how early that this stuff can become fertile, specifically in humans. I don't suppose someone knows that.--MathUser2929 (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of fertility 

message: The content under this portion of the article seems to need revision, at the moment the two paragraphs of it are either contradictory or should be combined.
Initially it says the sperm are protected by some glycoprotein then in the second portion mentions the blood-testis barrier as though it is the only protection.
Stormcloud51090 (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoidance of immune system response 

message: I wouldn't mind seeing a comparison on sperm quantity in diferent animals, particuly mammals. 210.185.16.135 (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantity? 

message: The article is titled "spermatozoon," but the term is never defined. Instead, the article starts by talking about sperm. I came to this article to learn the difference between the two. My impression is that they are the same, but it would be nice if someone familiar with this topic could define both terms. Wakablogger2 (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Jeffq! Wakablogger2 (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a Spermatozoon? 

message: Why? If if does not attack somatic cells, why it to attack own sperm?--MathFacts (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It recognizes sperm as foreign.  Spermatozoa are not somatic cells after all.  130.15.104.166 (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The male immune system might otherwise attack sperm whilst in the testes 

message: From the article as of 06/17/2014:
"In male humans, sperm cells consists of a flat, disc shaped head 5 µm by 3 µm and a tail 50 µm long." (correct)
"Some species of fruit fly produce the largest known spermatozoon found in nature.[8] Drosophila melanogaster produces sperm that can be up to 1.8 mm, while its relative Drosophila bifurca produce the largest known spermatozoon, measuring over 58 mm in size."  (incorrect)
Since 58 mm is 2 inches, and we are talking fruit fly here, I assume the editor meant µm (microns) not mm (millimeters)
Unfortunately, I can not find a source for this information and do not want to just arbitrarily assume that it should be changed to µm.  Bobsd (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked the primary references (now inserted) and confirm that the unit is correct: it is in millimeters! Most of the time this sperm is highly packed, which is why it can be much longer than the length of the fly. I guess that this means that motility is by uncoiling the sperm rather than waving it about! Klbrain (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect unit of measurement used for Size 

message: Substituted at 06:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The current attribution of spermatozoa discovery isn't quite correct. The reference 1 given states that it was a student of his. His name was Johan Ham and Van Leeuwenhoek gives the credit to Ham in his correspondence.
See for example the website lensonleeuwenhoek.net where the letter is cited.
http://lensonleeuwenhoek.net/content/johan-ham
Triops56 18:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't speak Dutch (nor latin) so what Leeuwenhoek is giving Ham credit for isn't clear. Ham brought the sperm to Leeuwenhoek, but WHO first observed sperm (microscopically) is not clear. For all I know, it could have been his butler. Anyway, I changed the lead to say it was first observed in Leeuwenhoek's lab, which isn't ambiguous. (Leeuwenhoek also first reported the observation in the literature). Not sure how relevant the distinction is between the guy in control of a lab and the grunt doing the work. Especially since we know a lot of the grunts' work was never acknowledged, and the guy in control was expected to take the credit.72.16.99.93 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A student of Van Leeuwenhoek discovered spermatozoa not Van Leeuwenhoek 

message: I think this article's explanation of the fertilization process in Humans is insufficient and misleading. Unfortunately the grossly simple stuff you learn (or used to?) in High School is repeated here as if it is accurate. We know a LOT more about human fertilization than we did a generation ago, but there's still lots we don't know. Most of this article would have the reader believe that once ejaculated into the female vaginal canal, the sperm swim up to the awaiting ovum, wiggle through the zona pellucida, and then fuse with the ovum's wall. This is wrong. Even if we ignore the sperm's swim up to the ovum, we should mention that the egg is surrounded by various other cells and materials. We might mention that it appears that many sperm are required (if 'required' is correct) to initiate the reactions in these outer 'defenses' which allow the sperm to penetrate up to the ovum's cell wall. That is, while H.S. Biology would have us believe it is a race where the fastest wins the prize, the reality is more subtle and complex; sperm act, to some extent, in concert. The picture showing a sperm at the wall is grossly misleading. The diagram showing the last stages of sea urchin sperm penetration may or may not be relevant, (I'm really very uninformed about this topic) but it is also misleading in that it implies this is typical for all sperm (including mammalian and human). If it is, it certainly is not the entire process, and if it is not then I question its inclusion/use here. Certainly, it should be noted *in the caption* that it either doesn't represent mammalian/human process or if it does, is incomplete.72.16.99.93 (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy? 

message: Urdo 2402:3A80:1F87:BD4F:37F2:28F1:31E4:E930 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urdo