[QUOTE=JoZ;7180490]
I’ve heard that geldings/stallions DO have residual nipples but I’ve never gone exploring. There are enough weird things I either have to do (sheath cleaning) or my horses LIKE me to do (butt-scratching, udder massaging) that I haven’t felt the need to come up with any new ones (nipple seeking).
But my kitties, male and female, are nipple-endowed.
ETA: so I googled, because this is more interesting than doing work on a Friday. Apparently male horses do NOT have nipples, but male donkeys do. And bulls/steer do. What a weird distinction. The only other male mammals without nipples are mice and rats. Explain THAT, mvp!
[/QUOTE]
In a debate in the 1890s re: conceptual problems with Darwin’s theory, August Weismann and Herbert Spencer went round a bit about vestigial organs. It’s an old problem; Chuck (Darwin) knew about it and worried about it even in 1859 in On the Origin of Species.
The best explanation for some vestigial organs staying and some being “edited out” is the balance of two factors:
- The degree of selective advantage or neutrality. In this case, how much does the organ help the individual tom cat go about the business of leaving more offspring than his frenemies?
1a. Same question for the entire species.
- How much does it cost the animal to build or maintain an organ that has not appreciable function? In other words, how many more calories does that animal have to procure for himself just to build cat nipples… which do nothing in terms of his leave lots of babies which survive to adulthood raison d’etre. My bet, then (as Spencer argued in effect) is that it costs a cat proportionally fewer calories to build his nipples than it does a horse to build his mammoth ones.
2a. Does the vestigial, “meh… take it or leave it” organ have another cost? So, if eyes get infected from time to time and kill eye-owners, wouldn’t the species living in total darkness and not needing eyes do well to ditch 'em?
- Whatever genetic and developmental program builds nipples might be tied to those that build other features that are currently important and adaptive. In the deep past, there was a reason for those being combined (if you are of the “natural selection does everything” persuasion). In modern times, or if your metaphysics allows you to believe in accidents, that genetic/developmental architecture is an unimportant coincident.