Talk:Mammary gland

Do

Do males have mammary glands (as implied by the article) ? -- Vsion 4 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)

Well various sources on google seem to agree. This from the Columbia university press "They are rudimentary in both sexes until the age of puberty when, in response to ovarian hormones, they begin to develop in the female."--Clawed 4 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

I have read that males can produce breast milk using a certain method. I would say that both men and women have mammary glands, although women's are more developed for the purpose of breastfeeding.

Yes, although they are underdeveloped and rarely do anything. Usually when a male lactates, it is the result of hormonal imbalance. Also, as a side note, transgender women (meaning born biologically male), after undergoing hormone replacement therapy, have the ability to lactate more easily than a cisgender (non-transgender) male. — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the following text from the "Structure" subsection, as it has nothing to do with the structure of the mammary gland, and is unsupported by a citation:

"During masturbation many females feel their breasts and nipples. This causes the nipples to become hard and results in a more pleasurable sexual experience."

If someone can find a valid citation for that, then add that back into an appropriate section.

it would be really neat to have a photo of a Monotreme nursing. i have no idea where to find one but would be nice to see

Evolution

"It is believed that the mammary gland is a transformed sweat gland, more closely related to Apocrine sweat glands. There are many theories of how they evolved, but since they do not fossilize well, supporting such theories presents a major difficulty for the researcher. One theory proposes that mammary glands evolved from glands that were used to keep the eggs of early mammals moist."

What the hell do we need the fossilized titties when we have the platypus and the echidna?--94.69.128.204 (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive (Resting) vs. Active (Proliferating) during pregnancy vs. Active (Lactating) after birth

The fellowing three histological differences need to be discussed in the main article and are too complex for me to edit at the current moment. I will add the following information below for others to add in and edit, however, I do not have an online source for this information.

Inactive (Resting) Mammary Gland - the lobes are divided into lobules - there is abundant connective tissue between the lobules, primarily adipose tissue - the glandular elements seen are primarily parts of the duct system: (1) the smallest ducts are lined with simple cuboidal epithelium, and (2) the larger interlobular ducts have stratified epithelium. The lactiferous sinus is lined with stratified cubdoial epithelium while the lactiferous duct is lined with stratified squamous epithelium.

Active (Proliferating) Mammary Gland - During pregnancy there is an increased number of glandular elements and decreased connective tissue elements - The ducts branch and proliferate, and alveoli bud off of the ducts. These alveoli are formed by a simple cuboidal epithelium with myoepithelial cells at the periphery of the alveolus. Contraction of the myoepithelial cells help push the milk secretion into the duct system. - Alveoli show secretory activity in latter half of pregnancy, producing a watery fluid called colostrum immediately after parturition (birth). This colostrum contains large amounts of antibodies that confer passive immunity on the newborn. The antibodies are secreted by lymphocytes and plasma cells (differentiated B-lymphocytes) found in the connective tissue of the pregnant mammary gland.

Active (Lactating) Mammary Gland - After birth, the gland shows little connective tissue - The alveoli are dilated with milk secretions that are rich in sugar, protein, and fat. - The alveoli secrete by both apocrine (lipid component) and merocrine (protein component) secretion. - Milk is controlled by the suckling reflex. A suckling stimulus causes release of oxytocin from the pars nervosa, which causes the myoepithelial cells to contract. This forces the secretory products from the alveoli into the duct system.

Regression of the gland occurs after the cessation of lactation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.156.1 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Embryology

http://www.derm101.com/content/13368, in reference 1 is a better link (as of 1/29/2012) in the discussion of what the evolutionary source of the mamary gland is. Clicking on reference 1 links you to the apocrine chapeter of the on line reference, while the above links you to the embryology. It is more relevant (IMHO) although both are germane. According to the above reference there is NO controversy in the origins of human apocrine glands. They are certainly *not* eccrine (sweat) glands nor are they sebaceous (allthough are related to the latter). I suggest that unless a modern reference can be found to validate that the issue IS controversial that the Histology section be changed to reflect that in humans, milk glands are mistakenly said to be derived from sweat glands. (Contrast this with horse sweat glands which are apparently apocrine). In other words the article seems to be supporting a controversy where no evidence of one is cited.

 Secondly, in the same section: "A mammary gland is a specific type of apocrine gland 

specialized for manufacture of colostrum at the time of parturition." is rubbish. The mammary gland is CLEARLY specialized for manufacture of human milk which can continue for years and decades and the (of secondary importance?) short term manufacture of colostrum (immediately after birth/parturition). How did this ridiculous statement (from the same work as I cite above, but wrong in this context never-the-less) get here? Are there aliens who are not aware of the absurdity now Wikipedia editors?71.31.147.72 (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

this article atracts a lot of well meaning experts and we have very few people to keep it in shape. As of evolution, did you follow the link and look at lactation#evolution? Seems to be in a better shape but anyone who is interested will have to read the references to get all the details. Richiez (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

'Other mammals' vs 'other animals'

By definition of mammary gland, the only class that has mammary glands is mammals, and this point is very clear within the article itself. Is there any specific reason to use 'other animals' in place of 'other mammals'? This may confuse readers giving an impression that other classes might have mammary glands---I myself was confused for a very short time seeing this modification. --10k (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I changed these two headings, per your above commentary. Flyer22 (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Mammary gland development

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This small article can be readily merged into the "Development" section, with no loss of content, and benefitting the reader by having additional context and content surrounding it Tom (LT) (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about this one Tom, I think that mammary gland development is a complex and extense subject and deserves its own article. Maybe the length of the article is an indication of it needing to be expanded instead of merged. We can add content to the parent article as necessary so the reader benefits from the extra information though. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Tilifa Ocaufa. I do not have strong feelings either way. But to be clear about this proposal, like all merge and other proposals this is not an 'for all time' proposal, but just at the moment. Most of the content here is not so much about the development as physiology. Secondly, I agree that although this topic does warrant its own page at some future date, like most of our topics. The problem as I see it is that by splitting our articles up unnecessarily, we decrease editing by orders of magnitude. By merging content that can be reasonably merged, we can increase the amount of editors on a page, and decrease the amount of pages. To me, that makes it much more likely future editors will edit and maintain content. So I think we should keep separate articles when there's enough content, but if right now there's not enough content and we can roll it back (something that can always be reversed), we should. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We should WP:Merge when it makes more sense to do that. There is currently not a lot of content in the Mammary gland development article, and it would fit fine in the Mammary gland article without coming close to overwhelming it. The Mammary gland article already discusses development of the mammary gland, as it should, and I think the non-redundant content that is in the Mammary gland development article should be merged with the content in the Development section of the Mammary gland article...without subheadings. See MOS:Paragraphs about adding subheadings. Flyer22 (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that most of the editing generally take place in the parent article. With that in mind I support the merge if there's no considerable loss of content, which shouldn't be a problem in this case. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mammary gland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110421033058/http://www.derm101.com/content/13501 to http://www.derm101.com/content/13501
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130323001102/http://digitalcollections.fiu.edu/wild/transcripts/possums1.htm to http://digitalcollections.fiu.edu/wild/transcripts/possums1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110421033058/http://www.derm101.com/content/13501 to http://www.derm101.com/content/13501

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect statement

"...and male horses lack nipples and mammary glands"

Evidently who wrote the phrase quoted above has never read any decent veterinary textbook. 200.171.83.13 (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixing the lede

The writing in the second paragraph is utterly atrocious.

"For breast each mammary gland are separate with each one having its own nipple. Like human females have 2 breasts with nipple for each one of it. For udder, multiple mammary glands are inside a single mass with more than 1 nipple hanging from it. Like in cows and buffalos have 4 nipples and sheep and goat have 2 nipples from their respective udders."

Come on. Can someone please fix that? MelonBallin (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

odd number

one of the few mammals with an odd number.

Add a

1. list of animals with an odd number
2. diagrams of how in the world the odd number is arraigned

Two in the front and one on top of the head? Don't leave readers guessing. Jidanni (talk) 03:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)