Why Did the Chicken Lose Its Penis?

Only 3 percent of bird species have males with obvious organs of intromission, and now we know the genetics behind that situation. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Most birds don’t have penises. Good, I have your attention. Of course female birds don’t have penises, but neither do most males. Now researchers have unraveled the genetics behind the disappearance of this anatomical apparatus. Their penetrating insights are in the journal Current Biology. [Ana Herrera et al., Developmental Basis of Phallus Reduction During Bird Evolution]

Only 3 percent of avian species have males with obvious organs of intromission. Ducks and other water fowl are fairly well endowed. But most birds have just rudimentary gear, if anything at all.

To get to the root of this penile puzzle, researchers compared the embryos of chickens and ducks. Both types of birds start to develop a member. But in chickens, this so-called "genital tubercle" shrinks before the little guys hatch. And it’s because of a gene called Bmp4.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Bmp4 basically tells cells to commit suicide. This form of cell death keeps birds from sprouting teeth. And in developing male chickens, it causes the phallus to regress.

Why this happens is still a mystery. It may allow female birds to be more selective about their mates. Because males with external equipment tend to impose it where they will. Whereas those without have to let the ladies rule the roost.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe