None of the words ‘semelparous’, ‘semelparity’, ‘iteroparous’, and ‘iteroparity’ exists in Benson, Wells, Vikivortaro, Vikipedio, ReVo, or Sonja. The English side is kind of lame, too: Merriam-Webster has only “semelparous”, Wiktionary, on the other hand, has all four. Time and again I am finding that Wiktionary has entries that Merriam-Webster does not. So, kudos to Wiktionary!
No biggie, but just a missed opportunity for Esperanto lexicography to shine.

edit 6.May.2017:
“Por fariĝi “vera lingvo”, Esperanto devas esti uzata en ĉiuj fakoj.”
-- Gilbert R. Ledon
(parafrazo el p.7, de lia libro KONTRUU VIAN DOMON)

I am no expert and do not claim to be. I will cheerfully accept correction from those who know better. However, I myself suppose that highly technical words such as those you refer to -- I myself, as a university educated native speaker of English, have never encounter any of them! -- would probably be covered under Rule 15 of the basic principles of Esperanto. I presume that in many languages, such profoundly esoteric terms would be assimilated as localized forms from Greco-Latin roots, and that the same would apply therefore to Esperanto as internationalized forms. (And Rule 15 refers to preferably deriving terms from basic roots.)

Sometimes I think we get bogged down in unnecessary technicalities, when the fundamental task is to get an international auxiliary language such as Esperanto more widely accepted and used in the first place. Get E-o accepted to begin with, and then worry about esotericisms that might apply to a fraction of a percent of potential users.

bartlett22183:I am no expert and do not claim to be. I will cheerfully accept correction from those who know better. However, I myself suppose that highly technical words such as those you refer to -- I myself, as a university educated native speaker of English, have never encounter any of them! -- would probably be covered under Rule 15 of the basic principles of Esperanto. I presume that in many languages, such profoundly esoteric terms would be assimilated as localized forms from Greco-Latin roots, and that the same would apply therefore to Esperanto as internationalized forms. (And Rule 15 refers to preferably deriving terms from basic roots.)

Sometimes I think we get bogged down in unnecessary technicalities, when the fundamental task is to get an international auxiliary language such as Esperanto more widely accepted and used in the first place. Get E-o accepted to begin with, and then worry about esotericisms that might apply to a fraction of a percent of potential users.

You take the high road. I'll take the low road.

Well, with the 'low road' being that road taken by the fairies (Celtic mythology) it might be quite apt.

Vestitor:Well, with the 'low road' being that road taken by the fairies (Celtic mythology) it might be quite apt.

And which road do the trolls take?

mkj1887:

Vestitor:Well, with the 'low road' being that road taken by the fairies (Celtic mythology) it might be quite apt.

And which road do the trolls take?

You tell me. What's the name for someone who posts spurious 'problems' and is rude and defensive to those (from that extremely small number) who do respond, but fail to say: "yes, you're absolutely right"?

It's unnecessary.