Talk:Anatomy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Misc.

Some of the text on this page is rather out of date.

---

What about English terms? When talking about anatomy it seems sensible to adress professional and lay readers likewise. I am not quite sure whether individual entries really should be moved to English-headed articles. To be sure, most anatomical terms have their English counterparts, but some of these may lack the precision of the scientific nomenclature. And then there are the Nomina Anatomica (Paris 1955, Sao Paulo 1997) which are widely adhered to. I believe we should make up our minds how anatomical terms should be handled and which nomenclature should be used for article headings, lists etc. There is also an entry named On-Line Medical Dictionary which seems to be nothing more than a proposal, but if such a thing should ever arise, it might be wise to connect anatomical etc. overviews to such a dictionary and leave the anatomical entries under their scientific names.yes this isvery importantKosebamse 12:04 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

I prefer using English terms, and additionally mentioning the scientific ones. This also solves the problem of lacking precision. Texts are otherwise hardly readable by lay-people - Patrick 12:26 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

But if we want a classification or list to be scientifically solid, we can't do without a precise nomenclature. I am afraid that there are many things in anatomy that don't have a precise name except the scientific one. Perhaps there could be a list or classification for lay readers and one for professionals. There could be a short explanation under a common name for the lay reader, and details under a scientific name, for the professionals. Of course, it would be la ot of work making everything linked everything else in a sensible way. Kosebamse 12:42 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

---

The main part of the content is dedicated to human anatomy which has a separate article. Andres 17:36, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Why do we have "butt" leading to "buttock"? Should we replace it?

Done. Ortonmc 15:07, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

The last paragraph of this article appears to be taken from another text, with references to a "current edition" and the trailing elipses. Yoderj 14:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest 3 possible wiki links and 1 possible backlink for Anatomy.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Anatomy article:

• Can link exact form: ...m that of the medical man it consists of a knowledge of the exact form, position, size and relationship of the various structures ...
• Can link physical anthropology: ...omy of different races of mankind is part of the science of physical anthropology or anthropological anatomy. ...
• Can link English poetry: ...] {{Biology-footer}} ----- There is a historical type of English poetry called an '''anatomy''', or more precisely an '''[[amatory ... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

• In Pedicel, can backlink ANATOMY: ...ngle flower or spore-producing body within a cluster<br> 2. ANATOMY stalk-shaped body part: an anatomical part that resembles a...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category

Category:Anatomy has more than 170 articles in the main cagtegory. Many of these should just be in subcategories. But I don't know much about anatomy. Can anyone help with this? Thanks. Maurreen 14:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Latin terminology

Most of you wrote these in English terms. I'll try and translate them in latin if no one shows interest, since it is a language globally used and globally understandable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.88.216 (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Morphology

"Morphology (biology)" redirects here, but should it actually redirect to a more specific entry on morphology, such as the animal morphology article? Mineralogy 03:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree and will do this.HappyVR 19:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Though not a perfect solution Morphology (biology) now redirects (eventually) to comparative anatomy - which seems about right. Is this ok.?HappyVR 20:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Why is diaphragm found both under organs and under uncategorized terms?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.46.64 (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Template

I was bored, and so I transferred all of the information on anatomy into a template. If I've done something very wrong, don't be afraid to revert it. (I know the template is ugly, but that can change easily)A J Hay 09:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Human vs. non-human

It strikes me that since the Human anatomy article is the main article, that the "human" section should be shorter and even the human pictures should be moved over to the human article. That way, this article can branch out into frogs, rats, fetal pigs and whatnot. -- 64.9.234.5 02:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This work

"In the present edition of this work..." The next several sentences seem to be quoted from some other book, describing how its articles are presented. It doesn't seem to fit into Wikipedia. Art LaPella 01:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy & physiology

It's not clear to me how anatomy and physiology relate: in what ways are they different? Thanks. 131.211.43.45 12:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anatomy is the study of the body's parts, physiology is the study of what they do (this is in very basic terms, of course.) Naysie 12:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Failure of GA nomination

I've failed this for noting as a good article for reasons that I can't see being resolved in a few days. The article is much too short to even adequately summarise the topic and I agree with the above start rating.

• There are no references at all, only some external links. Requires references per - citing sources
• Not broad enough as it only mention animal and plant anatomy.
• Does not seem to meet any of the requirements in Wikipedia:What is a good article?

- Peripitus (Talk) 07:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. It mentions what the study of anatomy is, then branches off into a section of human anatomy which links to a main article, but doesn't mention anything about the other types of anatomy as mentioned in the opening paragraph. So, my suggestion is as follows:

- opening paragraph: what is anatomy and why do we study it? May contain origin of word and difference between the study of anatomy and the study of physiology - Types of anatomical studies e.g. human, animal etc (possibly linking to main articles) This can be in separate paragraphs, not all lumped together for the reader to figure out.

any other suggestions and rewrites are welcome :) Naysie 12:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "Article Creation and Improvement Drive" team should not attempt working on medical topics (and perhaps any very technical page), going on their results of this page. I have just done a partial tidy up. Snowman 19:55, 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Anatomy

History of Anatomy deserves its own subsection in this article. I would write it myself were I not daunted by my lack of medical knowledge. 211.28.237.149 05:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For such a foundational area of science we need some history. MotherFunctor 12:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this mnemonic help?

• Moved from main page to here. Is it suitable for the main page?:

An easy way of remembering all the systems of anatomy is as follows:

DR. SCUMLINER

D - digestive system R - respiratory system

S - skeletal system C - circulatory system U - urinary system M - muscular system L - lymphatic system I - integumentary system N - nuerological system E - endocrine system R - reproductive system —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowmanradio (talk • contribs) 11:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

The images in this article all deal around human anatomy. I placed the images at the appropriate article section, but I think the ones here are best removed alltogether. I placed 4 combined images at human anatomy which are better placed at this section. Regarding the name "human anatomy", I think it's better to change it to Anatomy of Homo sapiens, so as to signify that it's just another animal species; should be placed under Category: animal anatomy too. This as other species do not always have an adjective; eg allot of species even only have a latin name and not even a english one.

KVDP (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Anatomy|p005488j}}. Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Too limited

Anatomy is a much wider field than just "human anatomy"... --Crusio (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope that this article will be expanded to cover non-human anatomy at some time in the distant future. Jarble (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anatomy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'll take this review. I'd like to note I haven't had any part in editing or creating this articles. I welcome the contributions of any other editors during this review. LT910001 (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Greatly improved; prose is good, spelling & grammar correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses main aspects.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes.
	7. Overall assessment.

Specific commentary

Hello again, Cwmhiraeth. You are indeed a busy bee! A few comments about this article:

• This article has a very uneven structure. Some parts (eg animal anatomy) are extensive, whereas other parts are just lists. Some parts are suffocated by images (eg. Research and practice), other parts are very bare.

Have converted the list of systems to a structured table; it summarizes a very large body of knowledge which is covered in the linked articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The article has essentially one image per section, which seems reasonable. Both with a narrow window and a maximized one, this seems to work fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is looking much better with these changes. LT910001 (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• This article needs to be more broad. There are some areas relating to anatomy that should be covered here. These include: anatomists (and the worldwide shortage of), social and ethical issues (eg grave-robbing, paid cadaver donation, historical development of hand-washing due to Ignaz Semmelweis' observation, photography of bodies?); techniques used in anatomical examination (dissection, imaging)

We are working on this. However, grave-robbing and the like are already covered, as is the use of imaging, while hand-washing and the discovery of bacteria are not directly on this topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

My reference to Semmelweis may have had you scratching your head; medical students at the time would examine cadavers and not clean their clothes or their hands, believing it to be a mark of esteem. He discovered transmission of disease from the dissection of dead bodies to pregnant mothers (resulting in appalling mortality rates) could be ameliorated with handwashing. An interesting sidenote in the history of anatomical dissection. LT910001 (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added Semmelweis to the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know this was just a small sidenote and wouldn't have affected GA nomination, but thanks for including this. LT910001 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This said, your articles that I have seen are usually of very high quality, so I look forward to your future attention. Awaiting your response; kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this review. It will take us a few days to work through the points you raise above and make the necessary improvements. There are main articles on Human anatomy, Outline of human anatomy and Human body so I believe that information on human anatomy should be summarized here rather than dealt with in full. At the time we worked on improving the article a few months ago we were responding to a lot of tags, see this version, and concentrated on dealing with the issues they raised. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No rush, take your time. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

We think we're pretty much finished now, unless there's something specific you feel we've missed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you and well done, this is a wonderful article and I have promoted it to GA status. LT910001 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Preservation of content

Thanks for your edit Snowmanradio. I did the GA review (you can see this above), and didn't pick up on your astute finding. There's no need to remove the content, and I've replaced it with a tag so that a later editor can come along and provide a more relevant citation. Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You have restored this; " Methods used include dissection, in which the body is surgically opened and its organs studied, and endoscopy, in which a video camera-equipped instrument is inserted through a small incision in the body wall and used to explore the internal organs and other structures. Angiography is a proceeding in which blood vessels are visualized after being injected with an opaque dye, X-rays and magnetic resonance imaging being used for this purpose.[citation needed]" Snowman (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• People are not surgically opened to explore normal anatomy, instead cadavars are dissected. Snowman (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Angiography is more about discovering atheroma and perhaps congenital abnormalities of the circulation, than anything to do with normal anatomy these days. Snowman (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Who wants opaque dye, X-rays, magnetic resonance or endoscopy to visualize normal anatomy. These are common tests for suspected pathology. Snowman (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• To me there is obvious and misleading confusion between the study of anatomy, morbid anatomy, pathological anatomy and pathology in an unreferenced section of text. Snowman (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I await the opinion of other editors, as there is a bit of a conflict of interest with my also being the GA reviewer. I think that this article ought to cover all aspects of anatomy, and that they study of anatomy isn't just conducted through dissection; from a clinical anatomy point of view it may be studied using a variety of different methodologies. That said, I will await the opinions of other editors. --LT910001 (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it seems crystal clear that anatomists can and do make use of all available technologies in their studies. Of course many of the modern techniques were devised for diagnosis of disease, but that doesn't forbid them from being used in research. If one thinks of neuroanatomy for instance, basically every single research paper relies on scanners and so on. I'll take a look at the cn tags. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

And as you say surgery is often used, not to explore, but exploration is done concurrently to a procedure. Just look at the newly verified anterolateral ligament. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 05:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I will quickly add that this is probably not possible to find in a traditional review, so if someone could look it up in a text-book to source the material that would be great. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

With regard to human anatomy, I think that the difference between applied anatomy is blurred with the pure study of anatomy. A surgeon uses his knowledge of anatomy to help him with the job in front of him. A radiologist uses his knowledge of anatomy to help him interpret pathological changes seen on X-rays. Also, a clearer difference should be made between the study of anatomy of animals and the study of anatomy in humans. Currently refs [4][5][6] are about animals and ref [1] (used twice) is about humans and are all used in the same paragraph. A difference should also be made between the study of anatomy of dead animals (and cadavars) and living animals. Scanners are used a lot to explore pathology and disease. Snowman (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the content preserved by User:LT910001 contains what looks like a mistake. As far as I am aware, the paramegnetic contrast media sometimes used in MRI are not opaque in the same sense that a radio-opaque dye is for X-rays. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: the preserved content has been amended, see below. Snowman (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

About the article

• "Methods used include dissection, in which the body is surgically opened ...". Surgery is the treatment and investigation of disease and pathology, see "Surgery". Surgery in not the study of anatomy; however "applied anatomy", a working knowledge of anatomy is essential in surgery. It would be very highly unusual to surgically open a human to solely study anatomy, but the article says anatomy is studied by "surgically opening" things. Note that a surgeon's duties are not the same as an anatomist's. Obviously the article is mixing things up, so I have removed the word "surgically". Snowman (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• "Angiography is a procedure in which blood vessels and their diseases ...". The article is mixing up the study of pathology (diseases) and the study of anatomy. The bird ref is about the study of disease in birds and is not particularly relevant to this article, so I have removed it. Snowman (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You're challenging what angiography is? Hadn't imagined that was in any doubt, adding a basic ref now. FWIW the GA policy doesn't require refs for everything, but no harm done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am raising this points, because I think that the section is misleading and this has got nothing to do with a GA policy about how many refs are needed. Snowman (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I understand the two new refs, they only support the use of angiography to study the anatomy of blood vessels in the iguana and the sand crab, so I think that the refs are inadequate to support the general statement expressed the article. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

They weren't meant for that job; I thought (per much text above) you were having trouble understanding why angiography could be useful in anatomy. But a general ref is fine too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The text has completely misunderstood the key differences between MRI and X-rays. MRI does not use X-rays, so radio-opaque die is not needed in MRI. I have fixed the line. Snowman (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done, nobody can have intended that reading. Wonder what a nuclear-magnetic dye would be like... Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The contrast media used for NMR are paramagnetic substances. The contrast media used for X-rays are radio-opaque. Both sorts of contrast can enhance contrast. I think NMR evolves quantum effects of absorbing energy and releasing a electromagnetic wave. I have not thought about this in detail before, but I would guess that describing a paramegnetic substance for NMR as "opaque" would be inaccurate. NMR angiography can be done without a contrast media, but I am not sure if modern NMR angiography is routinely done without a contrast media or not; see magnetic resonance angiography. Considering all the other useful things that could be added to this article, I suspect that the physics of angiography is probably outside of the scope of this article, so I have simplified the line. I have left the in-line refs in at present, but 4 refs for one line may be too many. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• About the peripheral nervous system: "The latter consists of sensory nerves that transmit information from sense organs and motor nerves that stimulate muscles to contract.[40]". What about the autonomic nervous system? Snowman (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's made up of central, sensory (by some authorities) and motor neurons also, but have mentioned the ANS vs somatic distinction briefly.Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

...but parasympathetic and sympathetic nerves can have opposite effects on smooth muscle, so it would be wrong to imply that motor nerves always stimulate muscles (as is obvious with relaxation of sphincters). I have amended it. The new ref is my old secondhand 1944 version of Gray's Anatomy. Note that the very old on-line version has completely different account of this topic. Snowman (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Smooth muscle is found in the inner linings of organs". Misleading. Snowman (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Said it's found in organs such as the gut. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I have changed it using common knowledge, adding some of the bigger structures that contain smooth muscle. Snowman (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Re "Brock, Arthur John Brock (translator), Introduction. Galen. On the Natural Faculties. Edinburgh, 1916." This is a work in three books, so more precise details of the source are needed for easy verification. Snowman (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the ref was to Brock's Introduction. However I've added a URL and both Brock's Intro page and the Galen chapter he was referring to. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Re: "Galen (April 1977). "Galen on the Affected Parts". Medical History. 21 (2): 212. PMC 1081972.". The ref seems to be a review of a translation by R.E. Siegel of Galen's books. I can not find the author of the book review. I can not see anything written by Galen in the book review, so I do not know why the Wiki article gives the author as Galen. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, obviously anyone can fix such things, no need for pages of talk, per WP:SOFIXIT. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The in-line source provided does not say that Galen was Roman, a surgeon, or a philosopher, so I wondered if you accidentally provided the wrong ref. The review cited is of a translation of Galen's books by Dr R E Siegal. I have no idea what your thought process where when you put this ref in the page, so it is difficult for me to put right without your input. Snowman (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I have often wondered about this. The fact that Galen was Roman, a surgeon, and a philosopher is not contentious and unlikely to be challenged, so does it need to be specifically mentioned by this inline citation? I refer to here: WP:MINREF. --LT910001 (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is not as simple as you might think. Galen was from Greece and he moved to Rome. Was Galen a surgeon, a physician, or both? I am not sure what was the distinction is between a physician and a surgeon in ancient Greece. I removed "Roman" from the article yesterday. Snowman (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have used the word "clinician", the same as in the EB, to describe Galen. I have added the relevant in-line citation for EB as the source. Snowman (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Page organisation

Perhaps the "Overview" section could be merged with the "Research and practice" section. There is some repetition in the two sections. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added autoarchiving to this page as there's now 20+ threads. Thanks for your edits, Snowmanradio. We have a list of our most popular anatomical articles (WP:ANAT500) if you'd like to help improve some other ones too -- many sorely need it. I'm in favour of keeping the 'overview' section. I think this provides a more verbose overview of what will be in this article that's not found in the summary-style lead. This article will probably be read by children and adults alike, so I think a general overview section helps in explaining the content a bit more. --LT910001 (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Is puerperal fever and Semmelweis's ideas in microbiology normally included in the history of Anatomy? Snowman (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove it. I asked for it to be added because it is one of the major milestones, in which the study of dissection impacted on the modern hygienic practices in medicine. For that reason I think it's relevant. --LT910001 (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

To me, including these microbiology ideas are going off on a tangent somewhat. Snowman (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There are three images by Vesalius in the article. Is this too many? Snowman (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion, I'd support whatever you consider as being an improvement to the article. --LT910001 (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I would opt for a more modern anatomy image for the introduction than the skeleton pose by Vesalius. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

For a discipline that is over 2000 years old, an image from only 500 years ago at the start of empirical, observational anatomy seems entirely appropriate. Perhaps we should say something along those lines in the caption. We won't find a greater figure (in either sense) to celebrate on this topic than Vesalius and his illustrations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. --LT910001 (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The caption for the image in the introduction does not look suitable to me. I would have thought that observational anatomy started in ancient Greece and subsequently went into decline for over 1000 years. I think that the current caption is misleading to imply that the the seven books were the birth of modern anatomy. I would think that the books represented a significant step forward, but not a birth. Snowman (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well we can tweak it, but the Ancient Greek anatomy was not modern, so V. was a milestone in modern, yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that empirical anatomy was born in ancient times, so how can it be born again in modern times. I would think that a good clear unambiguous caption would be needed for the image in the introduction. I think that the current caption is a bit of a riddle. I would call the seven books a milestone, but not a birth. Snowman (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's go with milestone. Of course we could say rebirth, a calque for Renaissance after all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Section heading "Early modern". The section contains an account of history before the early modern period, according to the chronology set out in the Wiki article Early modern period. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Added 'Mediaeval to...'

The problem now is that there is very little about the Middle Ages (or Medieval period), which lasted from the 5th to the 15th century. There was a hiatus in anatomy during much of this time, but this is omitted and not explained in the article. Snowman (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Added a statement and quote. The challenge is always to know how much to say, how much to leave unsaid when presenting a short summary. But indeed Vesalius ended a long gap. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not surprising given the state of knowledge - many classical works in many disciplines (e.g. those of Galen and of Ptolemy (for astronomy) were seen as state of the art until into the Rennaissance. I will think of things as I read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Re: William Harvey and the circulation. He is credited as being the first person to correctly describe the blood circulation, so this is significant. Looks like an omission to me. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have his book here, it is interesting to scan it again, but am not sure it is relevant to this article. The gross anatomy of the circulatory system was known long before Harvey. His fame is in physiology and medicine, as he interpreted anatomy and experimental observation (as of what happens when you stroke the blood out of a vein in your forearm, back towards your hand: the vein does not refill until you let go, so the valves must be preventing backflow, and the direction of circulation in the vein must be towards the heart... but this is about physiology, in Harvey's words the "functional activity" of the system, not its anatomy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I am thinking more about the structure of the heart and the pulmonary circulation and not just Harvey's findings about veins. Vesalius wrote inaccurately that blood that passed through "pores" from the right side of the heart to the left side of the heart (see page 97 of the translation of Vesalius's books VI and VII by Richardson and Carmen). Harvey's ideas of the circulation would depend on knowing the correct anatomy of the heart. Anat and phys are usually not far away. I would have thought that Harvey's ideas represent a revelation in the understanding of the harmony of anatomy and physiology of the heart. Snowman (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

About the understanding, certainly, and V. was definitely wrong. Unfortunately, while H. does criticise V. for a few things, and a logical implication of his (correct) model of circulation is that the septum is non-porous, he doesn't explicitly say that V. was wrong about the blood's sweating through pores in the septum. So it's all implicit, and anything we say wd be close to WP:OR. If you think you can phrase something lawfully on the matter, go to it. Chiswick Chap (talk)

To me, it seems that your comment is illogical. Harvey states with certitude that there are no pores in the septum between the ventricles. In fact, he states that the septum is a compact structure. Harvey essentially says that everyone was wrong to think that there are pores in the septum. Snowman (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

He implicitly criticises. I do not think this makes H. a champion anatomist to be covered in this top-level article; he is remembered for his work in physiology, which is another field, whatever the functional relationships between them. Physiology is related to pathology, and to pharmacology, by a thousand intimate connections, but it is not the same as those fields, or anatomy either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course, the end of the ancient views of the anatomy any physiology of the circulation are highly important in the history of anatomy. Harvey and others before him made careful anatomical observations and physiology experiments and overturned the old views. Harvey is credited as the first to explain the modern version of the circulation of the blood and he included a careful explanation of the anatomy of the inter-ventricular septum. It is a nice story. Capillary vessels were discovered about 100 years later. Snowman (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am late to the fray on this one - I notice that as of today it is 31 kB (5120 words) "readable prose size", so we do have some room to enlarge it if need be. I'll try and digest comments and see where we go from here - it'd be great to get it to Featured status I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Right - I have a problem with overview sections in general - the word itself implies a summary...but that is what the lead does so why would be have a lead (which is an overview) and then and overview section? I'd rename it something like definition and scope and start off with the meaning (and move the material on translation from Ancient Greek from the lead to this section. There shouldn't be material in the lead which is not repeated in the body of the article, and I think the translation is not prominent enough to leave in the lead. There is more important material. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a problem with the flow, but am scratching my head trying to figure out a better organisation - some of the material in this overview section segues nicely into the Research and practice subsection - but there is history in between. It would be good to combine or work out what to do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So does anyone mind if I reorganise? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am interested in opting in again to work on improving this article (having been involved in other matters while the above topics were being discussed). I am mostly interested in the Vertebrate and Invertebrate sections. I worked with Chiswick Chap to bring it to GA and would welcome your suggestions and help in its further improvement, Casliber. It would be great to bring it to FA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

To answer User Casliber question about reorganizing the article: I am aware that the article is a work in progress. I refer you to the guidelines about editing. Amongst other guidelines, two opposing relevant guidelines are; "do not make big changes without discussion" and "be bold in editing". I appreciate your polite question, but without knowing exactly what you are planning I am unable to give an clear answer, but I would like to see your reorganization, because you are new to the article and your first impressions could be helpful. I would think that a "Human anatomy" section is needed under the "Vertebrate anatomy" level 2 heading and there is probably no need for an overview section. Snowman (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This morning I wasn't sure what I wanted to change it to either, and I have been thinking about it all day. So, I am thinking I agree with merging Overview and Research and practice and leaving it with the latter name. I'd take out the material on definition of the term and take the ancient greek and make a small definition or etymology section at the top. In this section I'd add a brief note on the distinction between it and anatomical pathology and add a note on veterinary science. I see Snowman you were thinking along the same lines earlier up this pageCas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would think that the "History of anatomy" sections could be short or shorter, because of the linked page on the topic. What about putting "History of anatomy" near the end of the article? Snowman (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, both making sure there is not too much duplication and moving the history section to the end of the article. --LT910001 (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with it towards the end of the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• The material in the human anatomy section is all labelled research and practice - there is very little actually on anatomy of the human in it. I was about to move the whole lot up to definition and reorganise, but then would be leaving the human anatomy section empty, which I didn't really want to do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have made a short human anatomy section and moved the research section to the definition section. Upright stance on two legs, opposing thumb to fingers, and larger brain, would all be suitable for the human anatomy section. I am not sure if the "human anatomy" section should go as a level three under the level two "Vertebrates" section or have its own level two heading. I am not sure if the vertebrates should start with mammals (or humans) and go down to fish, ie in the reverse order. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts

• Ona very quick read, turning into skim:
• Lead very short & doesn't say much. Presumably definition used to be in there but split off - perhaps the 1st para needs to go back.

Good point. It can be difficult to write a summary for big topics; however, there are some editors already looking at the article who are much better at me with the English language and I expect that the introduction will be expanded over the next few months. Snowman (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• "tissue" linked on (at least) 3rd mention.

Now wikilinked. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a microscopic level which ceases to be "anatomy" - ie genetics, biochemistry etc? Does a lower boundary for the subject need to be stated?

There is no clear black and white answer, and it may depend on what anatomy is being studied. EM studies of tissues are mainly about anatomy, so that includes the structure of very small things. Chromosomes can be visualized by LM after special preparation of the tissue. Miosis and mitoses can be seen happening in cells by LM, and is where genetics, biochemistry and anatomy are all relevant. Some enzymes or chemical reactions can be located under LM with special histology stains and special antibodies linked to dyes can trace the site of antibodies typically on cell surfaces; however, generally chemical reactions and enzymes are part of biochemistry. I am anticipating that the article will say more about SEM and TEM. Atomic processes (radioactive substances) can be used to locate certain processes. Sometimes anatomy is not far away from genetics or biochemistry and the anatomy alone is best interpreted together with other sciences. Snowman (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a case for demarkating microscopic anatomy (which is histology) and moving content on that to the latter article. My understanding is that anatomy generally is restricted to macroscopic, with histology (and cytology) for microscopic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not know where you got that idea from. Snowman (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Animal tissue" section dives right in with the heavy vocab. This is a very top-level article & needs to be kept accessible. Section/whole article needs one or more decent illustration that isn't bones, cell diagram, stained slide. Other big gaps with no pics, and the selection of images doesn't seem outstanding - 2 from Vesalius etc.

I do not understand much of the "animal tissue" section, which seems to cater for invertebrates and vertebrates simultaneously. Any suggestions? Snowman (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that the microscope slides are very good, being actually images of the tissues. This sort of slide is the basics of histology, so to me they would seem be by highly relevant and important. Anyone, who has studied anatomy or pathology would be used to looking at these sort of slides every day. If the consensus view is that they are too specialized, then they would be replaced. I agree that there are rather a lot of illustrations of bones on the page at the present time. I anticipate that suitable illustrations will be found over the next few months. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Would a portrait of Vesalius be appreciated in the history section? Harvey calls him "the great Vesalius". Snowman (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• "The main types are loose connective tissue, adipose tissue, fibrous connective tissue, blood, cartilage [linked down with the fishes...]and bone. The extracellular matrix contains proteins..." - no links here at all. Nor for sponges, " as sea anemone tentacles and the body wall of sea cucumbers. Cross-striated muscle contracts rapidly but has a limited range of extension. It is found in the movement of appendages and jaws.." ".... Smooth muscle is found in the walls of the uterus, bladder, intestines, stomach, esophagus, respiratory airways, and blood vessels..". "nerve", Marie Boas Hall, not linked. etc etc etc

I hope that we can get some help for the invertebrate sections. In time, hope to simply the histology of vertebrates. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I presume that cross-striated muscle could mean skeletal muscle or cardiac muscle, because both of these have transverse striations, but it was used for skeletal muscle in the article. It was a bit puzzling, so I have amended it. Snowman (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps not an issue here, but if its "epithelium or skin" why do we have 2 articles? Is the definition at the former correct?

Thank you. Well spotted. It is a good point. The epidermis or skin has keritinized stratified squamous epithelium and it covers the outside of the body. Its structure is for protection and helps to retain water. I have made amendments, and perhaps some of the other editors will have a look at my writing style and make it easier to read. Snowman (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• " obliquely striated muscle" - nothing to link to?

Apparently, obliquely striated muscle is found in invertebrates, which I do not know much about. We might need to ask for assistance in writing about this. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• If refs 51-53 are all needed (and I generally like multiple refs) why not combine them?

Combined refs have other problems - which one verifies what? I think that we well not be using combined refs here. I hope that one of the editors will be able to simply that block of refs eventually. Snowman (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• If it was me I'd put "Dorit, R. L.; Walker, W. F.; Barnes, R. D. (1991). Zoology. - " & other much-used refs in a section below, & use short refs, but obviously this style is ok. The appearance of the cites is not exactly consistent; I haven't even looked at the templates.

Thank you. Some of the refs may need to be removed if they are not up to MedMOS requirements, so I would think that the refs would all be checked for consistency at a more suitable time. Snowman (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• In all GA yes, but a fair amount of work needed for FA I think. Johnbod/ Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

With some slow work over the next 2 to 4 months the article may be gradually improved. I would think that it could struggle to get through GA at this juncture. I would agree that their is a lot of work to be done to get it to FA. Thank you for your observations, please continue to watch the article and make as many comments as necessary. Snowman (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Invertebrate anatomy

Any particular thoughts on this section? It is now better wikilinked, but should it be expanded? It currently has one subsection, Insect anatomy, but all the different invertebrate groups have their own distinctive anatomies and to include them all would be excessive. What about sponges, cnidaria, flatworms, annelids, molluscs, arthropods, echinoderms and tunicates etc. (there are many other smaller groupings as well), should they all have brief mention? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not know. I would guess that the role of this article as a portal would be to include something about all the different sorts of invertebrates. See section below "What should this article include?". Snowman (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness issues

• One thing missing is the distinguishing of anatomy from anatomical pathology. Essentially the latter is investigating abnormalities while the former is restricted to the normal non-pathological layout of an organism. This needs to be added. I am happy to investigate and do so once we sort out overview section above.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This does need to be mentioned, but the focus on the study of anatomy must mention modalities of study of the modern era, which includes imaging and direct visualisation. --LT910001 (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The study of anatomy and the investigation of disease should not be muddled. Snowman (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I can see what Snowman is getting at and I partly agree - we need to distinguish between how we study anatonmy and how doctors investigate clinical problems (with imaging etc.). I need to read what we have and have a think on this one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Also we need to clarify human anatomy as part of medicine with that of other animals as part of veterinary sciences. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that anatomists would agree with this, and I certainly don't. It is a related discipline relating to the study of form. Anatomical pathology is the part of medicine to which you refer. --LT910001 (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC

I am not clear about what User LT910001 is saying. As far as I am aware, medicine includes applied anatomy and anatomical pathology. I expect that some researchers could study anatomy separately from medicine. Dental anatomy would be part of dentistry. Snowman (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean that anatomy and medicine are separate disciplines. They are related, and anatomy is important in medicine, but the study of anatomy is not a field of medicine. --LT910001 (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Anatomy is a basic medical science. Anatomy is a "tool or map" necessary for the practice of medicine. There is more to medicine than the study of the science of anatomy. Career academic anatomists are not practicing clinicians (unless they are doubly qualified and have retained practicing rights). Incidentally, histopathology (or morbid anatomy) is included in the practice of medicine. I do not know what you mean by "study of anatomy is not a field of medicine", because I guess that the study of anatomy would be included in the first year at every medical school all over the world. Anatomy can be studied separately from medicine. Is pharmacology a field of medicine? Is endoscopy a field of medicine? A medical doctor could say "The anatomy of the frenulum under your tongue is normal", hence using his or her knowledge of anatomy clinically to reassure a patient. Applied anatomy is used in clinical practice all the time usually to asses normality verses pathology. A quote by Prof Vivien Nutton from my EB disc "Galen regarded anatomy as the foundation of medical knowledge". Snowman (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we may be misinterpreting each other. I am specifically taking umbrage at this wording: "we need to clarify human anatomy as part of medicine with that of other animals as part of veterinary sciences", which implies there is a large umbrella called "Medicine" and anatomy solely exists under that umbrella. Anatomy is certainly important in medicine, and a basic science that practicing doctors should be acquainted with, but it is not solely "part of" the field of Medicine. So I agree with you that anatomy is very relevant, but do not agree that it is solely part of medicine.--LT910001 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see logic in your opinion. Nevertheless, medicine is a broad topic, so it would be helpful if you gave some examples where anatomy is completely separate from medicine. Snowman (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I will argue by analogy. Anatomy is different from medicine like herbology is different from gardening, car design is different from what a mechanic does, physics is different from rocket engineering, geology from exploring and so on. Practitioners in all these fields (medicine, gardening, mechanics, rocket engineers) may collectively hold all the knowledge in their counterparts, and knowledge may even be necessary, but the counterpart fields (herbology, physics, car design) are considered as separate fields. So while the majority of anatomical knowledge may be known to medical practitioners, the vast majority will now know the intricate details of anatomy, such as the intricate details of embryology, the names and structure of all the muscles of the body other than by group (at least in my country), morphological descriptions of all the bones, etc. Practitioners may have some idea, and this may be relevant to some specialists and surgeons, but it is knowledge from anatomy utilised for practice, rather than an instance of the study of anatomy itself.--LT910001 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that these analogies do not prove the point. Similarly, I would think that non-medically qualified anatomists work is different from a medical doctors work, but this does not prove that anatomy is completely separate from medicine. I think that it is very hard to think of any part of human anatomy that is not relevant to medicine and I note that no examples of such have been provided. Snowman (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, User:Casliber will reply concerning his remark that user User:LT910001's takes umbrage to. Snowman (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A good idea. I also note that the American Association of Anatomists considers themselves part of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology ([1]) rather than the American Medical Association, and considers their role as a "gateway... to the role of anatomy in team-based, interdisciplinary science, healthcare, and education" ([2])--LT910001 (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Aaah, sorry I missed this - all I meant was in practical applications - e.g. non-human anatomy is taught in the curriculum for a veterinary science degree, just as human anatomy is taught in a medical degree. Clarifying who might learn what is all. I didn't mean to imply anything else.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That's all right, thanks for clarifying. What you say here is very reasonable. --LT910001 (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• A cultural depictions section is possibly needed - prominent iconic images such as Vitruvian_Man, and maybe File:Da Vinci Studies of Embryos Luc Viatour.jpg and File:Studies of the Arm showing the Movements made by the Biceps.jpg - there'll be others too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, I wish this existed in more anatomy articles. --LT910001 (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're heading that way you should have section on the growth of anatomical accuracy in art, earlier conventions like the Ancient Egyptian one etc. I don't think we actually have an article on the subject unfortunately. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, the improvements in printing which enabled better quality book illustrations; for example, those which Vesalius took advantage of for his famous seven books. Snowman (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• The Other branches of anatomy section - these items need to be fleshed out and incorporated (and explained why relevant) or removed. We should review the see also section too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone familiar with the term "hard anatomy" for the anatomy of teeth? Snowman (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have never heard this term. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have done a search for "hard anatomy" in Google books where several hits imply it means bones, and not just teeth. Snowman (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

And also shells, in any case it is about bones and/or other hard material. One link also calls it osteology. I think this is worth a sentence to add too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• The scanning electron microscope (SEM) and the transmission electron microscope (TEM). Organelles and cell membrane features. EM images. Snowman (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Anatomical terms of location or Anatomical terminology. Snowman (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are referring to whether they should be included, I completely agree, considering there is an entire lexicon of terms that relate to anatomy. The primary article that is referred to is Anatomical terminology, which serves as a reference point for several other anatomical terminology-related articles. --LT910001 (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think that the whole animal tissues section is better off in histology and not on this page at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

See section "What should this article include?" below. Snowman (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Visible Body

186.223.245.47 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)