Talk:Diprosopus

4 ocular vision ?

May be 2 faces linked to a healthy brain? Do we known any adult similar case experimenting some sort of 4 ocular vision ? From cerebral plasticity, this should definitely be possible, but would the brain manage the visual data separately or merge into 4 meaningful views of the same object(s)? May be extreme eyes are to far apart to have some of their visual field to merge? Even so, it's about 270 degrees! Also wondering if the visual system is fully operating, if it's not going to be a bit too much stimulation for the brain! Actually it could probably adapt easily either by growing more axons or if it's really too much by decreasing the quantity of data taken from each visual path.

A BBC interesting article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7340091.stm 21:10, 19 April 2008 User:83.228.207.142

• There is a chance that she developed two pairs of cerebral hemispheres and thus two minds. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Doctors have told him them that despite having two faces Lali is healthy and normal. She is able to drink milk through either mouth and breathe normally. " - the BBC correspondent and/or the doctors were being "hopeful" (in quotes because there is no way at all that the child would have been able to eat normally). The child had cleft palate and other malformations. The road map for the developing organism is so severely screwed up that it usually expires before birth. No such organism - whether human or cat or snake or bird or fish - would ever live to maturity. As for the conceits of user 83.228.207.142, see explanation above.64.229.77.253 (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Picture please

Could someone please put a pic up here? thankx. Ilikefood 00:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There's been some obvious vandalism to the front page, but I don't know what the original information was. Could someone clean that up? 147.226.220.90 (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the "sonic hedgehog protein" bit, a google on "ssh protein" seems to confirm it's legit. who knew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.99.234.144 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog

Could someone provide another reference on the Sonic the Hedgehog protein. That REALLY sounds like someone is making stuff up and waiting to see how long it takes for someone to catch it. I didn't remove it because it did have one reference but I'd like to see another. Thanks! 146.145.184.198 (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's real. No one now can help the fact that a researcher chose an irreverent name for the protein, and it's not the most extreme example by any means. For verification you can follow the first "Sonic Hedgehog" link in the second paragraph to its Wikipage; see references #3-8 in the article (for reference #4 you need a subscription to Nature, but the rest are free full text); see the second, third, fourth and fifth external links in the article; do a Google search for shh protein; and do a PubMed search (www.pubmed.gov) for Sonic Hedgehog. For the longer research articles, if it's not visible right up front, a text search may be the fastest way to verify that it's there. Barbi6 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We should also be clear that the name of the protein is *sonic hedgehog* (SHH) and the name of the character is *Sonic the Hedgehog* - the names are not exactly identical. Barbi6 (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this and left the references, but removed the part about (uncited!) opinions. As for those people believing the name to be frivolous, reason why (and also why your opinion ought to be in the article). 124.177.23.249 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This is cited in the references and is not my opinion, but that of the authors of the cited references and the NYT external link (and as documented by the authors). It is also clearly evidenced by the number of people who have questioned the facts stated in this article for that very reason. Since the connection between the pop culture reference and the gene nomenclature is not going to go away and is not going to stop being questioned by every person who runs across it for the first time, there is every justification in an encyclopedia article for clarifying it. There is none for obscuring or suppressing the information, particularly when clearly cited to objective source references. Younger generations are even more likely to benefit from clarification as this particular aspect of molecular biology history retreats further into the past. To deny readers this understanding because of an unsubstantiated claim that the information "doesn't belong" is unwarranted, at best. See Wikipedia Deletion policy/Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Just unencyclopedic. Barbi6 (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

And now since we've had yet another attempt to remove accurate information about the name of the gene because of a mistaken belief that it could only be vandalism (thank you AA, for restoring the original text), I hope it's clearer why the article needs to explain it. Can't do anything about people who won't read it, but the explanation helps clarify for everyone else who is surprised by this, but will read. Barbi6 (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the aside about the SHH is totally unnecessary and irrelevant to the main article - if one wishes to understand the naming scheme, they need only follow the link. It breaks the flow of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.97.29 (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above - it's a random parenthetical, over-referenced explanation of something irrelevant to the article. The name is a link, why do we need this? Also the second bit seems a bit unnecessary and non-NPOV, but let's just get rid of the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.191.176.33 (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Such a fuss over one sentence - you'd think the above comments were talking about a parenthetical essay instead, which makes me doubt their actual intended usefulness. It's well-integrated with the rest of the article and relevant because it stops people from jumping to false conclusions about what they are reading (and trying to dismantle the article afterward). People don't always follow the link to understand the context, just as you are not making any effort to do so here. For example, calling the sentence "over-referenced" is apparently now the latest thing after a history of complaints that the naming of this gene isn't referenced and proven enough. There is no need to be so sensitive about a simple, quick explanation of something that many people don't already know, don't realize they don't know, and don't believe without the explanation. And what is an encyclopedia for, but to provide a place to address exactly that kind of need for information, among others? You can add information, but I don't agree with "just getting rid of" what's there already. Barbi6 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Human

Is there a source for any list of humans w/ Dpp? -66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC).

Lali

• Is Lali Singh Still alive?--Islaammaged126 (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• No, it was revealed on the Channel 4 program "The Girl With Two Faces" (16th September) that she died. I was only watching it with half an eye so I can't tell you how she died but she was two months old. --Leperous (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• I have added more info. from that UK TV program. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Thank you for adding the updated information. What a sad ending to have to relate. --Barbi6 (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"I was only watching it with half an eye"
OK, time for a new wikipedia page 202.180.111.63 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to remember that the outer manifestations - three eyes etc - are indicative of far more serious internal disorganization. These creatures cannot live very long; in fact the kindest thing would be not to let them be born at all.64.229.77.253 (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

new Janus cat

I found this report about another Janus cat being born, and thought contributors to this article might be able to improve this article with it. Either way, Happy Editing! http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/two-face-kitten-photo-164356431.html Chrisrus (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the link. Deucy is listed in the polcephaly article as a two-headed kitten, not two faced. other than the protein molecule I'm not sure who decides where they go, the media are pretty unreliable for dependable nomenclature/diagnosis.

i myself got confused and tried to add Frank and Louie to that page, not realizing he is listed here. i removed my edits there but since i had some links formatted i wanted to put them *somewhere* lol.

The Guinness Book of World Records recognizes "Frank and Louie" as the longest-lived two-faced cat. He was born on 8 September 1999. Guinness initially recognized him based solely on surviving until 2006.

Ukrpickaxe (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC) (rollseyes)

References

Skull Photo

Can I hot-link an image on the talk page? If not, sorry, but something like this: http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs51/i/2009/326/3/2/Conjoined_Human_Skull_2_by_dreggs88.jpg Would be great here. After reading about diprosopus after about 10 minutes I exploded and realized I HAD to see a skull of this, and I feel like this page would really benefit from this, if someone can find an image that's free to use. Punkonjunk (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a hoax. The photographer and copyright holder seems to go by "dreggs88". That might help you track him down and find out if it's a hoax and whether he would like to upload it to the Wikipedia Commons. Chrisrus (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The photo looks like it's of an adult skull or skulls, which supports the idea that it's a hoax. Especially if there's no documentation of an adult with the condition. Barbi6 (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes these images are a hoax. The sonic hedghog gene is responsible for proper orientation in three-dimensional space, when it goes awry it is not just the experior that is malformed - the interior is, as well, with cleft palate and more. that someone would have three eyes neatly disposed above two sets of perfect teeth is the sort of insult to one's intelligence that can only come out of ignorance. Mutants: On Genetic Variety and the Human Body by Armand Marie Leroi is a highly readable book that provides numerous images to illustrate the complexities of a single cell's development into a hollow sphere and from there into a fully functioning, three-dimensional being properly oriented in space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.77.253 (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion from Development

CFCF, I disagree with deleting the following sentence and all citations from the first paragraph of the Development section:

(The name of this protein was inspired by the Sonic the Hedgehog videogame character[7] and is part of an idiosyncratic[8] naming tradition in molecular biology research that some have criticized as frivolous.)[9][10]

7. Donahue JK (July 2006). "Gene therapy, angiogenesis, Sonic Hedgehog: Sonic the Hedgehog to the rescue?". Gene Ther. 13 (13): 998–9.

8. Cameron, David (2012). "Express Yourself (Space Savers issue). Our chromosomes bear creative, even outlandish, names. Who knew?". Harvard Medical School News 85 (2).

9. Maclean K (January 2006). "Humour of gene names lost in translation to patients". Nature 439 (7074): 266.

10. Ornes S (February 2007). "Bye-Bye, Sonic Hedgehog". Discover.

I understand from your talk page your reasons are based on WP:WTW & WP:N. WP:WTW is summarized as "Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms. Use clear, direct language," based on Neutral point of view and Verifiability. More on that below.

WP:N is summarized as "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics," as a criterion "to decide whether a topic can have its own article". WP:N says explicitly that notability guidelines as discussed on that page "do not limit the content of an article or list." WP:N does not apply here.

One of the pages you noted refers to the principle: [When creating content], "editors should consider how best to help readers understand it." This principle doesn't support deletion, however; it's part of the rationale for retaining the sentence.

People who know what kind of human suffering disorders of this gene can inflict (as with any developmental disorder, the suffering is real even if rare), and who are familiar with the "Sonic the Hedgehog" cartoon character don't necessarily understand how the two could exist in the same context, or don't necessarily believe that they do, unless they understand how genes like this were named. This is what the sentence briefly explains and the citations verify and support with further context.

Additional references, after a quick search: Page 348 in Fundamental Molecular Biology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009.(http://books.google.com/books?id=_l8B1LF14ScC&pg=PA348&dq=sonic+the+hedgehog+SHH+gene&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZTUSU9CZI8rH0AHixoC4CA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sonic%20the%20hedgehog%20SHH%20gene&f=false).

Page 4 in Pediatric Hand and Limb Surgery, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2012. (http://books.google.com/books?id=f0OP5u8ERDwC&pg=PA11&dq=Humour+of+gene+names+lost+in+translation+to+patients&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s0ESU4DNH6fN0wGY_oCICQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Nebert and Wain, Hum Genomics.2003,1(1):66–71; Cohen MM (July 2006),"Problems in the naming of genes". Am. J. Med. Genet. A140(13):1483–4. For this particular point, note that what this and similar references verify is that criticism exists (neutral point of view), not whether it does or doesn't have merit.

Right now the Development section is left dangling without any explanation of the SHH name and without citations. In the past people have seen that and then deleted that sentence, then called for another name to be inserted (which of course can't be done since "sonic hedgehog" is the real name). I would rather put the brief explanatory sentence and the citations back than start re-verifying verified information again, and I wouldn't mind asking for the page to be protected to prevent further swings of this cycle. Barbi6 (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem that SHH is so common that its mentioned on a large number of articles, and mentioning this on each of them feels superfluous. I think its better to just link to the SHH protein and we can put a <!-- Do not delete, this is the real name --> tag there. Alternatively we could just use the abbreviation SHH.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

CFCF, "feels superfluous" doesn't sound like a Wikipedia principle to me. It's one sentence. Are you sure that readers go through every article the way editors do (or might), and in the same order? Why should they be compelled to follow a link to find out something that's common knowledge from your point of view but possibly unknown to them (so they wouldn't know to look for it), and why should they be deprived of the citations? Because this article refers to a person born with diprosopus, it has had readers who will never go on to review the other SHH articles (just judging from the talk page). But in my search (above), I found medical and molecular biology textbooks that include the explanation - they think it's worth doing, but it can't be done here? Now if you are suggesting that the information you're deleting is notable enough to warrant its own article (I doubt that it's really that notable, but if you are), then it would make sense to link to that, but the article would have to be created first.Barbi6 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The article on Shh has quite a long piece on the name, its origin and criticism of it. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Has some of that been deleted perhaps? I did find a little under the heading "Discovery" and one sentence under "Criticism of the Name." How about if you add the link from this article to the SHH article as you're envisioning? If there is enough clarity then we'll see the results of that because the section will remain stable without any further attempted deletions, and if there isn't then we'll see the results of that too, and there is enough documentation on both the talk page and the history to refer to later if need be.Barbi6 (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is a bit confusing and badly organized, but there is a piece on criticism of the name almost at the bottom. I think the best way forward is to properly reference the statement, and in that way noone will delete the passage. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Pubmed isn't giving me any hits when it comes to this condition, and there is nothing in my embryology book. Any idea where this is sourced from? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me think, ummm ... Yes, I remember! It was sourced to the articles you insisted on deleting, and that I referenced above with additional textbook references! HOW does this make sense to you, CFCF? You won't hear of including a brief and sourced explanation of the gene name, but instead think a link (that people obviously aren't following, twice in <2 weeks now?) to a "confusing and badly organized article" is a solution? And now you think that the same people who are ignoring the link and your "do not remove" note are going to respect references without any explanation? How do you think we arrived at the original wording in the first place? This experiment has failed and should stop. I don't know why you want to obscure how SHH got its name, but you are defeating your own purpose - explaining it briefly, then moving on resolves the issue and keeps it low-key; but refusing to explain it and struggling with the resulting misunderstanding just calls more attention to it. (By the way ... searching PubMed for diprosopus provides 85 hits. Searching for craniofacial duplication provides 314 hits. A general or med student embryology book is much too limited in scope to handle a syndrome as rare as this, it takes a specialty pediatric genetics [or molecular biology, these days] reference text to cover it. There's no harm in giving this article a rest for a little while and coming back to it when you have those resources at hand, and who knows, there may be advances and further knowledge to cite at that point.) Barbi6 (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur with User:Barbi6 in that I find the explanatory sentence to be useful in the context of this specific article. I strongly feel that usefulness in context should take precedence over attempts to adhere to generally applied 'rules'. I think the goal of effectively fully communicating to readers and other editors and avoiding mistaken deletions takes precedence over urges to strictly satisfy orthodoxy. Least harm, least surprise, least hassle in the long run seems to be to leave in an explanation. In-real-life many people still tend to associate a somber tone with science and may be thrown off by the bit-of-whimsy if it's not explicitly explained. I imagine the need for this may change over time with continued generational turnover.

That said, I actually didn't even make it to the explanatory sentence before clicking the page history to address what I thought was vandalism. It was the inline comment [<!-- -->] in the source markup text that led me to look further. My thanks goes out to whoever put it there. Even though such inline comments are generally discouraged, in this case it was specifically useful.

I think I may be able to tweak the phrasing a bit to make things less surprising to future readers. Will give-it-a-shot after this.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I rearranged to lead with the less surprising "Shh" rather than "sonic hedgehog"—moving the latter to the former's following parenthetical position—and conjoined the two in the Wikilink to the protein's article. Also, I trimmed the explanatory sentence by leaving off "that some have criticized as frivolous" as it seemed to be more than what's needed to explicitly inform readers that indeed "sonic hedgehog" is a real name and not wiki vandalism. The merits of the name might be better explored in the Shh protein article.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Shh" vs. "SHH"

After a bit of 'googling' into "sonic hedgehog" I noticed that the forms "Shh" and "SHH" seem to be used interchangeably to represent it in text. A NCBI site — "SHH sonic hedgehog [ Homo sapiens (human) ]". National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Retrieved 20 March 2014. — lists "SHH" as the "Official Symbol" yet using my browser's 'find' function [<Ctrl>+<f>] reveals that many of the footnotes on the very same page use "Shh" as well. "SHH" seems—anecdotally—a bit more prevalent, and personally I find it more distinct and legible when used inline with other text. I therefore propose changing usage in the article to the all caps "SHH" form.

p.s.— I'm gonna' 'be bold' and make the change. Folks are free to revert if they really feel it warrants discussion.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The convention is that SHH is the gene and Shh is the protein expressed by the SHH gene.70.67.185.209 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diprosopus. 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/20141209152135/http://www.wpxi.com/news/lifestyles/pets/frank-and-louie-worlds-oldest-two-faced-cat-dies-1/njMLY/?icmp=cmgcontent_internallink_relatedcontent_2014_partners1 to http://www.wpxi.com/news/lifestyles/pets/frank-and-louie-worlds-oldest-two-faced-cat-dies-1/njMLY/?icmp=cmgcontent_internallink_relatedcontent_2014_partners1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070109123547/http://www.oregonnews.com/article/20050616/NEWS/50616015 to http://www.oregonnews.com/article/20050616/NEWS/50616015

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) 03:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)