Talk:Anatomy/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
What should this article include?
It would be useful to think about what the Anatomy article is about and what it should include, and to have a provisional view of overall shape of the article. What is the big picture? Is the anatomy article about of all life (except plants). Why have plants been excluded so far? What about fungi? Fungi are nearer to animals than plants. What about germ layers (ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm) in embryology, fossils, evolution, Darwin, DNA, organelles, mitochondria (and other organelles). How much space is left for history of anatomy? What difference do other Wiki articles about "Human anatomy", gross anatomy, and histology" make to this article? Should the article just be a sort of dab or sia directing readers to articles about the different facets of anatomy? Snowman (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Histology is taught as a separate subject at medical school, so makes sense to move all material related to tissues to there. Anatomy is generally and practically restricted to macroscopic then. embryology is best viewed as part of histology and linked/summarised from there. All organelles will be histology as well. Some evolution material can be discussed in comparative anatomy. A dab is not called for - macroscopic anatomy is a big topicCas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Is that logical? I think that anatomy is divided into histology and gross anatomy, so I think that histology is part of the "Anatomy" article. The histology content could be reduced in length perhaps to the three germ layers of vertebrates and the embryological origins of the main types of tissues. I do not know much about invertebrates, but I guess that separate embryological models may be needed for them. It could be easier to interlink the embryology to evolution and comparative anatomy. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, let's look at what the sources say - looking at Gray's Anatomy (admittedly a 1918 edition - I have an edition from the 1960s but can't find it at present), it says, "THE TERM human anatomy comprises a consideration of the various structures which make up the human organism. In a restricted sense it deals merely with the parts which form the fully developed individual and which can be rendered evident to the naked eye by various methods of dissection" - it then says " It is, however, of much advantage to add to the facts ascertained by naked-eye dissection those obtained by the use of the microscope. This introduces two fields of investigation, viz., the study of the minute structure of the various component parts of the body" (and goes on to mention histology and embryology) - note that it says introduces - i.e. does not necessarily indicate these two fields should be considered part of anatomy per se. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- My own secondhand 1944 copy of Gray's Anatomy is known as the "War Gray" according to the dust cover, it is the second printing of the 28th edition. It has been at the top of a pile of books most of this week. The second paragraph of the introduction says "It is, however, essential to supplement the facts ascertained by naked-eye dissection by those observed by means of the microscope." I would be interesting to know what your 1960s Gray says. Nevertheless, the introduction of the 2006 Student Edition of Gray's Anatomy is available in a "look inside" at Amazon.com. Under the heading "What is Anatomy" it says in the first line; "Anatomy includes those structures that can be seen grossly (without the aid of magnification) and microscopically (with the aid of magnification)". The 2006 Student edition of Gray's is extensively sourced from the bigger Gray's Anatomy, and I am sure that it is a worthy book. I can not find a "look inside" for the latest 40th edition of Gray's without logging-in. Snowman (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, let's look at what the sources say - looking at Gray's Anatomy (admittedly a 1918 edition - I have an edition from the 1960s but can't find it at present), it says, "THE TERM human anatomy comprises a consideration of the various structures which make up the human organism. In a restricted sense it deals merely with the parts which form the fully developed individual and which can be rendered evident to the naked eye by various methods of dissection" - it then says " It is, however, of much advantage to add to the facts ascertained by naked-eye dissection those obtained by the use of the microscope. This introduces two fields of investigation, viz., the study of the minute structure of the various component parts of the body" (and goes on to mention histology and embryology) - note that it says introduces - i.e. does not necessarily indicate these two fields should be considered part of anatomy per se. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Is that logical? I think that anatomy is divided into histology and gross anatomy, so I think that histology is part of the "Anatomy" article. The histology content could be reduced in length perhaps to the three germ layers of vertebrates and the embryological origins of the main types of tissues. I do not know much about invertebrates, but I guess that separate embryological models may be needed for them. It could be easier to interlink the embryology to evolution and comparative anatomy. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have found a "look inside" for the latest edition of Gray's Anatomy, the 2008 40th edition. On page xxii under the heading "Anatomical nomenclature" it says that anatomy can be divided into gross anatomy, microscopic anatomy (or histology), and embryology . Snowman (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding the Free Dictionary, it is a tertiary source. I am reluctant to use them as I find they make mistakes more often. There are some odd terms and some are referenced elsewhere and some aren't (but should), why not developmental anatomy linked to embryology? Anyway I digress. Back to sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would not use a free dictionary either. I sometimes look at my 1995 Stedman's Concise Medical and Allied Health Dictionary, which gives the entry "Anatomy" and then "Microscopic a.," the branch of a. in which the structure of the cells, tissues, and organs is studies with the light microscope." Snowman (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- This book [http://books.google.com.au/books?id=7avpAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA5&dq=anatomy+definition&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Tx91U_CbK8n1kQWXj4GwAw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=anatomy%20definition&f=false is inclusive of microscopic anatomy, but look at its source - it lists a webpage (????) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- The source is the external website is the url not expressed within a google search term. The source is mainly the Wiki as can be seen here: https://www.boundless.com/physiology/human-anatomy-and-physiology-introduction/anatomy-and-physiology-overview/topics-and-definition-of-anatomy/ Snowman (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Try some more books. Snowman (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Encyclopedia Brittanica does mention it (they have some interesting emphasis). Looking up histology it states that "The fundamental aim of histology is to determine how tissues are organized at all structural levels, from cells and intercellular substances to organs. Microscopic anatomy, on the other hand, deals only with tissues as they are arranged in larger entities such as organs and organ systems (e.g., circulatory and reproductive systems)." - which gives us a nice dividing line. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I clicked on your first link to "Anatomy" on EB; page one of the EB article has an introduction and then a heading "Gross anatomy", I clicked and went onto page 2 (link at bottom of page) of the same EB article and I found the heading "Microscopic anatomy" on page two of the article. So in the EB there is the heading "Anatomy" with the subheadings "Gross anatomy" and "Microscopic anatomy". Snowman (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thus - looking at the Animal tissues section, we can see this should be a brief summary only - hence this sentence "Animal cells do not have a cell wall and do not contain chloroplasts. If a vacuole is present, it is smaller than that found in a plant cell. The body tissues are composed of a great variety of cells such as muscle, nerve and blood cells. Each typically has a cell membrane formed of phospholipids, cytoplasm and a nucleus." should be removed as not in scope. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding the Free Dictionary, it is a tertiary source. I am reluctant to use them as I find they make mistakes more often. There are some odd terms and some are referenced elsewhere and some aren't (but should), why not developmental anatomy linked to embryology? Anyway I digress. Back to sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- The latest edition of Gray's Anatomy says that anatomy is divided into gross anatomy, histology and embryology (see link to a "look inside" on the Amazon website above) in the first sentence of the section on "Anatomical nomenclature", page xxii. The section does not mention any alternative ways of defining anatomy. Gray's Anatomy has a good reputation, so I think that this is conclusive proof that the mainstream view is that histology is part of anatomy. We can discuss how much gross anatomy, histology, and embryology to include in the article. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- I came here wondering "Is mind part of anatomy? What about DNA?" The latter is easy enough: DNA is not just anatomy, but the source of anatomy. As to the question of mind, I think it is too philosophical for more than a passing mention. My own position is that since brain is anatomical, mind is a corollary structure. It occupies something of a unique place in being the only part of our anatomy that conceives of a distinction between itself and the anatomy that generates it. Wurdeh (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- As the term "anatomy" is used by anatomists, it typically refers to structures that can be dissected by hand, so not DNA; most medical schools have a pair of first-year courses, Anatomy & Histology, the former dealing with structures big enough to see, the latter those too small. DNA, being even smaller, would fall under "molecular biology". But you are correct that everything is interconnected - these are lines drawn by humans to suit our needs, largely for practical/pragmatic reasons.
- As for the brain/mind, I would say the mind is a function of the brain, just like locomotion and movement is a function of the muscles. Anatomy covers the structure, while other fields cover the function (e.g. functional morphology). HCA (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Missing Human anatomy article
The Anatomy article, formerly mainly on human anatomy, now not unreasonably (but perhaps surprisingly) has a far wider scope. The Human body article seems to have focussed for a while now on giving an overview of all the body's systems, not only its structure, so it too has a far wider scope than Human anatomy. We therefore have a clear gap which ought to be filled by material on, um, the anatomy of the human, and curiously we don't have an article on that rather large and important topic. Perhaps we should replace the current redirect (Human anatomy) with the former text of the human anatomy article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC) Copied from Talk:Human body
- I can't find the reference for this but this followed a sent of discussions 1-2 years ago which (from memory) also involved CFCF. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Our main thesis was that there is not really any difference between "Human body" and "Human anatomy" - what exactly is human anatomy, if not the study of the human body? So I think it's quite reasonable that "Human anatomy" redirects here. Oh, I see you've put this at another page. Moving discussion there... --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- As to what you say, I disagree as I don't see how "Human anatomy" will be any different to the "Human body" article. If we follow the same format as our other articles, the format will be Anatomy, physiology, disease & health, history... which is pretty much what the "Human body" article is. Maybe we can revisit this discussion when we're finished fleshing out the Human body article? --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's pretty easy to answer, as you have said it yourself: the human body has anatomy (the structure of the body), physiology (the healthful functioning of the body) and other aspects. Physiology is not part of anatomy but a separate (and very large) science in its own right. Therefore, human body is the parent article, and we might (I suggest should) have an article tree organized something like this:
- Human body
- Human anatomy (structure, by region...)
- Human physiology (function, by system...)
- Given this structure, and the importance of both topics, it seems quite extraordinary and illogical to have no main articles on either human anatomy or human physiology, both major sciences in their own right with thick textbooks and plenty of journals of their own. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- If the articles anatomy, physiology and human body expand to such a degree that there is any real need to split them: we can. But to do just to have articles on the topics is pointless, the current layout serves readers far better than dictionary entries. Remember WP:NOTDICTIONARY Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- We have no splitting to do, as there is minimal (i.e. inadequate) coverage of human anatomy or physiology in any of the 3 articles you mention, and I'm not proposing dictionary entries. These are major holes in our coverage - we basically have no top-level articles on either topic. The human anatomy article should give an overview of the main anatomy articles (Head and neck, Thorax, Abdomen, ...), with a section on each of those; the human physiology article should similarly give an overview of the main physiology articles, with a section on each of them. Each will be a substantial article, containing much material that is barely hinted at in the human body article. Each has a major scientific literature (textbooks, review papers) to outline. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Where are the holes? What are we missing? Of the examples you use Head and neck anatomy is pretty much unedited for several years, and serves no purpose except to remove focus from the main articles.
- To be pragmatic I will say that this is a very bad idea, because it will end up making things worse for both editors and readers. There will be more overhead for editors to keep track of, while at the same time making it harder for readers to navigate the myriad of articles that exist.
- If anatomy has too little content about humans, then that article should be edited to be more in line with what the rest of anatomy articles are. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Harder to navigate? At the moment, there are no links from Anatomy to <all the subsidiary anatomy articles on regions of the body>. We have a crucial level missing. The article named "Anatomy" covers everything from other mammals and vertebrates to a wealth of invertebrates, so it quite reasonably) has only a very short section on humans, please see for yourself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, such an endeavor will make things considerably more difficult to navigate. Currently, both your proposed articles point to human body, and there is a hatnote at anatomy pointing there as well. That article in turn contains links to precisely what you refer to — through the various system articles that are linked. Simply creating a list of every possible human organ/feature serves no purpose, and in fact there are a multitude of such Sisyphean projects already at outline of human anatomy and list of human organs etc. Readers do not use these articles, as you can very clearly see from the pageview data.
- That the human body article is poor (currently C-class) is not a reason to create lots of off-shoot articles. Excessive off-shoots fraction our reader-base over many articles. That in turn makes the task of keeping them: up-to-date; free of vandalism; and from generally declining over time — nigh on impossible. (I'd rather have 100 good articles than a bajillion horrible ones — something you've shone light upon by linking several very neglected articles in your rationale). Please don't be disheartened, but this has been discussed before, and was generally considered a bad idea. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Harder to navigate? At the moment, there are no links from Anatomy to <all the subsidiary anatomy articles on regions of the body>. We have a crucial level missing. The article named "Anatomy" covers everything from other mammals and vertebrates to a wealth of invertebrates, so it quite reasonably) has only a very short section on humans, please see for yourself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- We have no splitting to do, as there is minimal (i.e. inadequate) coverage of human anatomy or physiology in any of the 3 articles you mention, and I'm not proposing dictionary entries. These are major holes in our coverage - we basically have no top-level articles on either topic. The human anatomy article should give an overview of the main anatomy articles (Head and neck, Thorax, Abdomen, ...), with a section on each of those; the human physiology article should similarly give an overview of the main physiology articles, with a section on each of them. Each will be a substantial article, containing much material that is barely hinted at in the human body article. Each has a major scientific literature (textbooks, review papers) to outline. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- If the articles anatomy, physiology and human body expand to such a degree that there is any real need to split them: we can. But to do just to have articles on the topics is pointless, the current layout serves readers far better than dictionary entries. Remember WP:NOTDICTIONARY Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Given this structure, and the importance of both topics, it seems quite extraordinary and illogical to have no main articles on either human anatomy or human physiology, both major sciences in their own right with thick textbooks and plenty of journals of their own. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Like I stated elsewhere, I view having both a Human body and Human anatomy article as unnecessary WP:Content forking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anatomy. 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/20131016064638/http://www.jefferson.edu/about/eakins/forbes.html to http://www.jefferson.edu/about/eakins/forbes.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 13:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Anatomy. 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/20120428001536/http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/Development/fish.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/Development/fish.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/catalogue/title.cfm?ISBN=0443071683
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090602045832/http://www.insectzoo.msstate.edu/Students/basic.structure.html to http://insectzoo.msstate.edu/Students/basic.structure.html
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) 21:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. In the ancient history it is said: They also conducted vivisections on the cadavers of condemned criminals. It is wrong, since cadavers are nor living.--Kani (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
References
Anatomy started with the Greeks/Helens? Wrong.
Over 1,000 years before that the ancient people of Khemete (we call the region Egypt) studied anatomy. In fact, even the father of Greek medicine admitted that the greatest doctor was Imhotep of Egypt. The academic racism on wikipedia is alarming.--2604:2000:DDD1:4900:250B:BF6E:9B88:A2CA (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT HCA (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't know about who started anatomy,but as far I have given the glance on this article, there is no statement which meant it has started by Greeks,all it says is the word is derived from Greek language, please look into your misconception and correct me if I'm wrong..! #spread_love Vamsi Kumpatla (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Please look into history section more carefully,for me t looks like they have given credits to Helens Correct me if I'm missing something.
- spread_love Vamsi Kumpatla (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)