Talk:History of anatomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.
 
WikiProject History of Science (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

I[edit]

I can't edit this page - I think it may be too long? I'd like to fix the Olaus Rudbeckius link, it should be either the Swedish or the Latin name, not a mix. -- OlofE 10:18 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

yeh, this one needs help but it's a great start! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DennisDaniels (talkcontribs) 18:31, 23 October 2002

Why does this comuter have more links than the history of Anatomy?

Shouldn't this page contain a brief summary of the history of anatomy, rather than just a collection of links? // Habj 00:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


I really like this article and think it has a lot of interesting information that is concise and to the point. I think it this article could possibly improve by adding a larger body of information about the emergence of anatomy as a scientific discipline and why how anatomical insight would have been used in antiquity both inside and outside the clinical setting. (Kevinzehnder (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC))

Work on this page and topic[edit]

I just edited out some subjective matter from the conclusion and fixed some grammar. 27 Nov 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.68.54 (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have just taken some rather WP:BOLD action on this page and its related pages, which I'm going to explain here. The text that originally occupied this page was copied out of a massive Anatomy article that was scanned from an early 20th century encyclopedia by User:The Epopt in February 2002 [1]. The text was then split, first into the anatomy page and this page, and then into further subages linked to from this page. These pages then proceeded to, well, sit there, acquiring {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{globalize}}, and {{pov}} tags every now and then. One of them was refactored, without much change of content, but remained a confusing article; another acquired an intro paragraph recently, presumably as part of cleanup queue work; I stumbled across one while working cleanup queue several weeks ago and nominated it for deletion; it got zapped. Seeing one of its cousins on cleanup queue today, I realized what was going on here.

Looking around the various articles that the original chunk of text had become, it was clear that the text was actively inhibiting the development of our content on the topic. Nobody wants to wade into a massive chunk of unwikified text, requiring a sentence-by-sentence copyedit, much of which is so outdated or judgementally phrased as to be useless in any event.

And so, to remedy this problem, I wrote up a short summary article here, then blanked and redirected all the daughter articles. Hopefully, with this 4 year old obstruction removed, the wiki process will proceed as normal and we'll get some good articles here in a while. Anyway, I'm a little nervous about taking such a large action unilaterally like this, so if anyone has any comments on what I did, I'd appreciate hearing them. --RobthTalkCleanup? 19:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the whole thing reads MUCH better! I am a bit puzzled at what happened though. I was stumbling along through the 1600's and step for step tried to tie the general topics together, and I was more or less concluding that a general discussion of the times was needed, with separate links to the main players. There is still a lot of work to be done. Vesalius was a major influence through his travels and famous book. There is also a lot of material still to be added on the situation in England (think of the bodysnatchers). Also, dissection of animals was in general at a higher level through the ages than human anatomy, because the Church allowed all work on animals. The increased world trade due to shipping had a direct effect on the knowledge of animals and the first thing men did with new ones, was to kill them, draw them, dissect them, and draw them again (often saying that the drawings were human, to increase book sales). I hope you didn't delete any names, because it is through following the individual anatomists and their personal networks that the story gets pieced together. The medical 'community' was basically a bunch of curious lone cowboys who could read and write in Latin.Jane 09:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I just realized who I'm missing: the Italian Berenger from Bologna - I can't find his page or info anywhere. Jane 09:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I spent a while looking for Mr. Berenger as well, and we don't have an article on him yet; his actual name was Giacomo Berengario] da Carpi, and you can find some info on him by Googling that. I'm afraid I won' be able to help out much more with the reexpansion; I know almost nothing about the topic, and the stuff I wrote is mostly a cleaned up summary of the stuff it replaced. As far as deleting names, you can find the whole original mess here in the history, so no information's been lost. I removed some from the article in its current edition, mostly because I was having trouble determining who was and wasn't important enough for inclusion. Anything I left out that should go back in is fine by me to readd. --RobthTalkCleanup? 13:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Quality[edit]

Everything up to 17th and 18th century anatomy is well written, and then the article gets bad. Can whoever wrote or refined these sections bring what follows to an equal standard? I should greatly appreciate it. 211.28.237.149 06:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. 132.216.109.42 (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Tarikh llm Tashrih[edit]

About Tarikh llm Tashrih (An extensive Book in Urdu on History of anatomy). The author Hakim Syed Zillur Rahman first published it in 1967 from Tibbi Academy, Delhi; he then published the second revised edition in 2009 (ISBN 978-81-906070-) from Ibn Sina Academy of Medieval Medicine and Sciences, Aligarh, India.


Review of the first edition (1967): The book contains a preface by the famous Indian Historian of Medicine, Mohammad Zubair Siddiqui of Calcutta (Mohammad Zubair Siddiqui was both nationally and internationally known for his Arabic text edition of Ali ibn Sahl Rabban al-Tabari’s Firdaws al- Hikma, published from Berlin. Another of his publication is Studies in Arabic and Persian Medical Literature, Calcutta, 1959) and an introduction by Hakîm ‘Abdul Latîf (Aligarh). The author collected for his book a wealth of information, which he arranged in seven chapters. He traced in it the history of anatomy of the Egyptian, Babylonian, Indian, Chinese, Iranian, Jews, Greeks (13th–3rd c. B.C.), Romans] ( 2nd c. B.C.–7th c. A.D.), Graeco-Arab (8th–15th c. A.D.), Unani medicine in Europe and in Medieval India. The span of the time period dealt with in his book is roughly of 3000 years! Interesting is the bibliography at the end of the book, which comprises a total of 62 standard sources, with the following break-up: 19 Arabic, 1 Persian, 33 English and 9 Urdu publications. His best chapters are those in which he dealt with the Greek medicine in Roman and Arabic-Islamic ages. In the latter he deals with 32 Islamic physician of Unani medicine. The last chapter is on Medieval Indian Unani physicians, who wrote on anatomy. It is based on original research. In so far as the historicity of certain events is concerned, the author did his best to draw upon the most up-to-date sources. For instance, about the allegation of the destruction of Alexandrian Library by the Arabs, the author has presented evidence on the falsehood of that accusation based on the works of European historians, and also on the Indian publications of Shibli Nomani and Syed Sulaiman Nadvi. The production of the book must be quite a difficult task indeed. He has employed Sanskrit, Greek, Arabic and Roman scripts for proper names and terms in the text. He has given comprehensive information about the publications of various physicians, discussing even various editions of their original texts, wherever possible. Apart from some minor typographical or other errors, for instance of German/French words and references, this book is an excellent history for the graduates of Unani medicine. It is in fact the first compilation of its kind in Urdu and /or Tibbî literature. According to Oskar Cameron Gruner: “…It is a valuable book and a notable evidence that the western historians should realise that they are not the sole contributors in this field.” (O. C. Gruner, Letter to Zillurrahman, dated 12.1.68, published in the Newsletter of Ibn Sina Academy of Medieval Medicine and Sciences (Aligarh), Ed. S.M.R. Ansari, Vo.4, No. 1 (2004) pp.11-12.) Hashemi1971 (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Birmingham[edit]

Why are there so many references to one university? It reads like a school childs essay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.69.92 (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, especially since the shortage of specimen for dissection seems to be a British problem only. But here it's shown as if prosection was the future of anatomy training in general. This is not true at all. For example in Germany, there are much more people willing to donate than the medical schools would need. Furthermore, since the donors have to pay a fee for being accepted, the costs for the universities are partly covered. In addition to that, we have up to ten students working at one specimen, not five. -- 132.199.204.203 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:jagged 85clean up[edit]

I took this out because while he is interesting his work has no real significant's to the history of anatomy

===Ibn al-Nafis=== The [[Arab]]ian physician [[Ibn al-Nafis]] (1213–1288) was one of the earliest proponents of human dissection and postmortem autopsy, and in 1242, he was the first to describe the [[pulmonary circulation]]<ref name=Dabbagh>S. A. Al-Dabbagh (1978). "Ibn Al-Nafis and the pulmonary circulation", ''[[The Lancet]]'' '''1''', p. 1148.</ref> and [[coronary circulation]]<ref>Husain F. Nagamia (2003), "Ibn al-Nafīs: A Biographical Sketch of the Discoverer of Pulmonary and Coronary Circulation", ''Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine'' '''1''', p. 22–28.</ref> of the [[blood]], which form the basis of the [[circulatory system]], for which he is considered the father of the theory of circulation.<ref>Chairman's Reflections (2004), "Traditional Medicine Among Gulf Arabs, Part II: Blood-letting", ''Heart Views'' '''5''' (2), p. 74-85 [80].</ref> Ibn al-Nafis also described the earliest concept of [[metabolism]],<ref name=Roubi>Dr. Abu Shadi Al-Roubi (1982), "Ibn Al-Nafis as a philosopher", ''Symposium on Ibn al-Nafis'', Second International Conference on Islamic Medicine: Islamic Medical Organization, Kuwait ([[cf.]] [http://www.islamset.com/isc/nafis/drroubi.html Ibn al-Nafis As a Philosopher], ''Encyclopedia of Islamic World'').</ref> and developed new systems of anatomy and [[physiology]] to replace the [[Avicenna|Avicennian]] and [[Galen]]ic doctrines, while discrediting many of their erroneous theories on the [[humorism|four humours]], [[Pulse|pulsation]],<ref>Nahyan A. G. Fancy (2006), "Pulmonary Transit and Bodily Resurrection: The Interaction of Medicine, Philosophy and Religion in the Works of Ibn al-Nafīs (died 1288)", p. 3 & 6, ''Electronic Theses and Dissertations'', [[University of Notre Dame]].[http://etd.nd.edu/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-11292006-152615]</ref> [[bone]]s, [[muscle]]s, [[intestine]]s, [[Sensory system|sensory organs]], [[Bile|bilious]] [[Canal (anatomy)|canals]], [[esophagus]], [[stomach]], and the [[anatomy]] of almost every other part of the [[human body]].<ref name=Oataya>Dr. Sulaiman Oataya (1982), "Ibn ul Nafis has dissected the human body", ''Symposium on Ibn al-Nafis'', Second International Conference on Islamic Medicine: Islamic Medical Organization, Kuwait ([[cf.]] [http://www.islamset.com/isc/nafis/index.html Ibn ul-Nafis has Dissected the Human Body], ''Encyclopedia of Islamic World'').</ref>
J8079s (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I took this out too as it really has no place in the history of anatomy.

==Medieval anatomy== {{main|Islamic medicine#Anatomy and Physiology|l1=Islamic medicine - Anatomy and Physiology}} After the fall of the [[Roman Empire]], the study of anatomy became stagnant in [[Christian]] [[Europe]] but flourished in the [[Islamic Golden Age|medieval Islamic world]], where [[Islamic medicine|Muslim physicians]] and [[Islamic science|Muslim scientists]] contributed heavily to medieval learning and culture. The [[Persian people|Persian]] physician [[Avicenna]] (980-1037) absorbed the Galenic teachings on anatomy and expanded on them in ''[[The Canon of Medicine]]'' (1020s), which was very influential throughout the Islamic world and Christian Europe. ''The Canon'' remained the most authoritative book on anatomy in the Islamic world until [[Ibn al-Nafis]] in the 13th century, though the book continued to dominate European medical education for even longer until the 16th century. The [[Arab]]ian physician [[Ibn Zuhr]] (Avenzoar) (1091–1161) was the first physician known to have carried out human [[dissection]]s and postmortem [[autopsy]]. He proved that the [[List of skin diseases|skin disease]] [[scabies]] was caused by a [[parasite]], a discovery which upset the theory of [[humorism]] supported by [[Hippocrates]] and [[Galen]]. The removal of the parasite from the patient's body did not involve [[purging]], [[bleeding]], or any other traditional treatments associated with the four humours.<ref name=Hutchinson>[http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Islamic+medicine Islamic medicine], ''[[Hutchinson Encyclopedia]]''.</ref> In the 12th century, [[Saladin]]'s physician Ibn Jumay was also one of the first to undertake human dissections, and he made an explicit appeal for other physicians to do so as well. During a [[famine]] in [[Egypt]] in [[1200]], [[Abd al-Latif al-Baghdadi (medieval writer)|Abd-el-latif]] observed and [[examine]]d a large number of [[skeleton]]s, and he discovered that [[Galen]] was incorrect regarding the formation of the [[bone]]s of the lower [[jaw]] and [[sacrum]].<ref name=Emilie>Emilie Savage-Smith (1996), "Medicine", in Roshdi Rashed, ed., ''[[Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science]]'', Vol. 3, p. 903-962 [951-952]. [[Routledge]], London and New York.</ref>
J8079s (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Too limited[edit]

The scope of this article is way too limited, as if "anatomy" only concerns the human body. --Crusio (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


Many of the points made in this page are underdeveloped and vague. They allude to facts but do not expand. Many sentences have the capability to be turned into entire sections. Hippocrates and his contributions need to be expanded and there is absolutely no mention of Versalius, who is one of the main founders of anatomy as we know it. A section about the anatomical theatres with Heronymus Fabricius as the founder needs to be elaborated on. Greece and Egypt can be expanded to add new and relevant information such as the influence of the mummification process on peoples understanding of the human form. Advances my Islamic scientists were being made as well and can be added to this article

Various people are missing and those who are present in the article lack background and general information to tie them into subject. Aristotle, Galen, and Avincenna all delved into anatomy. Avenzoar in the 2nd century was the first to carry out postmortem autopsies. Da Vinci even became obsessed with the human physiology and drew his famous anatomical man. Body snatching was also a much more in depth practice and could use some elaboration and emphasis. Alexnicolejones (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Then add them with suitable sources, but Vesalius is definitely present in text and image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If this article is expanded to include more than just human anatomy, the addition of a section on comparative vertebrate anatomy, with reference to Edward Tyson would be useful. Theboywiththednatattoo (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps; and Sir John Struthers too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


Minor edits[edit]

I found this article very interesting, also I do have some minor corrections that I feel might make it even better. In the first paragraph, could you specify what methods you were talking about, when you wrote "Methods have also improved dramatically."

This treatise shows that the heart, its vessels, liver, spleen, kidneys, hypothalamus, uterus and bladder were recognized, and that the blood vessels were known to emanate from the heart. Could you rephrase this to "this treaties shows that the heart and its vessels were recognized, and the blood vessels were known to emanate from the heart. The liver, spleen, kidneys, hypothalamus, uterus and bladder were also recognized", I think that it sound better that way.

The Ebers Papyrus (c. 1550 BCE) features a treatise on the heart. It notes that the heart is the center of the blood supply, with vessels attached for every member of the body. Also if you can rephrase this to read like this "The Ebers Papyrus (c. 1550 BCE) features a treatise on the heart. It notes that the heart is the center of blood supply, and attached to it are vessels for every member of the body", that would great.

In 1489, Leonardo da Vinci, known mostly for his work in art and technology, began a series of anatomical drawings depicting the ideal human form. Here, you could insert "producing" after the word "began".

His work led to anatomy marked a new era in the study of anatomy and its relation to medicine. It is possible to rephrase this sentence?, I did not quite understand it.

God job Mbar3466 (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)