Talk:Human skeleton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rib regeneration

'The lower rib is the only bone in the human body that can regenerate.'

Particularly in the context in which it appears, this implies that if you remove the lower rib it will grow back to its original shape. I've Googled, but the only material I've found to support this claim comes via creationism sites. Discussion here suggests that rib regrowth is rare, and - when it does occur - more along the lines of "random mass of bone" than "good as new".

If somebody has a good source for this claim - mainstream medical textbook or publication in a reputable medical journal would be good - please post it; until then, I don't think this claim should be in the article.

67.162.244.191 16:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The surgical procedure of "rib thoracoplasty" is practiced on a daily basis by surgeons for corrective surgery to "rib humps" left from curvature of the spine by Scoliosis. http://www.scoliosis.org/resources/medicalupdates/ribthoracoplasty.php. The procedure for removal of ribs has been performed as far back as April of 1933 from the information I've gathered off of a quick google search. See http://magazine.wustl.edu/Fall03/EvartsGraham.html for reference. Surgery for resegmenting ribs have been posted in medical journals, but are hard to get access to without subscriptions. For example, a google search turns up information on surgery related to thoracoplasty at the Clinical Orthopedics Journal supported by a professional service of LWW Online which host multiple professional online journals. See here: http://www.lwwonline.com/pt/re/lwwonline/home.htm;jsessionid=D41pcDNN8fh0v79Y9olORRg6JInETMZlHcWjYa9aJ4w9PyiPqNoa!-1536751125!-949856145!9001!-1

The google search http://google7.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Thoracoplasty+rib+regeneration turns up the following seach information; "Thoracoplasty is a viable surgical option for cosmetic correction of rib humps and it ... Usually, rib regeneration occurs 3 to 6 months postoperatively and ..." with the following link: http://www.corronline.com/pt/re/corr/userLogin.htm;jsessionid=D41Iesd28gMdsgeX7NMzhxo4G7fmSv4xHzu2Eu2BRRKpXU2qLwsN!-1536751125!-949856145!9001!-1. Unfortunately, one has to register to get the full information.

Clearly NSF see's this as a natural and fundamental corrective surgery for those suffering from "rib humps" due to scoliosis. It is a recognized and acceptable surgical procedure within the medical community and practiced by approved Doctors in State approved and government sanctioned hospitals. Other interesting articles are found in such online medical journals as OpenMed - http://openmed.nic.in/ where you can find this recount of surgical procedures for the Hoist Method: http://openmed.nic.in/771/01/June54.pdf.

It took under a minute to find info, 5-10 minutes to read and actually more time for me to edit and then post it here. I hope this is enough information to meet your standard for inclusion. I understand your concern. I think it is a fair representation of the facts given that it is common medical practice. Please note that it is not limited to just the lower rib, nor is it magical, but it is common knowledge among those Doctors that must work in the field with spine curvature problems and disease to do corrective surgery to the ribs by removal and rib regeneration. Hope this has been helpful. When I have more time, I'll try to find more medical evidence of rib regeneration, surgical use and procedures.

I have to agree with the previous comment. In my opinion, the paragraph seems to attribute magical powers to the lower rib (maybe because of its mention in the Bible?) It *seems* most of this information came from an anecdote written by Carl Wieland, a creationist. Some of the information is not necessarily incorrect, but in the way it's packaged, it's extremely misleading. For instance, the periosteum lines all bones and does play a role in bone generation and repair. It's not only found in the ribs. Anyway, if anyone objects to the removal of this section because of its "informational" purposes, I can go through the facts.jag123 19:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to the Bible, Adam had his lower rib removed to make Eve. This is because the lower rib can actually regenerate if the periosteum is left intact.

The Bible certainly says that, but claiming that it says that because of the regenerative powers of the periosteum needs substantiation. I'm fairly sure the Bible makes no reference to any such powers, nor am I aware of any evidence that its writers/scribes were aware of them either.

Within the periosteum are cells, which can generate new bone. It is especially effective in young people. Thoracic surgeons are well aware of the regenerating ability of lower rib bones. Intercostal muscles attached to the lower rib also provide it with a good supply of blood required for regeneration.

See above comments on rib regrowth. Either provide evidence that (a) this regeneration is likely to produce a functional new rib, or make it clear in the wording that (b) it is not. Combining it with the Bible story strongly implies (a), and that needs substantiation. --Calair 23:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Page Layout

Is it really necessary to have 3 pictures of skeletons? Two of them are very similar, just schematic diagrams, and in addition the picture under the Function section is messing with the layout. I think the second diagram should be removed and the photo put in its place. KHenriksson 07:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I think that the skeleton picture that is currently at the top of the page should be removed, as the other two are complementary being a similar size and shape. Snowman 13:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the Difference between the Intramembranous Ossification and Endochondral Ossification?

please help me!

There are wiki pages on these topics. Snowman 08:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Rib Regeneration Reclarified

• lower rib can actually regenerate True, but it's not limited to ribs. Hip bone is a common source for bone grafts. Furthermore, the new growth is called a callus, which can be thought of as the equivalent of scar tissue for bone. This isn't necessarily a good thing either, since the growth can cause pressure in undesired locations.
• lower rib can actually regenerate if the periosteum is left intact. Since the periosteum envelops most bone, you can't really remove a rib while leaving the periosteum intact, and you can prove this in your kitchen: Try to remove the white part of a banana while leaving the skin / peel intact. The periosteum isn't "intact", it's just "not entirely removed"
• Within the periosteum are cells, which can generate new bone Yes, those are called osteoblasts and/or osteoprogenitor cells and are also found in the periosteum lining the tibia, femur, humerus, etc. Cut those in half and they won't reform to their original size.
• It is especially effective in young people Inherently more effective or just more effective because young people also happen to be growing, where bone growth is obviously occuring? More effective than a newborn vs an 80 year old?
• Thoracic surgeons are well aware of the regenerating ability of lower rib bones Yes, and they are aware of other sources as well.
  • Typically, autogenous bone grafts are taken from the pelvis or iliac crest [1]
  • The gold standard for bone graft used for lumbar spine fusion has been bone harvested from the patient’s pelvis http://www[dot]spine-health[dot]com/topics/surg/bone/bone01.html
  • usually your hip bone or your tibia (shin) bone [2]
  • Bone can be harvested from the following sites Iliac crest, Proximal tibia, Distal radius [3]
• Intercostal muscles ... provide ... good supply of blood ... for regeneration. The periosteum isn't attached to muscle directly. There is a good supply of blood in the body anywhere it is needed, not just in ribs. Regardless, what about the gluteus maximums (the largest muscle in the body), which is attached to the illiac crest? What about quadriceps, which are attached to the femurs? Those are all larger than intercostal muscles, so if blood supply was directly related to muscle, why is the rib preferred?
• Rib regeneration is scientific fact No one is really denying that it can happen. Unfortunately, this is irrelevant of the Bible's Eve origin and not important in Gender Differences. There are no differences between men and women regarding rib count. The Bible story is cute and all, but it doesn't belong here. --jag123 09:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are right, rib regeneration is not important for Gender Differences. It was merely offered to show that not all Bible believers think men have one less rib, just because Adam did. You mentioned regeneration can apply to other bones, not just the rib. Perhaps bone regeneration would be an interesting section within Human Skeleton but outside of Gender Differences? Religious links could then be avoided. I have also offered a suggestion to neutralise the religious defamation/promotion of Gender Differences.

I added this clarification in response to the people/person who continually re-adds the same paragraph over and over again, using the points mentionned above as an explanation for why that stuff belongs there. With this step-by-step explanation, I can't be accused of vandalism (for removing the paragraph) or not discussing my changes on the talk pages. As to your neutral suggestion, since half of the entries added in the past 2 days are not signed, I don't know which one is yours. Bone regeneration is not really that interesting. The tissue dies and there is scarring -- it happens in the heart, liver, on the skin, etc. The only reason there is such an "interest" is because a certain creationist used this (biologically trivial) example to give his views/opinion scientific validity. --jag123 12:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to just ignore the anon. The person you're responding to is the creationist who wanted to delete the mention of the Biblical myth if his rib-regeneration paragraph couldn't be included along with it, complaining it was defamatory toward Christians, Muslems, and Jews. He's the one who's been vandalizing the page without discussing his edits on the talk page. His "suggestion to neutralise" the "religious defamation" was a word-for-word copy of an edit I'd already made. Whether this person is just a troll, or someone with a truly flimsy grasp on reality, I don't know. But his/her behavior has gone from zealous to extremist to down-right weird. --Corvun 22:04, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I've been watching this page since December and it's the same thing every couple of weeks: Someone adds the biblical reference, someone tones down to mention of the myth, then someone removes it all because it's an irrelevant biblical reference and the cycle starts over. Unfortunately, I think this is one of those things that will continuously be edited back and forth, and engaging the anons in discussion is really pointless; practically anything worthy of argument has already been discussed (not that they are paying attention to the talk page anyway...) --jag123 22:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

pie is good pie is good pie is good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.198.93 (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Endocrine function

Bones are typically thought of as calcified, inert structures, but researchers at Columbia University Medical Center have now identified a surprising and critically important novel function of the skeleton. They’ve shown for the first time that the skeleton is an endocrine organ that helps control our sugar metabolism and weight, which makes it a major determinant of the development of type 2 diabetes.[4] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

sideview image required

Article has only front and back view images. Side view along with these is essential to give 3D notion of skeleton. Help would be appreciated. Goalsleft090 (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Differences in size and porportion?

I was searching wikipedia for general information regarding the differences of skeletal "frame" especially with regards to weight and height. So far I have yet to find a page with any reference to the variability in skeletal structure. This article seems to be a good place but I'm neither a medical practitioner or biologist. Anyone here know any good sources? I know that it used to be common to distinguish between small, medium, and large frames. The practise of that seems to have diminished in today's PC world but certainly medicine still makes differentiations. 66.58.189.55 (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Differences between races?

Is it true you can tell the difference between races by the bones in the skeleton? Maybe it was just something made up for tv but I'm sure I heard somewhere that the bone is different in some way, may density or something.--86.129.12.211 (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)JJ

That is true in some ways, I think we ought have a segment about that. Jourdy288 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I've read that statement in today's medical textbook nowadays. Animeronin (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

the differencesx between race is the amount of melenin

-)

3D model

Either a screenshot can be placed of the skeleton open-source 3D model (see http://archive3d.net/?category=27&page=1 ) or a link can be put in. 91.182.234.247 (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

explaination needed

we need to explain how the bones are connected to each other.. its getting confuse--Tearfate 20:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That actually is a valid statement. If I can remember correctly, it's a form of loose connective tissue.TeChNiCoLoReDfOx (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfixed vandalism on weight (plus reference)

There is uncorrected vandalism from 20:21, 26 September 2010‎ by 24.28.78.25 changing the weight from its previous value (14%) to a grossly inflated value (30-40%). The original value is supported by this paper (http://www.jbc.org/content/203/1/359.full.pdf) describing the dissection and chemical composition of a cadaver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Struct87 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the report. It looks like it was this 18:29, 26 September 2010 edit that introduced the vandalism (it was subtle vandalism because it also included doubly incorrect information on the biggest bone). I'm not patient enough to read the details in that pdf you linked, and a quick skim does not find anything conclusive, so would you mind saying what text in that article makes what conclusion? Does it say 14%? If you wait a few days and do 10 edits (fixing typos or whatever) in other articles, you would be able to edit this article (it is semiprotected due to repetitive vandalism). Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Difference in number of bones for adults and babies

The article uses two different figures for the number of bones in a baby - over 300 and over 270. I understand that the number is different from child to child, but it might be an idea to unify these numbers - perhaps change both to over 270? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbarklay (talk • contribs) 10:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

How many bones in the human skeleton? over 3000?

Most articles I look up say that by the time we stop growing and any bones that are going to fuse together have done so that there are 206 bones in the human skeleton. The list of bones (cited in the same article) seems to suggest the same, yet this article claims that there are over 3000. I hope that someone better qualified than myself will take it upon themselves to edit the article. Rhysterical (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Spooky?

Why is the skeleton always considered to be "spooky?" I know it's spooky at the time of Halloween, but...why is it spooky? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Death association? --THobern 16:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary trait? It would be pretty easy to see why "be fearful of and avoid places where you find human corpses" might be a favoured rule in the gene pool. 92.12.225.206 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A skeleton is spook thing. I saw it onc time, moving up. It was very scare and I am scared of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.130.104 (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Skeletons aren't spooky in the least. They're natural to our world and in some cultures, revered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeChNiCoLoReDfOx (talk • contribs) 03:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

They are considered spooky because people have probably made up a story that dead people have come to life andthey come as a skeleton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.239.227 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

Under the Protection sub-heading, it seems a bit awkward to specify human lungs and heart are protected by the human skeleton. I recommend changing the displayed text of the links to just say lungs and heart, while still linking to the relevant articles. -- Techpriest88 (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sex of the illustrations?

Given that there are differences between the male and female skeleton it would be good if the illustrations indicated what sex the skeletons are. Even the actual image just says "human skeleton". Thanks. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 08:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Disorders

I suggest if more information on the diseases be added. There are several types of diseases related with hereditary, cancer, other bone related disorders (arthritis, Rickets, club foot). This would help the page to expand more. However I understand the relevant pages of these diseases already exist. But then the heading "disorder" exists! Lizia7 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Rib myth

This is going to make a lot of people hate me, but... I can't see why anyone would think all men have one rib less than women, just because the Bible says Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs. 85.76.152.179 19:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's hard for someone from a 20th-century background to relate to because our ideas of heredity have, well, evolved. But once upon a time, it was commonly believed that traits acquired during a creature's lifetime could be inherited by their offspring. If a blacksmith spends five years hammering away and builds up strong muscles, then has children, those children will have strong arms themselves as a result. This theory of heredity was formally stated by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, but I'm pretty sure the general idea was around well before him.

It's not an unreasonable theory at first glance, and it can be fudged a bit to answer the easy objections ("I lost my middle finger in the mill... why does my son have ten fingers?" "Well, his middle finger is *smaller* than it should be..." or even "Are you sure he's your son?") When the trait is acquired as a result of God's direct intervention, all the more reason to expect it to be inherited. In a society that frowns on dissecting corpses, which many of them did, a catchy myth can easily outpace the truth. --Calair 22:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the strangest discussions I've ever come across. How can we learn any type of biology whatsoever from a person (real or mythological) that was created from dust and animated by God, and then lived to be several centuries old? Even if this creature was real, clearly his biological functioning, evolutionary position, and everything else about him does not teach us about the scientific, biological world, of which this article on the skeleton is supposed to be about. this is just a silly waste of time.Simplysavvy 09:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplysavvy (talk • contribs)

Men have one less rib than women

This survey taken from around 10,000 Americans in 2004 showed that nearly 50 percent of Americans surveyed actually think that men have one less rib than women do. So as far as the little debate above goes I think it could be fair to say that the myth about men having one less rib is pretty prevalent in America and just might warrant adding to this article [[5]] JayKeaton 05:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out how important it is, therefore, that wikipedia point out in the clearest possible language that men and women have the same number of ribs, and all other bones.Simplysavvy 09:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Axial Skeleton confusion

The text says that there can be between 32 and 34 vertebrae. But parenthetically the explanation for this is that the sacral and coccigal bones can vary in length. But how does that explain the fact that there can be a 2 bone difference? Please clarify this someone.Simplysavvy 09:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplysavvy (talk • contribs)

Function

Should this article include less functions? Some of the functions listed are really functions of bones, technically, (yes I know the skeleton is made of bones). The function of the skeleton is movement not blood cells ect.... and should be in the article about bones. thanks Reedman72 (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I researched this earlier today to see if I could find a citation for "six functions". There doesn't seem to be a consensus on how many functions the skeleton has. Most sources mention the first four: Support, movement, protection, blood. The Britannica article doesn't commit to a specific number of functions. Perhaps that's the way should go. Each of the functions we document should be sourced. There's one source for this entire section at present. ~KvnG 04:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Bone color

It would be nice to have an explanation for the various colors found in the skeletons of ossuaries and catacombs. I'm not sure if bones can be discolored in general during one's life (possibly as a result of minerals such as fluoride, or perhaps by colloidal silver, if it doesn't only affect the skin), but the place where bones are stored (soil type), including nearby metal objects, can also taint them, such as the case of bones of important people of ancient Greece who were found burried along with metallic objects, causing some of their bones to have a greenish color. I actually had the idea to look if this article had anything on it after seeing a collection of skulls from the unfortunate Khmer Rouge Cambodian genocide, and noticing that some skulls have a copper or iron color to them. It's also possible that in this case some have been altered by fire. When I have more time I may try to research on this to find references, but if someone already knows better, help is welcome. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Key skeleton parts

Here's a sort of schema for the bones if someone can make the table look right. -- Someone else 02:33 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

Key parts of the human skeleton include:

• the axial skeleton (the central portion of the body)

skull

cranium

paired cranial bones

left and right parietal bones

left and right temporal bones

unpaired cranial bones

frontal bone

occipital bone

sphenoid bone

ethmoid bone

facial bones

paired facial bones

lacrimal bones

nasal bones

zygomatic arches

maxillae

palatines

inferior nasal conchae

unpaired facial bones

vomer

mandible (jaw)

hyoid bone

the spine, consisting of vertebrae (cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacral)

rib cage: ribs and sternum

pelvis and (hip)

• the appendicular skeleton (the extremities)

arms

humerus

radius and ulna

wrists

hands

legs

femur

fibula and tibia

patella (knee cap)

ankles

feet

Picture replacement

Just to let everyone know - the picture on this page is not exactly great. My mom is a biology teacher. In her classroom, she has an actual human skeleton (very old - 30+ years at least). At next opporunity, I'm going to take a few pictures of it and post one here to replace it. →Raul654 16:43, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC) Questions/ Human skeleton Weight?/ Bones differences between human males?/

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2014

96.228.165.207 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC) the end of world war 2 started world of the galaxies but no one knows yet.

Not done: Not relevant to this article, no sources...and obvious hoax. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Greek

The reason for the text "Greek σκελετός", prominently displayed in the infobox, needs more explanation. I am just about familiar enough with the Greek alphabet to discern that σκελετός reads "skeletos", and guess, therefore, that the point probably is that the English word "skeleton" comes from a Greek origin. However, this will not be clear to many English-language readers. It needs to be explained that this is an etymological note. 217.44.130.43 (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have a couple of suggestions for this article:

• It would be beneficial to summarize bone fracture and the subsequent process of healing
• Some information about the impact of weightlessness on bone strength is needed

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

History

• Does the section 'History' refers to the evolutionary history of the human skeleton or the history of studying it? I have done a stub relating to the latter but am not sure I should proceed in that direction. If nobody clarifies this up I would take this as recognition as default and continue in that direction in around a week or the next time I edit this, whichever comes later.

Thanks. Erikwesley (talk)14:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It is worthwhile to proceed with the topic of how we learned about the human skeleton, and I agree with you that it is appropriate to call that "history", and would be different from the "evolution" (how the species forms) and from the "development" (how an individual comes to have a skeleton). Good speed! TomS TDotO (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The thought just occurred to me whether it should be called "history of osteology"? Or would that be pedantic? TomS TDotO (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• I am unsure so I included a link to Osteology in that section. Erikwesley (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hidden agenda

1. Numbered list item

• Bulleted list item<br /> Insert non-formatted text here<small><small>Small text</small> <gallery> #REDIRECT [[Example.jpg|Caption1 Example.jpg|Caption2]] {| class="wikitable sortable" |- ! Header text !! Header text !! Header text |- | Example || Example || Example--~~~~ |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |} </gallery> </small>

What is all of this I'm only 10 Isabella vampire slayer (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Difference between sexes

The third paragraph in the lead-up, "The human skeleton is not as sexually dimorphic as that of many other primate species, but subtle differences between sexes in the morphology..." doesn't seem relevant there; the exact same text is already listed under its respective heading, "Sex differences". I propose this stanza be clipped off the lead-up. Kaschimmel (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

What are the difference between the sex's ????🚹🚺 Isabella vampire slayer (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Difference between the races

Why is there is "Difference between the sexes" but not for the races? There should be both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.219.19 (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Cultural significance

This article seems to be completely missing a section on skeletons in human culture, such as in mythology. The article is too clinical and focused on anatomy. -Rolypolyman (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)