Talk:Hippocampus anatomy: Difference between revisions
Regarding the references in the talk about CA3 |
→Entorhinal inputs: new section |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Regarding the references in the talk about CA3: All references are to the same textbook, which gives an impression that the text is more speculation than science. Can the author please find those references? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/90.184.77.7|90.184.77.7]] ([[User talk:90.184.77.7|talk]]) 08:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Regarding the references in the talk about CA3: All references are to the same textbook, which gives an impression that the text is more speculation than science. Can the author please find those references? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/90.184.77.7|90.184.77.7]] ([[User talk:90.184.77.7|talk]]) 08:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:Huh? The text is speculation because it follows a textbook? It's true that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over tertiary sources such as textbooks, but I don't see how using a textbook makes it speculation. In any case you are welcome to supply better references if you feel a need for them. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
:Huh? The text is speculation because it follows a textbook? It's true that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over tertiary sources such as textbooks, but I don't see how using a textbook makes it speculation. In any case you are welcome to supply better references if you feel a need for them. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Entorhinal inputs == |
|||
Does anyone have a citation for the assertion that there is differential entorhinal layer input- that is, that EC layer 2 soma form the perforant path to CA3 and dentate while EC layer 3 soma input to CA1? |
|||
I have a citation that layer 2 soma form ppath (pubmed 9703026) but not that layer 3 projects to CA1. |
|||
Revision as of 22:17, 2 April 2010
I retooled the intro a bit because it was a little talky and also started off with a very abstract topological discussion. While the topological discussion is somewhat useful, it may belong lower in the article than the introduction.
mcain (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the references in the talk about CA3: All references are to the same textbook, which gives an impression that the text is more speculation than science. Can the author please find those references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.77.7 (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Huh? The text is speculation because it follows a textbook? It's true that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over tertiary sources such as textbooks, but I don't see how using a textbook makes it speculation. In any case you are welcome to supply better references if you feel a need for them. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Entorhinal inputs
Does anyone have a citation for the assertion that there is differential entorhinal layer input- that is, that EC layer 2 soma form the perforant path to CA3 and dentate while EC layer 3 soma input to CA1?
I have a citation that layer 2 soma form ppath (pubmed 9703026) but not that layer 3 projects to CA1.