Talk:Nose

Anatomy Stub‑class High‑importance

	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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline.

Evolutionary sgnificance

What is the evolutionary rationale behind humans' pronounced noses as compared to say chimps and gorillas? Lupin 08:40, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The human nose picture

Is that really the best we can do? With so many contributors, most of whom have noses, many of whom have cameras, and all of whom have access to the internet where there is probably some license-free image, that is the best? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sg227 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk

From the Reference desk:

What is the evolutionary rationale behind humans' pronounced noses as compared to say chimps and gorillas? Lupin 12:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aboriginal H.sapiens live in a far more diverse range of climates than do other great apes. Humans native to arid, dusty places have (very approximately) longer nasal passages, which helps to humidify the inhaled air (and secondarily, longer nasal passages afford more room for more nasal hairs, which helps block sand and dust). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:58, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! That convinced me... should this be added to nose? That's where I went looking for it originally. Lupin 17:56, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It should only be added if it can be attributed to a source, and qualified with language that properly represents the acceptance of that source among evolutionary theorists. Humans are also unique in their ability to selectively close their nasal passage or their oral passage from the throat, which provided the capacity for speech. The evolution of more pronounced nasal protrusions also correlates with development of hard right angles in the oral passage and in the neural structure of hominids. Further, the greater nasal passage found in hominids facilitates cooling of air, which is distinct from the cleaning functions of nasal passages. What's more, there need not be a distinct survival advantage - the shape of human noses could have resulted from purely subjective preferential selection in breeding. One must be careful in making authoritative statements about the advantages of long noses not to offend those hominids who born of geneologies with less pronounced noses. The elongated nose, as interpreted by oriental macrobiotic physiogomy may be related to eating foods rich in both proteins and in precursors of dopamine, both of which are associated with aggressive behavior. The jury is still out on the question of whether aggression offers an evolutionary advantage or hastens the extinction of a species. ~.~ (anon)

The bit about the "nasal compass" looks very suspect to me. If whoever wrote this can't provide a source (a scientific paper demonstrating that the nose compass exists) I think it should be deleted. (1) The whole human body, not just the nose, contains iron (in compounds, not as metallic iron) (2) iron only functions as a compass when magnetized (3) human beings are actually not good at orienting themselves and in a featureless landscape eg a desert will tend to go round in circles, which they would not do if they possessed a built in compass (4) other species tend to use (as far as we can tell) stars, the sun, and features in the landscape for navigation, not magnetic north (5) the magnetic poles wander over time, and the earth's magnetic field reverses from time to time. Exile 10:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last I heard, "human magnetoception" was very controversial. I think the claim stems from 1992 or so, when the pigeon magnetic field sensor was found to be a tiny skull region full of bio-magnetite and full of nerves. Researchers looked for a human equivalent and found it in a nasal bone. Whether it's functional was not known at the time. Given that emotions run high among scientists about this topic (it has been regarded as on part with bigfoot and UFO research,) the controversy will probably obscure any results either way for years to come. Also note: only crystalline iron compounds are magnetic (meaning ferromagnetic like iron metal.) Single iron atoms in molecules are weakly paramagnetic ...but then so is dissolved oxygen. --Wjbeaty 21:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the shape of the nose comes both, as Finlay said, from arid climates of Aboriginal humans, and also from high altitude climates. Modern Humans developed in East Africa where both of these climates were present; long noses were therefore selected for.

ዮም (Yom)^{Leave a message} 01:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is some evidence for a "Nasal Compass" in mammals, particularly birds. Similar organs were found in human noses as well if I remember correctly. One big study was done out of caltech in the 90s I believe. I just googled "Magnetite-based magnetoreception" and found some stuff: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~jkirschvink/pdfs/COINS.pdf

The abstract of one paper, which doesn't refer

"Orientation, navigation, and homing are critical traits expressed by organisms ranging from bacteria through higher vertebrates. Sensory systems that aid such behavior have provided key selective advantages to these groups over the past 4 billion years, and are highly evolved; magnetoreception is no exception. Across many species and groups of organisms, compelling evidence exists that the physical basis of this response is tiny crystals of single-domain magnetite (Fe3O4). It is the opinion of the authors that all magnetic field sensitivity in living organisms, including elasmobranch fishes, is the result of a highly evolved, finely-tuned sensory system based on single-domain, ferromagnetic crystals." -David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.10.240 (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More common nose wanted

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fc/Neus1.jpg/180px-Neus1.jpg isn't a typical nose. A nose should slope downward from the face in a straighter line. -Barry- 01:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about hair on the nose?

A more common nose is added, with neither hair, nor ugly non-straight lines. I let the other image stand, I'll let someone else decide on this. 17 June 2006

I don't like the picture either. Can't someone add their nose without having nose hairs coming out of it. I also suggest someone without a lot of wrinkles add their nose to the article.--Dark Tichondrias 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nose is fine. --Lukobe 22:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of your own nose that you added, DT--has it been modified? Looks kind of Photoshopped. --Lukobe 05:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the nose look nice? We should all accept diversity in the United States. Listen, I know there are different type of noses out there and I'm sure everyone is entitled to their own opinion to critique other peoples' noses, but the other nose was voted out by the consenses of other Wikipedians. The other nose was described as being "ugly" because it had a crook, wrinkles and nose hair. Now, everyone's noses do not fit other people's standard bar, but in my own opinion my nose is my nose and I am emotionally attached to my nose. I am not going to chop off my nose to fit the hyped up, plastic standard.--Dark Tichondrias 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how your response addresses my question. --Lukobe 18:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel very upset. I do not want to draw out further hurtful devaluations based on the subjective whims of the narrow standard that is being pushed on my nose, my personhood. Could some other user add their nose to this article? User:Lukobe has taken it upon her/himself to be the final decision, so we hope User:Lukobe will accept whichever nose is added.--Dark Tichondrias 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the PICTURE that's too cropped, not your nose. I challenge you to find anywhere where I've criticized your personal appearance. My point is that your picture doesn't show enough of the nose. The original picture shows the full nose and some of its surroundings.--Lukobe 19:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a few pictures to show the widely different shapes that human noses can take. — Omegatron 19:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Whats with two white, aqualine noses being the example of human noses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.34.157 (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Most people believe the nose leads to the brain, but scientists have proven that it leads to the hands and feet." This means they channel into that direction right? Not that they actually direct to the hands and feet. Please clarify, because it should be moving downwards toward the windpipe. 70.111.251.203 13:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nose does lead to the brain though, for adding moisture to the air we breathe in as well as warming it up for our lungs. Ever wonder why it hurts to breathe in that really cold air during a jog? That's why it needs to be warmed up and moistened. Also what about Eygptians removing the brains of dead people through the nose? 71.250.34.13 13:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

external links

Thoughts on whether the link to the Noses page at http://kennethomura.tripod.com is appropriate for inclusion? --Lukobe 21:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot find the Noses page from the website given it is here:Asian Noses -- Dark Tichondrias 02:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nose page should be kept because it makes the article more in depth. It deals specifically with a certain type of nose. If it were a website specifically about nasal flares it would also be good because its specificity would allow it to go in depth about its subject matter. As it is it greatly broadens the information available on Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.It greatly adds to the information provided because it goes into depth in a specific aspect of the human eye which this page cannot go into depth about. Removing it from Wikipedia, would be very detrimental to Wikipedia being a comprehensive provder of free knowledgeDark Tichondrias 22:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasology

I have removed the following section from the article because Talking Heads - Phrenology at the Countway Library of Medicine describes Nasology as "an extended joke at the expense of phrenology":

==Shapes of the human nose==
Human noses can take many different shapes according to the individual. An attempt to make a classification of noses was made in Eden Warwick's Nasology, where the following classes are presented, associating them with character traits in a way akin to phrenology, this

Class I: The Roman, or Aquiline nose, which is rather convex, but undulating as its name aquiline imports.

Class II: The Greek or Straight nose, which is perfectly straight

Class III: The African, or Wide-nostrilled nose, wide at the end, thick and broad, gradually widening from below the bridge. The other noses are seen in profile, but this one in full face.

Class IV: The Jewish or Hawk nose, which is very convex, and preserves its convexity like a bow. It is thin and sharp

Class V: The Snub nose

Class VI: The Turn-up or Celestial nose, with a continuous concavity from the eyes to the tip

Class I

Class II

Class III

Class IV

Class V

Class VI

-- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep this paragraph: the classification in se is correct, the figures are nice, but it is the interpretation that was intended to mock phrenology. I'll add however some extended comment to explain it. LHOON 12:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful of Class IV. Calling that caricature of a nose Jewish smacks of anti-Semitism. I am against using any part of this, as the classification scheme itself was part of the joke. I think the whole thing is in very poor taste, and does not belong in the Nose article. It might be appropriate in Phrenology as an example of the reaction to Phrenology, but I do not think it belongs here. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems interesting to me to keep a paragraph about human nose morphology. Rather than engaging in an edit and revert war about this however, let's get some other people's opinion about this issue, maybe there are other proposals too, that's what a talk page is for! LHOON 14:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest removing it because these arbitrary distinctions in nose shape are obscure. They are also named after racial groups which is not objective. An objective approach would be to name them by shape, but even then there are more shapes than listed on the drawing gallery.--Dark Tichondrias 21:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling that caricature of a nose Jewish smacks of anti-Semitism. Don't be ridiculous. And this is why you prefer that the public remain uninformed about the different types of noses? --72.94.206.35 03:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling that shape of nose Jewish is indeed a common tactic of anti-semites. I also question the reality of the so-called nose types. Noses vary in many ways, and trying to assign them to types is subjective and not useful, especially when some of the types are called Roman, Greek, African and Jewish. -- Donald Albury 23:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this is a sensitive to subject to many people, but rather than erasing the classifications, I propose that we include them in a historical and social context. The article needs discussion of the fact that in the past, anthropologists (and popular imagination) have assigned intellectual characteristics to physical features (essentially, races). Anti-Semitism and racism take this further to imputing "moral" characteristics to physical features. This would be a perfect place for a mention of the use of the disputed "Jewish nose" for propaganda purposes, for example in Nazi Germany. As to whether "nasology" (or whatever the classification of noses is called) is a joke: as late as 1949 a Yiddish textbook, Uriel Weinreich's College Yiddish, took nasal types seriously enough to include an informal survey listing the various types of noses that Jewish people possessed in a particular city, showing that they do not fall categorically under the "Jewish" type. Perhaps in this article we should take out the ethnic description of the noses, as Donald Albury suggested, and list the types by their shape only, though some discussion of ethnicity in historical or social context should be included somewhere. Travis P. Johnson 05:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A well-sourced discussion of the use and mis-use of nose shapes to classify and pre-judge people would be good. The point I was making is that the cited source for 'Nasology' was apparantly intended to mock Phrenology, and was not intented to be taken seriously. -- Donald Albury 02:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A well-sourced discussion of the use and mis-use of nose shapes to classify and pre-judge people" does not belong on an article on the nose, IMHO. I personally think it would belong better in an article about invalid stereotypes. --Kjoonlee 02:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it didn't look like it was particularly well-sourced, and neither was it a neat discussion. If info on nose morphology would be nice, something else would definitely be better. --Kjoonlee 02:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: my nose doesn't fit with any of those types... --61.72.41.169 02:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look to some other historical sources and try to find suitable figures. However, any connection between nose shape and personality traits should be considered - at the very least - controversial and should be treated with reserve. LHOON 08:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Coon

I reverted the section added about Carlton Coon's observations. There were a few problems. The edit referred to Carlton Coon as a 19th Century physical anthopologist. Coon was born in 1904. The observations attributed to Coon were not supported by the web page cited. The paragraph, even though short, seemed to be rambling and juxtaposed discontinuous topics. I would also note that Coon's observations on noses are given in support of his theories on races, and need to be handled carefully to maintain NPOV. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 09:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although all Coon's stated observations were supported by the citation, the discussion on nose aging was unrelated to his racial theories. Would you object to keeping Coon's observation of aging?--Dark Tichondrias 01:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you refering to the book? I don't see support of the statements attributed to Coon on the web cite. I haven't read The Races of Europe, and it's been about 40 years since I read The Origin of Races, so I can't speak to specifics of what he said in the books. If the material is taken from his book, but not the web cite, then separate the citations. I was under the impression, though, that the web cite was displaying the contents of the Races of Europe.

A section on the effects of aging on the nose would be a nice addition to the article, although I think we would need other sources in addition to Coon. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 02:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the quote. He said that Middle Easterners have slopping noses and their noses are pointed at the tip, especially in old age. He also said Middle Easterners have continuously growing noses. I do not know if he considered other populations to age like the Middle Easterners.--Dark Tichondrias 08:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just conducted a little web search on aging of noses. I did find one decent reference that states that increased nose size with age is a myth, but loss of elasticity causes the tip of the nose to droop. There are a number of other nose issues caused by aging, so a section on aging still seems appropriate for the article. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nose never stops growing?

I had heard somewhere that the nose and ears never stop growing throughout life. I was wondering if there was any truth to this, since I have googled and have found no conclusive answer. Anyone know any references to prove/disprove? --72.202.129.98 17:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Severus Snape

I removed Severus Snape from the famous nose list - put back with a citation Uncle uncle uncle 00:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oprah?

Uh, I'm not like a 'nose' expert or anything, but I don't know if this article should be all about Oprah.

This seems fishy.

In most fish, the nose is the primary large organ for smelling. As the animal sniffs, the air flows through the nose and over structures called turbinates in the nasal cavity. I'm guessing that these two sentences should be in separate paragraphs, otherwise it sounds like the fish is smelling air. Am I wrong? Parables (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but fish don't have noses... do they? Perhaps 'fish' should be replaced with 'mammals'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.41.206 (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fish have a *very* strong sense of smell. It's how certain types of fish navigate back to the rivers where they hatched. Each river has its own particular "smell", in reality, various concentrations of different chemical compounds. Humans perceive this as different odors. Who knows how fish perceive it. Anakin-Marc "DJ AniZ" Zaeger (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last remark seems a bit odd because the smell sense is all along the vertebrate lines. In fact we can only smell what dissolves in the water and diffuses to reach the olfactory tissues receptors. As the receptors and brain structures are about the same there is basically no difference in smell perception among vertebrates.Viridiflavus (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

has become...

A sentence is missing its end, anyone have any ideas? I've fixed the fishy issue above as well as a few grammar errors. I've also moved the tapir picture. Mystery Correction (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]