|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Looking at the embryological proces; shouldn't it say that the tubes go from uterus to ovaria, instead of from ovary to uterus?? I don't think the trvelpath of the oocyt should be the lead on this matter. (ST)
Do the fallopian tubes develop from the same tissue that gives rise to the sperm ducts in males? AxelBoldt 23:33 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)
No. The Fallopian tubes are Muellerian, the vas deferens Wolffian. -phma
We need a better picture here; the given one does not explain at all where the tubes run and where they attach. AxelBoldt 10:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I was reading the Ovulation article before I came to this one, and there I was led to believe that all follicles within the ovaries are called "ovarian follicle", and monthly only one develops into a Graafian follicle, which is what actually releases the ovum into the Fallopian tube when it ruptures (hence the "ovarian follicle" doesn't rupture, but rather the Graafian follicle does). Did I misunderstand something or is there conflicting information between these two articles? On the other hand, the Ovarian follicle article makes no mention at all to the transformation of an ovarian follicle into a Graafian follicle, but the Ovulation article makes it look like a big deal, so at the very least that article is somewhat misleading — or the other two articles are incomplete. Mine is a layman's perspective, which indicates that although the ensemble of the articles may be fine for someone who actually knows that stuff, it doesn't work that well for those who try to start from scratch, such as myself. Regards, Redux 18:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hello. The problem is that the terminology is not used 100% consistently. "Graafian follicle" is an older eponym whose use seems to be falling out of favor. The trend seems to be to refer to all follicles in the ovary as "ovarian follicles" and then to refer to the various stages of development as "primordial follicle," "primary follicle," "vesicular follicle" and "mature follicle," with the last corresponding to the "Graafian follicle." Osmodiar 07:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the explanation. But don't you think the text of the articles I mentioned should be (slightly) altered to better reflect what you have said. Right now, the layman reader is quite likely to misunderstand that particular aspect of the nomenclature. Regards, Redux 20:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I changed "...open into peritoneum" to "...open into peritoneal cavity" because "peritoneum" refers to the layer of tissue derived from mesoderm, while "peritoneal cavity" refers to the actual space in the abdomen. Osmodiar 06:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Probably because they are named after someone. Sort of similar to how the ampulla of Vater and the loop of Henle always have the names capitalized. Alex.tan 12:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
- "Probably" doesn't cut it. It needs to be in the article, and Id like to see examples of where fallopian is always capitalized. It appears from my readings this is not the case, and even if it is named for someone, its more common that the thing is uncapitalized, while the persons Name is. -SV|t 18:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- Probably will have to cut it until you provide better evidence than just giving your opinion. I did look up dictionary.com and came up with this. I think it's fair enough to keep them capitalised - it's common enough usage as uncapitalised but we should credit who it's named after. For example, Purkinje cells are, AFAIK always capitalised. Alex.tan 00:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I've added a bit on lowercase fallopian. I ought to say that Clinically Oriented Anatomy by Keith L. Moore is probably the textbook for undergrad English-language academic anatomists, and it uses lowercase 'fallopian' exclusively, though it prefers the term 'uterine tube'. As I say in the article, the reason why it's now lowercase is because to many lay people, there is simply no other term for it. - Richardcavell 14:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- The solution to this is fairly simple: use the international anatomical standard (Terminologia Anatomica). The reason why Moore prefers 'uterine tube' is because this is the standard name for it. Well, technically it's 'tuba uterina', but the standard English is uterine tube. In fact, the term 'fallopian tube' has all but disappeared from modern texts, and, like other eponyms, is falling out of use (especially among the non-old). You can check out the Wikipedia Anatomy project.--Mauvila 08:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- They're named after the anatomist and physician Gabriel Fallopius (1523–1562). However, Webster's Dictionary gives it as "fallopian tube", uncapitalised. Take your pick. — QuicksilverT @ 22:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
If oviducts are the same as fallopian tubes, why do they have separate pages?--Jcvamp 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the pages should be merged.--Jcvamp 14:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I also think they should be merged. I added a merge template to each. Cmcnicoll (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
(just FYI) I think, if you had to merge them though, you would have to specify that oviducts only exist in non-mammalian vertebrates User:4th Opinion: 3:55, 12 April 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk)
Taking Biology currently, my professor acknowledges the term fallopian tubes but the correct scientific term is oviduct. For human anatomy at least, the articles should be combined. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Anthropocentrism in Wikipedia at its worst
- A stupid stupid idea -- oviducts subsume fallopian tubes as a topic, so if anything fallopian tubes should be merged into the oviduct article. However, speaking as a human and a mammal, I think it's nice to have articles on the specific human versions of things.
- From the oviduct article: "In mammals, the portion of the oviduct above the uterus is referred to as the fallopian tube."
- To repeat -- oviducts are NOT the same as fallopian tubes... fallopian tubes are a part of the oviduct in mammals. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- The two are definitely not the same thing. Any objections to removing the merge template? - Manfi (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The list of homologues of the human reproductive system gives appendix testis as a homologue of the fallopian tube, but this article claims there is no known male homologue. Which is true? Leedar 13:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone put the following comment on the page without citation... not that it's needed as it's obviously incorrect. I removed it.
"The anatomy of this complex structure was first discovered by Latin-American Gynaecologist Dr. Fallopian E. Tube, and due to his success was awarded the prestigeous title of Gynaecologist of the Year in 1985."
18.104.22.168 00:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC) rhetoric
Afraid to start tampering with the article, as I am not experienced with editing Wikipedia articles. It would be nice if someone more experienced could add in the epithelium that there are three, not two types of cells found there. The third being Basal (stem) cells - undifferentiated cells responsible for regeneration of the epithelium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
File:Fallopian tube anatomy.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Fallopian tube anatomy.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
Add better schematic picture about the general structure where you can see for instance Isthmus clearly
Example of such picture: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/62073194/Screen%20Shot%202012-06-03%20at%2012.44.48%20PM.png I cannot add it myself because I do not know the source.