Talk:Limbic system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


See also:

Something not clear[edit]

The cerebrum page tells hippocampus is a part of the cerebrum. The hippocampus page tells it belongs to the limbic system, and this page tells the limbic system is underneath the cerebrum. What is a part of what in this fucking mess ? --Hamonv (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I support this. The article itself explains the issue : "Therefore, the definition of anatomical structures considered part of the limbic system is a controversial subject. The following structures are, or have been considered, part of the limbic system:[9][10]". We see that the limbic system has contained (in some perspective) parts of three main areas of the brain, the less primitives ones. So, I believe the solution is to report what different authors have written, perhaps putting emphasis on the context (date in particular) so that the reader can get the big picture, the different views on the limbic system.

No subject[edit]

I'll be updating this page with some of the more recent developments (10/15 years worth) in this arena. Notably, this phrase needs to be placed within historical and descriptive contexts as, currently, it is arguable that no single limbic system exists per se. Still, is a suitable location to frame a discussion of the emotional structures and how they operate. PilotPrecise10:40, 9 March 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Joseph LeDoux in his 10-year old book The Emotional Brain states, starting page 73: "Around mid-century it seemed that the prize was finally in hand when the limbic system theory of emotion was proposed...It would be hard to overestimate the impact of the limbic system concept. It had a tremendous influence not only on the way we think of emotional functions but also on the way we think of the structural organization of the brain. Each year, legions of neuroscience students are taught where the limbic system is and what it does. Unfortunately, though, there is a problem. The limbic system theory is wrong as an explanation of the emotional brain and some scientists even say that the limbic system does not exist." - Gyan
Agreed. This problem motivated my addition of the History section to this article. The limbic system is a fascinating and critical conceptual idea in the historical development of affective neuroscience, but we will get no where fast if we debate what is or is not part of the limbic system, as the field has moved beyond this limited construction. I would propose that we either devote a section of this article or create a new article in which we document the brain areas currently thought to be both centrally and peripherally related to emotion and their putative roles. sallison 19:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The inclusion of the cingulate and fornicate gyri is inaccurate: The cingulate gyrus makes up part of the fornicate gyrus along with the parahippocampal gyrus The fornicate gyrus is so-named because the two components together make a horshoe-shape in the medial aspect of the cerebral hemisphere. From Latin: fornicatus (meaning 'arch'-infinitive) and fornix (meaning 'vault' or 'arch'). The fornicate gyrus is also called the "Limibic Lobe" (L. Limbus - 'border') as it forms the margin about the diencephalon.--Henry Hadlow 15:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to edit inaccurate information. I'm trying to figure out a structure and organization method that will lead this article to featured status. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 06:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Could we settle for organizing the article in such a way that it adequately offers readers an overview of current science? Is reader service the goal, or is the goal prestige of acheiving featured status? CheckFacter 18:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
These goals should coincide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Reader service is the goal to strive for: Featured status should only be awarded as a side-effect of doing that job well. (Notably, focusing on secondary goals, like featured status, invariably lead to the primary goals, like reader service, suffering.) (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


"The French physician Paul Broca first called this part of the brain "le grand lobe limbique" in 1878,[8] but most of its putative role in emotion was developed only in 1937 when the American physician James Papez described his anatomical model of emotion, the Papez circuit.[9] Paul D. MacLean expanded these ideas to include additional structures in a more dispersed "limbic system," more on the lines of the system described above.[10] The term was formerly introduced by MacLean in 1952. The concept of the limbic system has since been further expanded and developed by Nauta, Heimer and others."

How can Maclean introduce something in 1952 before the 1937 and 1878 events? Did the author intend "formally" instead of "formerly"? (unsigned)

"In 1954, Olds and Milner found that rats with metal electrodes implanted into their nucleus accumbens repeatedly pressed a lever activating this region, and did so in preference to eating and drinking, eventually dying of exhaustion.[6]" --this is incorrect. These were not the results of the Olds and Milner study. This study only looked at brain localization of areas that produced positive reinforcement. The study that examined preference for electrical stimulation versus natural reinforcers is Routtenberg & Lindy (1965) or Bozarth & Wise (1985). I haven't read that study in detail though, but the citation in this article is clearly incorrect. (usigned, added by, 26 January 2009)

Yes, clearly you are right. Go ahead and add the correct reference if you want to. Looie496 (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Septum" revert[edit]

The phrase "the pleasure center, known simply as the septum, is located in the limbic system" was removed due to an inaccuracy. The article isn't as full as it could be, but this is simply wrong, or confused. The "septum" is generally the name given to the Septum pellucidum, which is simply a glial membrane seperating the two lateral ventricles and has nothing to do with the limbic system or dopamine. The Septal nuclei are indeed connected to the limbic system, but they provide cholinergic input to the hippocampus. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Semiconscious, I checked out your userpage to see if you started work on Basal Ganglia and noticed you made this edit. Actually, I think they mean the nucleus accumbens, which is not part of the limbic sytem but is closely linked to it. I made changes that reflect this. Maybe this should go in the NA article, rather than here, but I left it for now. Nrets 14:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Emotional structures[edit]

As a follow up to my comment above, I think it would be useful to directly contrast the list of limbic system structures presented on this page with a new section that discusses structures that are currently thought to be most important for emotional processing:

  • Amygdala
  • Prefrontal Cortex
  • Anterior Cingulate
  • Ventral Striatum
  • Insula

Is there any opposition to this sort of approach to the problem proposed by PilotPrecise above? sallison 22:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

  • A good way to do this is to divide the article into 1) strict anatomical description of limbic structures, 2) functional description (ie. basis for emotion, memory, affective disorders), 3) historical perspective. Nrets 00:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I like that approach. What you suggest is very clear and correct: the limbic system is a historically defined set of brain structures, and these structures support a variety of functions including emotion, memory, etc. I can see how introducing a list of other non-limbic structures could be pertty confusing. However, your suggested outline leaves an interesting problem: I think many of the visitors to this page will be specifically interested in learning more about the brain systems that primarily support emotion. To this end, perhaps there could be another page (that is at least easy to get to from this page) that discusses the neural circuitry of emotion. The emotion page might accomodate it, but neural circuitry seems a bit heavy for that discussion. The field of affective neuroscience is young enough that a new page there could probably adequately accomodate this information. A more cumbersome approach would be to create a page called brain structures related to emotion or the like. Whatever the approach, I believe that a more thorough and coherent discussion of the current understanding of emotional brain structures somewhere on wikipedia would be valuable. Any thoughts or preferences? sallison 06:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead an made an affective neuroscience page, on which I listed the brain structures related to emotion, as that seemed like the most appropriate solution to me. If you have any questions or concerns about that approach, just let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to seeing what you all have to add to the discussion of emotion. Cheers, sallison 11:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm in favor of having a section in the limbic system article. I think the best approach is start the article with a general description in simple layman's terms. Then, as a reader gets further into the article, they wade into the deep waters of neural circuitry. If the section gets big enough, then we rip it out and leave the {{main}} template. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 06:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

list at top of page[edit]

Although the list of structures at the top of the page is duplicate information (since the same links are in the limbic system navigation pane), I think we should keep it and keep it linked. However, my reason is very un-encyclopedic: having the list at the top of the page (with links) should give this page a higher search engine ranking. Comments? --TheLimbicOne(talk) 14:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • As the main article for the template, I feel this article should detail certain componants of the limbic system. It seems fine to me. Semiconscious · talk 21:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

System is more active?[edit]

Before we declare as fact, based on a the 2006 edition of a 1991 high-school biology textbook that "the limbic system is more active in extroverts and risk-takers than in introverts and cautious people (Evers, 499)[1]." shouldn't we address the problem of whether or not the limbic system actually exists, as discussed above? Even if it is "more active" somtimes, is it a question of who or of when? CheckFacter 18:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted intro text[edit]

I'm replacing the phrase about personality differences and opening this dialogue to prevent an edit war. Here is the reason given for deletion in the edit summary, "a high-school text-book is not a primary source,[sic] and doesn't fully explain discussion of comparative activity of the limbic system in personality." My response: 1. It's a college textbook. 2. "Fully [explaining] the discussion of comparative activity of the limbic system" would not go in the introductory paragraph. This phrase was intended to introduce a subject that should be further discussed under its own heading in the article's main body.--TheLimbicOne(talk) 14:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you look up the original works cited by that textbook? Extroversion/introversion mapping onto simple over/underactivation of the entire limbic system is an incredibly bold claim, and would (in my mind) require some remarkable evidence. A quick google scholar search for "extroversion limbic system" does not turn up much in the way of solid evidence. Rabenkrahe 21:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
High school and even college texts are liable to be outdated on this evolving topic. Recent scientific studies and reviews should be used as primary sources. sallison 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Eysenck's model of personality has been proposed to map under or over activation of the reticular activating system onto extraversion or introversion. i.e. introverts have more reactive reticular systems and therefore attain optimal cortical arousal at low levels of stimulation whereas extraverts posess relatively unreactive reticular systems and therefore seek out intense and novel stimulation. Perhaps someone has confused the reticular activating and limbic systems?----Random Interested Scholar 11:37, 27th August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Diencephalon[edit]

Is a redirect to Diencephalon really want we want, considering that that page has far less information than the previous Limbic System page? I'd suggest reverting, at least until a large quantity of information can be transferred (as of now it's essentially being lost), but thought I'd bring it up here first, considering revert guidelines say to use caution. --Hslayer 14:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is severely outdated[edit]

Joseph LeDoux's 2000 review article contradicts much of this article, especially its 'evolution' section. Unfortunately I will not be able to expand this article myself in the coming months. The first five pages of LeDoux's paper, and its references, should be more than enough for this humble task. For other related articles see PMID 10845062 and [2]. Regards, Lior 06:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Lior that this article needs to be completely revised. It presents as factual and settled many putative theories. Not to mention the brevity with which the article attempts to talk current talk (e.g., limbic evolution).

Since you have read and understand the article you cited, please update the WP article. -Pgan002 22:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Joseph LeDoux should not be the sole source to rely upon on with respect to limbic system issues. His opinion is is disputed by a number of other neuroscientists. See, for instance, Jack Panksepp, Brain and Cognition, 52 (2003) 4-14. Among other things, Panksepp writes, in reference to LeDoux's 2000 paper mentioned above, "In my estimation, the increasingly prevalent limbic system bashing among emotion researchers reflects a misreading of the history of the field and the role of general concepts in promoting research and communication." Dexterbarsinister (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have discussed this matter with Prof. Leszek Kaczmarek, who has contested the simple amygdalar connectivity suggested by Prof. LeDoux. Regarding the Limbic system, there is no argument between Kaczmarek and LeDoux - The limbic system was a nice hypothesis for its time, and it no longer bears any practical meaning. That is to say, there is no functional meaning to adding a given brain structure to the limbic system - there is nothing specific that limbic structures do and others don't. In this sense, the limbic system is just as useful as aether. Best, ליאור (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Science vs. History of Science[edit]

I would feel better about this article if it fell under the history of neuroscience, rather than the science itself. The history of science is full of concepts either controversial or simply wrong. (Semmelweis' work was controversial (!) at the time, and phlogiston is no longer an exciting basis for research.)

Further, a separate history of science classification is valuable in its own right. (And yet more work for the weary.)

Is this helpful? Ernstwll 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The limbic system is still an important concept in neuroscience. Every modern neuroscience textbook I have seen has a chapter or at least a section on the limbic system. While the concept is problematic for all the reasons mentioned above, it remains one of the few neuroscience concepts that the general public as well as the new student can relate to. And despite the blurred boundaries and overlapping functions, it is still useful to think of the "limbic areas" as fairly interconnected and mediating basic and "instinctual" behavioral responses.

A solution for talking about it is to reframe its description. It can be positioned as an organizing concept for understanding emotion, motivation, and more automatic high-level behaviors. The areas participating in the "limbic system" are central to something that is below "cognition" and above reflexes and autonomic responses. As long as people know the limbic system idea is an oversimplification, it is still useful conceptually, especially for the non-scientist. Neuron1 (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to revise the article along those lines, that would be fine with me. Looie496 (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest, that since the "science" of labeling a section of the brain as seperate is contested, that the opening section be edited to clarify that, possibly suggesting that indivduals looking for a more concrete definition of its form and function be redirected. This would greatly clarify the article for people such as myself who are attempting to get a general idea of the "system", simply to help my understanding of the brain, while the information following the redirect/clarification paragraph can then be elaborated to illustrate the chasim in current research/theory. 7 Dec 2009 13:47

Only humans?[edit]

The intro and other parts of the article talk as if the limbic system is unique to humans. I doubt that this is so. Please correct the text to include other species which have a limbic system. -Pgan002 22:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite right; indeed if I'm not mistaken the limbic system is one of the oldest parts of the brain, found in mammals, birds and reptiles. -Patrick N.R. Julius (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The limbic system is DEFINITELY not unique to humans. KSUdvm2b (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Obsolete scientific theories[edit]

Can someone explain how this category applies? — Scientizzle 21:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it applies in the sense that the limbic system concept derives from Paul Maclean's triune brain theory, which most neuroscientists would say is outdated if not actually obsolete. As far as I'm concerned, though, you can take it out of the category if you feel like it. It's certainly true that the term is still used, although sometimes with a bit of an apology. Looie496 (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I see. I'm far more familiar with the term "limbic system" as a general descriptor of a brain region associated with emotion/memory/behavior and was largely unaware of the generalized "limbic system theory" that Joseph LeDoux criticizes (I just skimmed this article). Based on my cursory research, I think Limbic system currently suffers from a lack of clarity regarding the classical "limbic system theory" and the common usage (over 10,000 pubmed hot for "limbic system") of generalized emotion/memory/behavior circuitry. I could see the category possibly applying to a dedicated "limbic system theory" article...currently, though, I think the category my be a bit much for a general nobody-is-quite-sure-what-constitutes-the-limbic-system conclusion. Just my $0.02. — Scientizzle 23:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Considering the limbic system is discussed in practically every modern neuroscience textbook, I'd have to say that it's not an "obsolete theory". Nor is it even a "theory", per se. It's more of a blanket term, used when referring to a group of related structures. Fuzzform (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you skim the 1,648 papers citing LeDoux's review article, that explains why the Limbic system, as a "system", is an obsolete term. At present the article still requires major revision before one could claim it deals with something else than the refuted theory. ליאור (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite all its problems, the limbic system concept is still in active use in research. Google Scholar shows 7,700 research publications in 2008 alone that use the phrase "limbic system". As suggested in Science vs. History of Science above, the solution to this dilema is to reframe the limbic system as an organizing concept for understanding a certain aspect of the brain and not a definitive description of a self-contained functional component. Neuron1 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


Consider the following sentence: "Essentially the limbic system is the set of brain structures that form the border of the cortex." What is wrong here? Namely, the conjugation of the verb "form". This verb refers back to the word "set" (or the phrase "set of brain structures"), not the words "brain structures". Therefore, it should read "set of brain structures that forms", rather than "set of brain structures that form". Fuzzform (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'm a little more dubious about "inner" border, since this border is topologically the edge of a hole cut out of the surface of a sphere -- that is, there's only one border. Looie496 (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Other Considerations...[edit]

The limbic system is also discussed in "The Moses Code." In The Moses Code, Author/ Psychologist Harville Hendrix suggests the limbic system is not time or object oriented. Therefore this part of the brain cannot tell the difference between itself and others and has no sense of past, present, or future. It is suggested this part of our brain does not recognize whether stimulus is going out or coming in. So in particular in giving praise or criticism, love or hate, whatever we are giving, we are receiving according to the limbic system.

This part of the brain doesn't discriminate between positive and negative things. If you are complimenting someone, your brain receives it as self-praise, but if you are complaining about someone, your brain takes it as self-criticism. Likewise, when we give something, a gift, some of our time, love, attention, our brain experiences it as if we are receiving whatever we give.

In The Moses Code this is used to explain how we are all part of a whole..a oneness and the importance of the message Given and Ye Shall Receive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodbyz (talkcontribs) 14:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


This is going to need a lot of them, tbh. They'll help people (me XP) understand where the different structures are in the limbic system. MichaelExe (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

what's a misnomer[edit]

from the Function section of this page, "The limbic system is also tightly connected to the prefrontal cortex. Some scientists contend that this connection is related to the pleasure obtained from solving problems. To cure severe emotional disorders, this connection was sometimes surgically severed, a procedure of psychosurgery, called a prefrontal lobotomy (this is actually a misnomer)."

What's a misnomer? What does the word misnomer mean in this context? Can fix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talkcontribs) 17:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Our misnomer article explains what a misnomer is. The term "prefrontal lobotomy" is a misnomer because the procedure does not actually remove or destroy the prefrontal lobe (as "-otomy" implies), but only damages it. I have no objection to this being rewritten for the sake of clarity, though. Looie496 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Article reads like a tour of an old edit war battleground.[edit]

I followed a wikilink to this page and don't really know anything about the subject. But the prose in this article is horrendously polemical. I do gently but emphatically urge someone with familiarity of the topic to re-write in a more encyclopedic tone. Dlabtot (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm familiar with the topic, but the basic fact is that most of us who work in the area consider it an out-of-date concept. Could you point to specific things that come across as having the wrong tone? Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Frankly the confrontational tone of your comment makes me doubt that it would serve any purpose to point out specifics, and the errors of tone are so obvious and glaring that if you can't see them for yourself... there is a problem. You seem to be very emotional about this topic, which makes me believe you are not the ideal candidate to fix the article. Others on this talk page have recounted similar concerns. The article reads like a polemic against the concept of a limbic system, rather than a dispassionate exposition of the term's meaning and history. Dlabtot (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not emotional about this at all. Please note that none of the things you are talking about were written by me; in fact I didn't write anything in this article (to the best of my recollection), and don't feel any sense of ownership toward it. Regarding your original point, I am totally open to anybody with familiarity with the topic rewriting it in whatever way is suitable; it's not all that good an article, although my reasons for thinking so are clearly not the same as yours. Unfortunately people familiar with the scientific literature on the topic are in pretty short supply.Looie496 (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is Actually an Important Article[edit]

The limbic system is crucial to the way we live, think, procreate, emote, etc. I've taught biology and am amazed at how few people know about the limbic system--even high school and college students know nothing about it. So contributions to the article are important. Perhaps if we called the limbic system the "limbic group" that would help clarify things. Anyway, the brain is like your car engine--many different components performing different functions. The hypothalamus is particularly important; when the "set point" in the hypothalamus is thrown off its normal setting by various external factors, anorexia can develop. Scientists have also found differences in the hypothalamus between straights and gays. Etc., etc. So a lot of current medical, sociological and political problems could be solved by exploring the limbic system. I encourage and congratulate everyone contributing to the article. (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hole Punch?[edit]


I don't quite unerstand what this part of the article means. It actually sounds like a joke quite frankly:

"The limbic system is the set of brain structures that forms the inner border of the cortex. In an abstract topological sense, each cortical hemisphere can be thought of as a sphere of gray matter, with a hole punched through it in the area where nerve fibers connect it to the subcortical structures of the basal forebrain."

Surely there is a better way to word this? --WikiDonn (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Some time ago I created the adjoining schematic picture as an aid to visualizing the situation of the hippocampus in the brain. If you can think of a clearer way of describing this arrangement, please propose it. (The limbic system contains the structures that lie around the edges of the hole you see in the picture; the hippocampus is one of them.) Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

He's making the point that only nerve bodies and not axons do computation - the "punched out space" is the myelinated white matter nerve tracts. Try a tree analogy - the leaves perform the action of fixing carbon, but rely on the trunk and branches, which lack chlorophyll, to connect structures and carry water and nutrients from the ground upwards (retrograde transport-ish). Not a perfect analogy, but... I think it would be sufficient to say that the hippocampus lies below (inferior to) major white matter nerve tracts connecting the basal ganglia and the grey matter at the surfaces of the hemispheres. If someone doesn't know about white vs grey matter though, trying to explain more depth without any surface breadth first is somewhat pointless... Saying it is a "hole" poorly explains one topic while obfuscating another (implying white matter is irrelevant). Better to say nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I do like this abstract topological sense :) --WissensDürster (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"The cortical components"[edit]

The cortical components generally have fewer layers than the classical 6-layered neocortex, and are usually classified as allocortex or archicortex.

The context of this sentence has two cortices at least, I think, and more are related to the topic (If I understand correctly), making "cortical components" ambiguous. So, are we referring to the limbic system in particular? Then "these components" would indicate so more clearly (following the prior sentence with "limbic system" as its subject), right? This stands a chance of being significantly wrong, so pardon me and correct me if that's the case; I'm making this edit now. —Raymond Keller (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Some parts of the limbic system are not cortical, for example the septum and limbic thalamic nuclei. So I think your edit gives the wrong message. (I'm not saying that the previous version was particularly good.) Looie496 (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah. Okay. Thanks. I think I get the idea now. Please check. —Raymond Keller (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Dentate Gyrus[edit]

I am under the assumption that the dentate gyrus is part of the hippocampal formation. Why under the anatomy section is it listed as a separate entity from the hippocampus? —Jared Giordano (talk) 3:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

It's part of the hippocampal formation but it is not usually considered part of the hippocampus. They are not the same thing: the hippocampal formation consists of the hippocampus plus several associated structures. Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please lets get a better image[edit]

The image File:Brain_limbicsystem.jpg is pretty basic and low res and is also confusing as it seems to include the cerebellum. I had a quick look in wikicommons but the next best one is a rotating brain which might annoy people if it is the main pic. Any thoughts?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Utterly confused[edit]

I came to this page to learn about the limbic system - what it comprises and its function. There's a handy list of what it includes, then immediately afterwards a section entitled 'Function' which opens with a structure (the hypothalamus) which wasn't listed before and mentions the basal ganglia, also not on the list. Why are they not on the list? Is it debatable that they are included? If so, say so. If not, include them in the list! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vburmester (talkcontribs) 01:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with you that the structure section is quite confusing. The hypothalamus is a region strongly associated with the limbic system, and particularly the mammillary bodies (which are part of the hypothalamus) have reciprocal connections with the hyppocampus. The section also doesn't mention the thalamus, another diencephalon structure which anterior nuclei are connected with the mammillary bodies as part of the limbic system.
The neuroanatomy of the limbic system is a fascinating subject, its components are ubiquitous in the CNS and that's why it's so difficult to make a list of it's components, but I'll try to edit the section, as it is very much needed. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Triune brain theory[edit]

Nearly the entire Evolution section is about Paul MacLean's triune brain theory. Paul MacLen was a little like Linus Pauling in that both scientists did important work, but then launched decades-long crusades to promote a pet theory that turned out to be wrong. In the case of Pauling it was the idea that we need megadoses of vitamin c, in Paul MacLean's case the triune brain theory.

This theory was contentious but mainstream in psychology in the 1960s and 70s, then slipped down to fringe status. Among scientists who study the anatomy and physiology of the brain, and the evolution of its anatomy and physiology, triune brain theory has always been fringe.

Although MacLean did not discover the limbic system, he did pioneering research and gave it it's current name. The fact that the limbic system itself has come under challenge as a valid concept is a separate issue.

The lead also mentions "paleomammal cortex," a term from triune brain theory. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Evolution non sequitur[edit]

Evolution non sequitur or obsolete/fallacious opinion about evolution:

In section Evolution, number list, item 3:

Similar development of the neocortex in mammalian species unrelated to humans and primates has also occurred, for example in cetaceans and elephants; thus the designation of "superior mammals" is not an evolutionary one, as it has occurred independently in different species.

(The bold added by me) My comment: if it occurs independently in different species, it is definitely an effect of evolution in combination with selective pressure and competition between species. How independent occurrences can disprove evolution is beyond my understanding, unless one perceives evolution as kind of a divine predestination for some elected species to become the "crown" species according to some mystical idea of what is "better" and "worse" by some human standards. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)