Talk:List of skeletal muscles of the human body

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


Note: Various muscle lists have different sets of names: the muscle names listed appear in at least two of the three sources cited. Some of these names may be multiple names for the same muscle, and there may well be many muscles or other names missed out from this list.

Contributors with medical knowledge are invited to fix this, and contribute articles for individual muscles. The Anome 15:40 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Isn't it true that you cannot copyright an alphabetic list (as in the first part of this article), but you CAN copyright an organized category scheme (as in the second part of this article), since it adds value and someone's original opinions to the list of objects? Gray's Anatomy is still being published, and they'd probably hold the rights to using their system of grouping and organizing the muscular system. GUllman 17:25 21 May 2003 (UTC)

There are probably not many absurdities that the copyright laws of, uh, some North American country would not allow - still I believe that such a category scheme may not be copyrightable. After all, it reflects anatomical facts that have mostly been known for centuries. Although every anatomy book may present the facts (groups of muscles) in a slightly different way, the facts themselves are determined by biology, not by human thinking. It is a matter of discovery, not invention. Kosebamse 17:38 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking of compilation copyright... The 3-way fact checking acts as an error check, so only generally accepted names get into the list, and should also eliminate any idiosyncratic copyrightable "creative expression" from the output, if the sources are independent. I know about Feist v. Rural, but that may not apply everywhere. The category scheme is from an out-of-copyright edition of Gray's Anatomy. The Anome

Which raises the question whether such a scheme, if it were copyrighted, would remain so if still used in more recent editions. I just don´t know. Kosebamse 17:55 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Re: point of having muscle in the title
Is there a need to have the word muscle in the wiki? Most of these words are unambiguous. I reckon that teres major muscle, or just teres major is better. Tristanb

I've removed muscle from inside the wikis. Tristanb 23:16 23 May 2003 (UTC)
ANy reason why 'muscle' was put back? -- Tarquin 09:44 28 May 2003 (UTC)
Yes. Please see the recent discussion at User talk:Kosebamse. Cheers, Kosebamse 12:49 28 May 2003 (UTC)
Ah. thanks. I'll quote that here for future reference. -- Tarquin 13:00 28 May 2003 (UTC)
There is, to my knowledge, only one human muscle whose proper anatomical name is single-worded (the platysma, but I may have overlooked some others). Of course you could refer to any other muscle as, say, "the biceps", and that is often done in clinical slang, but it is just that: slang. In a textbook or lexicon, you would always find it as "biceps brachii muscle" or in Latin, "musculus biceps brachii".
Some muscles are known in common language by single-word names, such as the biceps or a few others that are of relevance to athletes, such as the serratus.
This is, however, where confusion starts, as there is indeed another biceps, the biceps femoris, and there are two different serratus muscles.
IMO the clean solution would be to have entries for such popular things as "biceps" under single-word names, but these must then redirect to a page with the proper anatomical name (which is BTW "biceps brachii muscle", not "biceps brachii (muscle)" as I am sure some would suggest). Less popular things should stay unter their anatomical names and not require any redirects.
There are three "serratus" muscles; Serratus anterior, Serratis Posterior Superior and Serratus Posterior inferior. There are also many muscles whose true nomenclature within the anatomical lexicon is a singular word, such as Longissimus along the spine, Brachioradialis between the arm and forearm and Procerus on the nose to name three.
As to your main argument that two pages should be made for each muscle, one under the title of the common name, and another under the anatomical name is ridiculous. All the information within the pages would be identical, so why not just redirect the common name to the single page? Enough with your idiotic sentiment. Never grace us again with your presence.

Apparently missing are muscles of the male and female reproductive systems, especially the myometrium (uterine muscle), as well as other nonskeletal muscles such as the arrector pili.

"ABDOMEN", under "muscles of the trunk" does not point to the article on the -human- abdomen. I can't figure out how to correct this myself. 20:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Seventh-Monkey

Good catch. This is now fixed (the link is changed from abdomen to human abdomen. --Arcadian 21:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite know how. But could someone change these 'info' boxes so they have a larger easier to read font? I have a 20" LCD monitor, and they are almost unreadable with 20/20 vision.

Does anyone have one of those human muscle images[edit]

Where they show most of the human muscles in one picture? Because I was looking for that one picture when I came to this article. Would be a nice addition to this article. -Iopq 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Splitting and scope[edit]

I have reverted changes that have removed most of the content of this comprehensive list of muscles in human body. Having a comprehensive single-page list of muscles of human body is IHMO worthwhile. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge with subarticles[edit]

These appear to contain duplicated information, and it would be more useful to have them on a single article. This is part of a project on WP:ANATOMY to standardise and de-fragment the numerous articles relating to the organisation of anatomical features on Wikipedia. LT910001 (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have completed a merge of this article from its sub-articles. Having the information in two places had led to significant duplication and, essentially, no benefit - both lists were, in places, more updated than their respective counterparts. Having two articles divides the editing load, and means that the sub-articles have a greatly decreased amount of editing and quality-control, and additionally leads to a divided effort that could be better spent editing other articles. I have done my best to merge them back a single list and wikify the page. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


I like the idea of this list. When I searched the article text I could not find reference to the sternalis muscle. Is this not included here because it is a rare variant? A recent study in Clin Anat reports an incidence of only 8%.[1]

--Mikepascoe (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have tried very hard to organise the content here, but a lot of it has been around for many years and I'm not sure what original sources it was derived from, so please feel free to add any missing muscles, I am sure it would be much appreciated by other users! --LT910001 (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Error in File:Skeletal muscles homo sapiens.JPG[edit]

Correction would be to interchange the labels of arrows 15 and 16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoozr (talkcontribs) 01:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of skeletal muscles of the human body. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^  Missing or empty |title= (help)