Talk:Philtrum

Anatomy: Gross Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Animal anatomy Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Filtrum[edit]

Filtrum has this etymology in Ancient Greek and not in Greek. In modern Greek, the etymology corresponds with the eglish word, i.e. filter.

Thanks for the info. Bibliomaniac15 01:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er what? Are you suggesting that the ancient Greek word φίλτρον was replaced by the unrelated but similar word filter? Perhaps you think 'etymology' is a fancy word for for 'spelling' or 'pronunciation' or 'transliteration' or something? —Tamfang (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for the FAS part: [1] --RedNovember 02:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "erogenous" nature of the physiology (or rather, the ancient Greeks belief in such) is presented as a simple fact, hence the "hence" dangles out there without something to clarify. Further, it seems that the explanation about the ancient Greeks and their beliefs don't explain anything about the word's etymology. (Perhaps some explanation of the relevance of how the purported erogenous nature of the philtrum influenced its naming would help.) 19:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffMDavidson (talk • contribs)

Where does this word come from? Its not in my Shorter Oxford (two-volume) dictionary, nor is it in the Petit Robert or the Larousse ( French Wikipedia lists it too.) I read a novel many years ago where someone mentioned that there was no word for this feature, so I was delighted to come across it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Observer52 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

communication[edit]

Is there any reference to show that the philtrum allows "a much larger range of lip motions" and enhancement of "vocal and non-verbal communication"? 199.91.34.33 (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to bother? Even the slightest amount of logic would tell you that a slight indentation in the skin doesn't change how far it can flex. You're not going to find a 'cited reference' that proves that's false, it's just common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense suggests to me that a slight indentation can easily increase the flexibility of something otherwise stiff, but skin is already pretty flexible. —Tamfang (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

photo is wrong[edit]

The article says the philtrum is "the vertical groove in the upper lip" but the picture is bracketing the nasolabial folds, the skin folds that run from the nose TO the lip. See articles on "nasolabial folds" and "lip." This picture should be replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.214.134 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd sooner replace the phrase vertical groove in the upper lip. —Tamfang (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

meermeer?![edit]

Is that a real word?? —Tamfang (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?[edit]

The whole Aquatic Ape thing has been roundly discredited. Maybe a reference that they had an explanation for it would be appropriate, but the current wording makes it seem like a live theory which is horribly misleading. 68.40.176.142 (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, if it has indeed been "roundly discredited" then some rewriting of Aquatic ape hypothesis is in order. —Tamfang (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philgina?[edit]

Philgina? "Poon on the rocks"? Sorry to ruin anyone's fun, but I'm reverting these to their original form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.47.99 (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Caption is Misleading[edit]

The caption states "Philtrum highlighted in sunlight", which would indicate that sunlight is somehow important, or at least relevant. Presumably the phrasing is simply due to "having to write something" in the caption. Suggestion: "Philtrum is the groove between the bottom of the nose and the vermillion." Motivation: the picture is clear enough for everybody to understand what the philtrum is. Those who want more precise information will be lead to the word vermillion, explicitly introducing the difference between a common understanding of lip and the anatomical understanding of lip. Gwrede (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article revision[edit]

I have made significant revisions to the article. First, and most important, I revised the article to focus on the fact that the philtrum is an anatomical feature common to most mammals, and is not something limited to humans, where it actually is vestigal. Second, I removed the nonsensical "aquatic ape" discussion; the philtrum is common to most mammals. Third, I removed the unsourced statement that the ancient Greeks believed the philtrum was "one of the most erogenous spots on the human body." If that's correct, let's have a source. Ecphora (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OED[edit]

reference 1 needs fixed, doesn't point to OED def of "filtrum" but points to OED page on wikipedia, ie it is no longer pointing to something which is a legit citiation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.82.154 (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the OED is not on line, except as a pay subscription service. The reference has always been to the printed version, which can be consulted in a library. Ecphora (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting unsourced information[edit]

"According to the Jewish Talmud (Niddah 30b), God sends an angel to each womb and teaches a baby "the entire Torah". Before the baby is born, the angel touches it between the upper lip and the nose and all that was learned is forgotten; the philtrum is formed when the angel "shushes" the baby to cause it to forget its holy knowledge. Other stories say that it is an indent left by the finger of God." There is no source for this, the Talmud simply says that the angel hits the child on the mouth and he forgets the entire Torah.--רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 17:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Angels of Oblivion[edit]

In the film Mr Nobody (2013), the main child character has no philtrum and claims to be a soul that remembers everything. He remembers the past and the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.254.234 (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to tell the same angel story four times?--46.114.35.231 (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

" Together with a glandular rhinarium and slit-like nostrils, it is believed to constitute the primitive condition for mammals in general."[edit]

This sentence doesn't really make much sense. Is it supposed to read:

A philtrum, glandular rhinarium and slit-like nostrils, is believed, as a group, to constitute a part of the basic anatomy of mammals in general.

? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nerve cluster[edit]

In traditional Chinese medicine, pressing on nerve cluster in the philtrum is supposed to be an effective way to revive an unconscious person. It would be helpful to have some mention of this technique in the article. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]