Talk:Situs ambiguus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ambiguous forms[edit]

The correct Latin form would be situs ambiguus ("ambiguous" being an English spelling). Normally I would just move the page to the correct spelling, but I note that Google turns up 1,250 hits for the Latin spelling, and 984 for the English like spelling. This is pretty damn close, so I would rather not make the move without the advice of someone with more medical knowledge: in the literature is it usually spelled "ambiguus" or "ambiguous"? --Iustinus 08:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page agrees that situs ambiguus is technically correct, but it "is commonly changed to" situs ambiguous, and then uses that term throughout in preference to ambiguus. If "situs ambiguous" is the common name, then we should leave it here, with a note about the correct term. But I'd welcome the views of any medical professionals who are reading... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, neither of you seems too heart-set, and the mixed-language spelling bothers me, so I'm moving it. —Keenan Pepper 02:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Situs ambiguus does not include situs inversus[edit]

These are different. Situs solitus is normal, situs inversus is mirror, situs ambiguus is everything in between. So I edited "This includes the congenital defect situs inversus" to "This does not include the congenital defect situs inversus". As it was the sentence contradicted the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kublakuzz (talkcontribs) 04:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, and I've added a source to support that. - Aoidh (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)