![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I am familiar with the common usage of the word "posterior" to refer to the buttocks. It is probably appropriate to mention this. However, I do not think that spanking is an appropriate example of its usage, in an article on anatomical terms. I think this reference should be removed.Preacherdoc 13:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
So now we have plenty of articles about these terms, but none seem to address the interesting special cases.
AxelBoldt 06:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The article should be separated into a anatomical locations on humans, and one for locations on animals. They just don't seem to mix, or at least it makes things confuseing. At minimum the top picture should have a human counterpart. Electron9 23:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 08:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
A better-written and more scholarly article on the same topic exists at Human anatomical terms, but it also covers material Anatomical terms of motion. In my opinion, the best parts of this article and Anatomical terms of motion ought to be merged into Human anatomical terms. Sarah crane 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't merge Two completely different topics. Although an understanding of Quadraped anatomical terms (i.e. Dorsal Surface, Dorsal Bundal, etc) is useful for understanding human anatomical terms it becoms messy when trying to combine them into the same article (i.e rostral). --134.36.125.179 01:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't merge. As some have already pointed out, the terms used in zoology and in medicine differ considerably, and often confusingly. I think this article, if cleaned up, could be quite valuable in pointing out the similarities, differences and points of confusion, though, and not just concentrating on the zoological. In fact, I've been considering taking on part of that task myself, and spent a day this weekend designing a couple of what I think would be better illustrations for the (vertebrate) animal part. Hopefully, I'll get some invertebrate illustrations done in the next couple of days, and get them posted on the Commons for all to see before inserting them. What I really need is an appropriate, modifiable, photo of (a) human(s) (preferably one male and one female) in the upright anatomical position. Better still, several - full front, full back, full side and one at about a 30° angle. Then I could add in a bit about surface anatomical subdivisions, reference points, markers and so on. Any photographers/volunteers? Esseh 07:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi all. I must admit to being rather disappointed with this page. I find it lacking in a lot of information (especially synonyms), and very unclear and confusing in much of the information it does present. Particularly, I find it does not give clear guidelines or explanations on how general vertebrate terms of location relate to those in used in a medical context. Worst of all (in my mind), the article, as it stands, does not include terms of location for any invertebrate animal.
I am willing to begin an extensive re-write of the article, and have prepared several images to help illustrate, compare, and contrast terms of direction and location in invertebrates, and vertebrates including humans. These can be viewed on the Commons under my gallery (same username). For basic vertebrate, the files are: (1) Anatomical_Directions_and_Axes.JPG, and (2) Planes_of_Section.JPG. For invertebrates. I would like to use (1) Radiate_Oral-aboral_Axes.JPG, (2) Radiate_Radial_Axes.JPG, and (3) Radiate_Planes.JPG. (I haven't put links here to save space, and my time in getting them properly formatted. Copy/search of the image titles should get you there, or check my gallery. I will certainly format them in the article.) I am still hunting for comparable human photos to add to the human section, for comparison, and any help would be appreciated. I also want to add a Table to show comparative terms for different groups. If I don't hear from anyone by 07 April, 2007, I will assume consensus, and begin editing. (The editing may take a while - I'm fairly new at this - so bear with me...) Comments, either before or after I begin, are welcome, of course. If I start too soon, just revert what I did (and please give me a reason why!). Thanks to all. Esseh 04:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello again everyone. As you may or may not have noticed, after some preparation (including preparing some new images, creating tables and looking up the appropriate refs), and having heard no cries of anguish to the contrary, I have begun a major re-write of this article. Please bear with me for a few days - it may take some time to complete.
In the meantime, I am still desparately seeking some appropriate photographs for the human anatomy section. Yes, I would prefer GFDL photographs to diagrams. Preferably both male and female, in standard anatomical position, one of each in full anterior and posterior views, and at about a 30o angle to the camera. They'd need to be as high def as possible (so I can crop out various bits to focus on them), against a contrasting or neutral background. Any photographically-inclined volunteers? Cheers, all, and bear with me. Esseh 11:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi WLU, and thanks. Actually, I will be replacing the "Directions in Human Anatomy" section at some point, as well. I included the table as a quick-ref/disambiguation sort of thing. Sorry it looks funny to you. Could it be a difference in your browser? Right now the table is floating, and left-aligned, so text will flow down the right. Maybe it'd look better if I right aligned it. Let me try that now, and let me know what you think... Esseh 15:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm... Thanks. I'm using Netscape 8.1, but I think it's running a Foxfire shell. The text doesn't run into the table, but does run right up to the edge. Annoying and unesthetic, but not fatal. I agree with your assessment of microsoft - may the fleas of a thousand camels infest Bill Gates' armpits! (And his legions of fawning acolytes, too!) I use a PC, but whenever and wherever I can avoid it, I will use someting (anything) other than Microbloat software. OK... tirade over. Let me know how it looks with Safari. And thanks again... Esseh 17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Honest, I changed nothing - it's still left aligned. I'm going to right-align it now, and we'll see how it goes. Thanks again. More text to follow tomorrow... I hope. Esseh 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi WLU (and anyone else that's interested). I've added more text and images to the article. Please let me know what you think, and make changes as appropriate. Obviously, it's a long way from finished, but I'm fried for tonight. See y'all (with pics of jellyfish) tomorow. Esseh 11:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps encouragement isn't required here, but I want to state that I very much like this page and the quality of work that has clearly gone into it. Tgm1024 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm bothered by the suggestion that rostral is (1) synonymous with superior and (2) rare in the context of humans. I often see rostral-caudal in neuroscience as an axis that relates to the developing spinal chord. So within the mature skull you see superior/inferior/anterior/posterior as a straightforward up/down/forward/back, but the rostral-caudal axis is taken to mean more like pre-frontal lobe to brainstem
This could use a sentence somewhere about plant terms, particularly how apical and basal are used. J. Spencer 21:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just been trying to clean up some of the spacing in the article, but I've noticed that there seems to be some kind of formatting problem with the first table in the article, specifically: Table 1: Defined Axes in Vertebrate Zoology, under the Anterior and posterior section. As you should be able to see, the table is, for some reason, making the next section appear to the extreme right of it, making it unreadable and stretching the entire page outwards. As I don't know much about table formatting, I can't fix the problem myself, so can someone who knows about this fix it? --Hibernian 18:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
What ought to be mentioned is the ending used to indicate "towards" (as opposed to "at"). Such as in "caudal" = at the tail, whereas "caudad" = tailwards (from whereever except at the tail). Dysmorodrepanis 12:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
When using this page (which I otherwise found very helpful), I got confused by the reference to anterior/posterior early on, only to find the clarification that anterior is semantically equivalent to ventral in humans some time later, after going away with the wrong idea. It might be worth mentioning this difference for humans when anterior/posterior is first mentioned.
Jim digriz 13:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I know very well what anterior and posterior (and all the other terms) mean as applied to humans, and came away thinking that the article was incorrect and needed to be changed. I think it could be worded in such a way as to give the right impression the first time around.
User:keno 09 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.88.255.139 (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
A merge between this page and Anatomical terms of motion was suggested a year ago, this page has been thoroughly re-vamped, perhaps a merge or review of the two pages might be beneficial? WLU 17:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant, helpful page. Thankyou.
Ron Shaw
intelligentaustralia.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.181.40 (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There are two Figure 6 in the article! SyP (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I am confused about the definition of the term proximodistal" in the table of defined axes. (Table 1)
If | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
mediolateral | is | from | the medial | to | the distal | and |
dorsoventral | is | from | the dorsal surface | to | the ventral surface | and similarly, in |
anteroposterior | the direction is | from | the cranium | to | the caudad | Shouldn't |
proximodistal | be | from | the proximal | to | the distal? | |
In other words, | from | the body | to | the tip of an appendage? | instead of the way it is in the table now? |
I believe the definition in the table--"from the tip of an appendage to ... the body" is backwords. Surely that term as defined in the table would be distoproximal.--Sallypursell (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
90% of the content of this section was patently false. I therefore rewrote it. I also expanded the embedded table to include the human anatomical terms as they are used in the context of the human brain, as the existing information was only accurate in terms of the human torso.Erikmartin (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The two sections below this one should also be modified, as they are only correct in the context of the torso. For example, it may be correct that it is rare to speak of a caudal/rostral axis as synomynous with the inferior/superior axis in the context of the torso, it is far from rare to speak of the caudal/rostral axis as synonymous with the posterior/anterior axis in the context of the brain. For another example, it is only correct to say that anterior is synonymous with ventral in the context of the torso. In the context of the brain, it is not the case, and inferior is synonymous with ventral.Erikmartin (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I added plain English synonyms to the human/zoo table. A casual or hurried reader will gravitate towards the table and I wanted to make it easy to learn the material. Feedback is welcome of course. TomCerul (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
In the human head, but becoming especially important when looking at the human brain, is the difference between rostral and anterior. At the base of the neck, where rostral is nearly synonymous with superior, the "direction" of rostral curves as one moves through the brainstem and into the diencephalon, and once in the telencephalon, rostral is finally - at that point only - nearly synonymous with anterior. When describing brain areas, it is very different depending where in the head one is speaking of to say an area is rostral from a given point than to say it is anterior. I therefore put a (albeit crude) diagram showing how the direction of rostral/caudal curves in one section of this article, and I removed rostral from the chart where it was listed as a synonym for anterior in the human head. I am posting this in talk in case anyone disagrees, has anything to contribute, or whatever. Inspiring discussion is a big part of what wikipedia is all about, after all. Thanks in advance for your input! Spiral5800 (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the section on "Usage in Human Anatomy is correct. Generally, in medical imaging, the z-axis points towards the patient's feet, the y-axis towards the ceiling, and the x-axis towards the patient's left side when they are on their back.
So transverse is in the xy plane, coronal in zx, and sagittal in zy.
64.42.209.81 21:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The article says:
You say:
So you think that Coronal and Sagittal in the article should be the other way around. Well I say:
So that means that I think the article has all of them incorrect and that you have Coronal and Transverse incorrect.
I'll explain why I think this. Each plane has a corresponding axis. This means that within a specific plane, motion will occur around a specific axis. They are as follows:
Let me clarify the axes.
Because you can give a coordinate to each axis, it can make it easier to remember which coordinates apply to planes. For instance:
See how each plane has the 2 coordinates that its axis does not have? In turn, each axis has the corrdinate that its plane does not have. So I'll go ahead and fix the article. If anyone disagrees with me, pelase give an explanation as to why you disagree. Jamesters 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
How confusing! Each proposed labelling of the planes as X-Y or whatever is correct -- in the appropriate frame of reference. It's just that there's much disagreement about which frame of reference is appropriate; in fact, there are two distinct disagreements about that. Can you say NPOV? Or, for that matter, relativity? :-) Knew ya could.
Here are a number of reference frames, all of which have been used either in the article or in this discussion:
Note that the article itself is inconsistent. Although it says it's using the frame of reference that I quoted above in (1), the labelling it gives is actually using the frame of reference from (3).
So we have disagreements about how to label the axes in space, and about how the subject should be oriented. The only thing everyone so far seems to agree on is how the coronal, sagittal, and transverse planes divide the human body.
Here's a table summarizing the frames of reference that have been mentioned, and the plane labellings they imply.
Article (7-Dec-2006) | First poster above | Visible Human Project | Tait-Bryan | |
---|---|---|---|---|
left/right axis (i.e. subject's left/right) | X | X | X | Y |
up/down axis (with respect to gravity, which might not be cranial/caudal) | Y | Y | Z | Z |
front/back axis (dorsal/ventral, if standing; cranial/caudal, if lying down) | Z | Z | Y | X |
subject's orientation | standing | lying | standing | standing |
transverse plane | X-Z | X-Y | X-Y | X-Y |
coronal plane | X-Y | X-Z | X-Z | Y-Z |
sagittal plane | Y-Z | Y-Z | Y-Z | X-Z |
The only solution to this particular little edit war, ISTM, is thus to NPOVify the whole thing. The only reasons I'm writing this long, shamelessly POV essay instead of doing it myself are (a) to justify my assertion that it's an edit war, and (b) that I know nothing at all about the article's subject matter, and so have no clue which reference frames are appropriate to include in such an NPOV version, and which are irrelevant, or even totally bogus. Erics 08:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
As others mentioned before, there is not a single "correct" axis labeling that could be used for describing the anatomical planes. However, there is one well-defined coordinate system that is also independent of the patient's position (standing/lying): I am talking about the patient-fixed coordinate system as defined by the DICOM standard:
(Unfortunately, I did not write down the exact section where the coordinate system is specified in the DICOM standard. But if someone remembers it, here's the link to check this reference: ftp://medical.nema.org/medical/dicom/2009/)
This right-handed coordinate system is also denoted by "LPS", denoting the axis directions of x, y, and z (Left-Posterior-Superior).
In this case, the anatomical planes could be described as follows:
Keilandreas (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
An English question:
or
AxelBoldt 23:16 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure but would go for "on". I think that "at the side" of something tends to suggest that it is next to it but less involved - The National Film Theatre stands at the side of the Queen Elizabeth Hall" (hmmm maybe not even a good example!) - but "on" I think suggests that it is actually attached or touching it. Or something. Oh dear, I was trying to help, now I've just confused myself. :( Try "on", I really think that's it ... Nevilley 23:22 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)
On - (In this case). But English is a funny language. Mintguy
Agreed, for the reason Nevilley describes. Your heart is on your left side, but the dog in the picture might be walking at your left side. :-) Erics 08:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, actually it'd be logical to say your heart was in your left side, but one doesn't; the correct idiom is on. As Mintguy says, English is odd that way. There's even regional variation -- folks in England tend to say a store is in such-and-such a street, while we North Americans say it's on. Each usage sounds weird to the other group. Erics 08:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a nice new article anatomical position which deals specifically with terms in human anatomy. I tried merging it into this article but it didn´t work well. It might be best to rewrite some of this article here to remove references to human anatomy and make it more general, so that the specific details of human antomical terms can all go to the other one. Does that make sense? Kosebamse 04:23 25 May 2003 (UTC)
Both articles are doing well now, this one giving the general terminology and the other one some specific details. However, I´m still unhappy with the planes section, as it is the only one that deals specifically with human anatomy. It would be better if it were rewritten to become more universal, but unfortunately I am not too familiar with the subject where other living things are concerned. Perhaps a biologist or veterinarian could help? Kosebamse 09:13 26 May 2003 (UTC)
Why direct lateral to this page? This seems to happen a lot on Wikipedia-direct a specific thing to a general topic. Lateral has more than one meaning; lateral thought for example. -Adrian
Hi Adrian,
It depends on the specific usage of the word "lateral". If an article discusses "lateral thought", then the term isn't being used in an anatomical sense, so it shouldn't really be linked to this page. However, in medical and veterinary science, these terms are used very heavily and they have specific meanings (and even particular nuances which you won't find discussed in very many textbooks! :-). They help to disambiguate discussions in these fields, where phrases like "on top of", "in front of", etc., are easy to mis-interpret.
So, in medical and veterinary fields, where these terms have extremely specific meanings, they're can be linked to this page to explain those meanings. Do you have a link to the offending article? You can change it if you don't think the link is appropriate...
Jonathan Merritt 1 September 2003
There's now a nice kangaroo picture here to demonstrate graphically what each anatomical term is but is the picture released for use under or still copyrighted? Alex.tan 09:38, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The following was recently added:
A Google search for "animal anterior site:.edu" gives over 26,000 hits, and already among the first ten are several that define "anterior end of an animal is the head end." It may be ok to say that in Wikipedia we shouldn't use the terms in that way, but we certainly have to explain how everybody else uses them.
I cannot make heads and tails of this paragraph. Maybe it can be explained better. AxelBoldt 20:18, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
---
Super- Supero- Supra-
I propose moving the 'relative motions' section off into an article by itself. Many of the anatomically-related articles make free use of movement terminology; I think it would be more intuitive for someone who wanted to know what the hell dorsiflexion was to click on a 'Anatomical terms of motion' link for clarification. --dcf 14:16, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)
In arachnology I commonly see the terms "retrolateral" and "prolateral" used to describe views of the pedipalp (roughly the spider's "arm" or "hand"). Neither of these terms are mentioned in this article and I haven't been able to find a definition for them anywhere. Can someone provide a definition for these two terms? Kaldari (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Of the subsection "Anatomical planes in animal brains", I find only the first two sentences somewhat understandable. The rest is a "jargon for jargon's sake" display of superior technical knowledge; not at all what we need for general readers. Would some competent anatomist please inspect this section and edit it so that it can be understood by any interested layperson who has read and absorbed the preceding sections of the article. yoyo (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I am by no means a professional, but it seems to me that various terms are used incorrectly in "Table 3: Equivalent Directional Terms used in Vertebrate Zoology and Human Anatomy". Although the table seems to cite sources, I have at least one textbook (2010, Discovering Biological Psychology, 2nd edition, Laura A. Freberg) where the directional terms are used differently.
In that textbook, the directional terms are said to be used one way for the brain and head, but another way for the neck downward. To give examples: for the brain Both Rostral and Anterior refer to the face, and both Dorsal and Superior refer to the top of the head and hair. For the body, now Rostral and Anterior refer upwards on the body (toward the sky), while Dorsal and Superior refer to the back and butt.
So is this textbook verifiably correct/inccorect? I will not change the table or add (my own version of) the image used in the textbook until I have received some feedback on this matter.-Tesseract2 (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I need to ask, what is your source?? I am confused as to how this textbook could get something so basic wrong - is there disagreement in the field over how to use these terms?
Either way, I absolutely agree that this page is a mess. I am glad to hear you plan a re-write.-Tesseract2 (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I am glad to hear it. I am hoping we can all agree on common definitions - whatever they may be (or else progress will be delayed).-Tesseract2 (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Most of the introductory material of this topic seems foolish or contentious, without a preliminary reference to "Anatomical Position".
Wikidity (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Anatomical terms are consistently defined where used, contrary to the article. Anatomical terms are defined with respect to whatever is the "Anatomical Position" for the animal in question. Anatomical Position does not imply (nor dos it mean to imply) "comfortable".
FWIW, Dorsal and Ventral are not used in human anatomy to describe relative positions. They are used as part of certain names, such as "Dorsal Root Ganglion". However, where the dorsum on a fish is where you find the Dorsal Fin, if one were to look for such a structure on a person, they'd look at the Posterior surface. (This is a hypothetical example, of course).
Kernel.package (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to ensure that all "Redirected" entries are resolved, or at least mentioned in the target article? This article should explain or at least qualify in some way for the redirections made to it.
Wikidity (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
it seems nowhere on wikipedia can one find the terms used to describe directions within the mouth (i.e., on teeth). I'll add here, if someone knows more please add. HMallison (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Any chance that somebody who knows what they're talking about could add a definition for "ostial" and perhaps a section on the Ostial-Distal directions (similar to the proximal and distal nomenclature for appendages)? Presumably, here Ostial refers to the Opening from which a blood vessel branches off, while distal refers to the opposite end away from the branch. However, I could be completely wrong, just trying to interpret results from an operative report where they describe the ostial and distal regions of the LAD. I'll take a stab in the main article, but if someone better versed in anatomy than I could fix it up, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stokerm (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Fish anatomy#Head mentions terminal and subterminal. These terms are not mentioned in this article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
From the table that explains the differences between human and animal anatomy, I couldn't tell what the terms "rostral" and "caudal" mean in the human head. I assume they're synonyms for "anterior/front" and "posterior/back"? AxelBoldt (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The section entitled Left and right (lateral), and medial defines medial as "towards the medial plane" and treats "medial" and "middle" as synonyms. Does this mean that the point between dorsal and ventral is also medial? Based on the literature, it seems as though medial is only used with respect to left and right (lateral) reference points. Hence, terms such as "ventral medial" or "medial dorsal." Although this section also defines medial as being opposite to lateral, it is not clear if this does or does not apply to dorsal and ventral as well. If not, I think this should be made clear. If so, then perhaps this section needs to be broadened a little bit. My two cents. danielkueh (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Table 3 gives the impression that superior-inferior in the human torso is equal to anterior-posterior in the human head. I understand that what they are saying is that vertebrate zootomy anterior-posterior is equal to superior-inferior in the human torso, and vertebrate zootomy anterior-posterior is equal to anterior-positerior in the human head. The confusion comes beacause if you line up a human spine with most other vertebrates the brains will be at 90 degree angle to each other. However, having human torso superior-inferior on the same line as human head anterior-posterior is a bit confusing.
The only way I can think to fix this is to break the table apart; so you have one table comparing vertebrate zootomy and human torso, and another table comparing vertebrate zootomy and human head. This has the obvious draw back of increasing the length of the text. Anyone else have any good ideas on how to clarify this? SBarnes (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I remember being thought that anterior, posterior, superior and inferior are relative to the standard position of the animal being studied, but I don't have the sources to support this statement and the article implies this is only true for humans and vertebrates that happen to move around head first. I can accept my teacher being wrong, my point is: the kangaroo (or similarly positioned animal) would be a better example to illustrate the contrasting terminology between human and animal anatomy showing that anterior points up as opposed to to the front in kangaroos.
There is also a minor point of the introduction mentioning kangaroos when describing cranial, but carefully to avoids the example with the term anterior, which initially confused me. Further, the section on anterior-posterior mentions that anterior is cranial for all vertebrates (including humans apparently), but the section does make an exception for posterior being caudal for humans (where it is dorsal). Other sections describe the exception for human anatomy to include anterior being ventral in humans, this seems to be inconsistent. PinkShinyRose (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I have reordered this article so that the order goes:
I feel that the majority of readers will be most acquainted with human anatomy. By placing it first, we can more-easily introduce concepts that can be mentioned in other areas of this article. --LT910001 (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Should be merged as with other items of anatomical terminology. The context provided to readers will enhance the quality of the article overall, and benefit more readers than having a fragmented article. LT910001 (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Seems like a typo: "X-rays pass from their source to patient's anterior body wall through the body to exit through posterior body wall". Please, update this sentence. Arkadi kagan (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
These redirect here. Currently they are very confusingly written, and don't actually make sense:
As in other vertebrates, the terms "proximal" and "distal" are used to describe the point of attachment to, and part of an appendage furthest away from, the body, respectively. However, other terms are used for direction in the appendages, given the unique position of the limbs (in standard anatomical position) in humans.
-that's the full passage, with my italics to highlight just one issue. I came here looking to see if there was a useful destination for a link at: "Adenocarcinomas tend to occur distally and squamous cell carcinomas proximally, but the converse may also be the case" from Esophageal cancer, but since the oesophagus cannot really be considered an "appendage", and proximal and distal are here apparently relative to the teeth, it isn't ready to be linked to. Since the use of the terms seems in practice more complicated, is there a case for a seperate article on the pair? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is getting very long and contains information about a lot of different things. I think it would help to simplify matters if we split some of the content about Anatomical planes and Anatomical position to their respective articles. These are essential concepts to this article, but I don't think they should be mentioned in full as they are now. --LT910001 (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is very comprehensive but the number of bolded words makes reading this article like rolling over a porcupine. Would there be any support to de-bolding some of the words on this article, so that only the main words in each subsection are kept bold? I agree bold is very useful to showing the words (eg "superior" for "Superior/inferior" section), but I feel the number of bold words is impacting on readability and also gives makes identifying the key word in each section more difficult. --LT910001 (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I dread to ask, but would there be support for an article along the lines of Anatomical terms of descriptive attributes (Yes, I know, but I am open to alternative wording; I haven't yet thought it out properly.)
The sort of thing I have in mind is terms of form (as in "gracile", "filiform", "capitate", "turbinate", "cochlear", "trabecular", etc.) They might be full words or roots such as might be prefixes or suffixes, eg caec- or capil-.
Any pros or cons? JonRichfield (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Just brainstorming, but some additional terms that may need to be mentioned: --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Better represented in one spot. Will benefit readers by virtue of centralising information and reducing needless fragmentation, in addition providing context of surrounding terms. Can be expanded at a later date if need be. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The Intro has planes and axes, but could include abdominal regions (e.g. epigastric, hypogastric) and quadrants (e.g. LLQ left lower abdominopelvic quadrant, RUQ etc.). Mathglot (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Because of this edit by Tn9005 (talk · contribs), I've become aware (or reminded) of the fact that the anterior redirect goes to the Human anatomy section of the article. And yet the Anterior and posterior subsection of the "Other vertebrates" section states "Anterior redirects here." That's because it used to, obviously. The redesign of this article has made it so that the anterior redirect and other redirects, such as Posterior (anatomy), point to the human section even though these terms are not only used for humans. While we do give humans more weight in various ways on Wikipedia, I don't see that humans should have primary designation in these particular redirect cases. I'll alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Animal anatomy to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Relating to the discussion above, I've retitled the sections "Humans and two-legged animals", "Four-legged animals" and "Other animals"
The main reason that I have previously made the division is that there is a lot of difference between the terms used to describe two-legged animals four-legged animals. That said, CFCF and Flyer22_reborn perhaps we could consider merging them all together. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the subsections are not being used correctly. They create oddities when linking anatomical terms being used to describe the "wrong" kind of animal (i.e. one that is not the topic of that section). Thus I linked distal in a spider article, but the text so linked then begins "As in other vertebrates, the terms proximal and distal are used ...", which is off-putting to the reader. Given the title of the article, I think it would be much better to deal first with standard terms, used in essentially the same way in all animals, and then afterwards explain any terms with different uses. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
When "proximal" and "distal" are used without any explicit point of reference, they mean proximal (near) and distal (far) relative to the main body mass. Thus in this usage, it can be said that the upper arm is proximal and the hand distal, meaning that the upper arm is near to the trunk and the hand is far from the trunk.
The article says that "proximal" and "distal" can also be used with an explicit point of reference (i.e. other than relative to the main body mass). Thus if the reference point is the hand, the wrist is proximal to the hand and the elbow is distal to the hand (being separated by the wrist and forearm). I'm not sure that this usage is sufficiently common to be worth including, but if it is, the example must be chosen so that it doesn't exactly match the normal or default use, otherwise the example doesn't make the required point. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I think there needs to be something that indicates where use of these two types are appropriate. Particularly in human terms. Post./Ant. seems to be preferred, in what circumstances would D/V be more appropriate? ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I think these two articles should be merged. --Osteology (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
In the example given for medial with respect to the midline: "the medial side of the knee would be the side adjacent to the other knee". This sounds wrong or at least unclear. What is other in this case? How does adjacency factor? The medial side of the knee would be the inside of the knee, or the side facing the midline. Cdosborn (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I did a search for "radial deviation" and was redirected to this page, but this page makes no mention of the term. This is, to my knowledge, the standard terminology for side-flexion toward the radius, so it should appear and be defined somewhere on Wikipedia. "Ulnar deviation", by the way, does not redirect, and describes a pathological condition, rather than mere side flexion toward the ulna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.197.72 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 20:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I will review this soon.
I'm afraid as the article is in a quick-fail condition. ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
❯❯❯ S A H A 21:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@ArnabSaha I hopefully have addressed your concerns regarding referencing, phrasing and the lead. The article may need another read-through (particularly the last section about specific animals) as I have made some changes to prose in this regard. Happy to address anything at all that you think needs changing, including for example duplications, poor formatting, and unclear wording. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry this took so long. I attempted a few times, but found it hard going. It is unlike articles I am used to reviewing, in as much as it feels more like a textbook glossary than an actual article. For example I was expecting a history section. There is some info out there [2][3] Also it consists of a lot of short one sentence paragraphs that I would usually not like, but I think they fit in the article as it is. Images are another thing. There are a lot of them and I can see why we need more than usual, but many are not very useful as they are so small it is impossible to make out the important details. I don't know whether there is a case for increasing the size of a some. What I see here is good. It reads well and is very accurate and informative. Sourcing gets a bit light toward the end, some statements probably need one.
For humans and other vertebrates that ...get the same point across?
This means descriptions are with respect to the organism in its standard anatomical position, even when the organism in question has appendages in another position.Is "are with respect" correct. It sounds odd to me, but I am not sure if it is wrong.
These terms are frequently used when describing appendages such as fins, tentacles, limbs or any structure that extends that can potentially move separately from the main body.I am having trouble parsing this.
These terms refer to the distance of a structure from the surface or structure.distance of a structure from a structure? It seems too vague.
For example, as humans are approximately bilaterally symmetrical organisms, anatomical descriptions usually use the same terms as those for vertebratesHumans are vertebrates so not sure what this example is saying.
Radially symmetrical organisms always have one distinctive axis.What is meant by this? Is this referring to the third paragraph?
Not sure what to do. It is good and I can see how it would be difficult to resolve some of the issues. Will see what you think Tom. AIRcorn (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
In the section "Other directional terms", shouldn't there be something like:
Maybe luminal and outermost are "main terms" and ad–/abluminal are "other directional terms"? Is "outermost" the correct antonym? Any help with phrasing and sources is welcome. Wakari07 (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)