No edit summary |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 10) (bot |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
::::Hmm. On second though I might wait until this gets some coverage in some reliable secondary sources... [https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&tbm=nws&q=tensor+VI+quadruceps&oq=tensor+VI+quadruceps&gs_l=serp.3...2474.9472.0.9732.15.12.0.0.0.0.1834.2419.5-1j8-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..13.0.0.Lr8snrNEVNE] --[[User:LT910001|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:LT910001|talk]]) 22:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
::::Hmm. On second though I might wait until this gets some coverage in some reliable secondary sources... [https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&tbm=nws&q=tensor+VI+quadruceps&oq=tensor+VI+quadruceps&gs_l=serp.3...2474.9472.0.9732.15.12.0.0.0.0.1834.2419.5-1j8-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..13.0.0.Lr8snrNEVNE] --[[User:LT910001|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:LT910001|talk]]) 22:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::: Interestingly, I did not encounter any TVI during dissection. This is something to look into... -[[User:Athikhun.suw|Athikhun]] ([[User talk:Athikhun.suw|talk]]) 23:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
::::: Interestingly, I did not encounter any TVI during dissection. This is something to look into... -[[User:Athikhun.suw|Athikhun]] ([[User talk:Athikhun.suw|talk]]) 23:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
== New article needed on medullary bone == |
|||
The term ''medullary bone'' presently redirects to the article [[Medullary cavity]]. As I've explained on [[Talk:Medullary_cavity#.22Medullary_bone.22_should_not_redirect_here.|that article's talk page]], medullary bone is a very different thing—a special type of bone tissue found in pregnant female birds and dinosaurs—which needs its own article. I imagine some participants in this project will be interested in that, and I'd be grateful if some knowledgeable person would supply such an article. [[User:Jdcrutch|<tt>''J. D. Crutchfield''</tt>]] | [[User_talk:Jdcrutch|Talk]] 21:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*Thanks for pointing this out, {{u|Jdcrutch}}. Wikipedia and its content is created by volunteers like you (or me) and I'd encourage you to be bold and create an article (even a small one) reflecting what you've said. We have a related project, [[WP:ANAN|animal anatomy]] who may have some interested editors who are willing to help. --[[User:LT910001|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:LT910001|talk]]) 03:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Portal:Anatomy == |
|||
Hi. FYI [[Portal:Anatomy]] is currently being discussed at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Portal:Anatomy needs TLC|Wikiproject Medicine]] (direct link) if anybody is interested. Kind regards [[User:JakobSteenberg|JakobSteenberg]] ([[User talk:JakobSteenberg|talk]]) 12:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Hmm. Thanks for pointing this out and to {{u|CFCF}} for creating it in 2013. Should we make this the default link on our WP templates? It may be worth editing the page and doing that. Fine, it doesn't get many views, but it gets more than a thousand yearly, which will increase as we shift the portal link. Thoughts? --[[User:LT910001|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:LT910001|talk]]) 01:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Correction of information on the anatomy of the ovary == |
== Correction of information on the anatomy of the ovary == |
Revision as of 01:37, 21 April 2016
WikiProject Anatomy | ||||||
Main page |
Discussion |
Things To Do |
Tools |
Article alerts |
Manual of Style |
Resources |
|
A newly described muscle: the tensor vastus intermedius
The tensor vastus intermedius is a newly described muscle in the anterior thigh. It was published in Clinical Anatomy, March 2016. "A newly discovered muscle: The tensor of the vastus intermedius" Surprisingly, it was found in all specimens dissected by the authors... One interesting discussion here. If it were to be a normal structure rather than a variation, could we think of it as a fifth head of the quadriceps? Should the term quadriceps femoris become, i.e., quinticeps femoris? --Athikhun (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- There is technically already a fifth (depending on who you talk to) quad muscle already, Articularis_genus_musclem, but TVI does appear to actually be a true fifth. OverAverageJoe (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I thought the atricularis genus was a portion of the vastus intermedius and not an independent muscle? I'll have to look for them next time I dissect, even though I think it might be premature to start telling my students about the 6-headed thigh muscle. CFCF 💌 📧 11:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Fascinating! Cutting edge anatomy, that's what we're about here! I better make mention of this somewhere in the Quadriceps femoris article too... maybe in the history section (as a news/trivia piece). --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. On second though I might wait until this gets some coverage in some reliable secondary sources... [1] --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Interestingly, I did not encounter any TVI during dissection. This is something to look into... -Athikhun (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. On second though I might wait until this gets some coverage in some reliable secondary sources... [1] --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Fascinating! Cutting edge anatomy, that's what we're about here! I better make mention of this somewhere in the Quadriceps femoris article too... maybe in the history section (as a news/trivia piece). --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I thought the atricularis genus was a portion of the vastus intermedius and not an independent muscle? I'll have to look for them next time I dissect, even though I think it might be premature to start telling my students about the 6-headed thigh muscle. CFCF 💌 📧 11:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Correction of information on the anatomy of the ovary
i would like to help correct this information,the mathematics behind number of oocytes and follicles lends to all references to number of said cells to be incorrect. There cannot be a million oocytes at birth. Using math, if a primary follicle is 25μm in diameter then that would make the ovaries combined size 25 meters large. (2.5x10^7μm ÷ 1,000)⇒25,000mm; (25,000mm ÷ 1,000) ⇒ 25m. In order for there to be one million oocytes in an adult overstay the size of 50mm they would have to be 25 nanometers in size, the diameter of a microtubule. [Erickson, G, Glob. libr. women's med., (ISSN: 1756-2228) 2008; DOI 10.3843/GLOWM.10289 , http://www.glowm.com/section_view/heading/Follicle%20Growth%20and%20Development/item/288 ] [ https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cell_Biology/Introduction/Cell_size ] [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule ]
Wikipedia's page on folliclegenesis references the size of a primordial follicle being even larger at 30-50μm (measured in partial millimeters), which would yield a combined ovary diameter of 30-50 meters in diameter. A micrometer is one millionth of a meter or one thousandth of a millimeter which is one thousandth of a meter. A meter is 3.28084 feet. This count would require the ovaries to be a combine into a size of 90 to 150 ft in diameter, the average adult ovary is reported to be 5cm.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.129.247.172 (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out, IP 38.129.247.172. I'll get on to this tomorrow. We'd also love an extra member - please consider creating an account and editing some more :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK. Multiple sources state the amount of primary oocytes at 500,000 to 1,000,000 and the size as 25micrometres. I'm not sure about your math but it seems you've laid out all the oocytes end on end, forgetting about the three dimensional nature of the ovaries. 25μm diameter = 15,625μm3 per oocyte. How big are the ovaries in micrometers? Let's take 3cm as the diameter of each ovary - ie 30 x 10^3μm; ie 27,000 x 10^9μm3. So you can see even a million primary follicles can fit in an ovary. I hope that clarifies this for you, IP. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Sensory systems
Many of these articles were in great need of attention. Have just been edited by another user with several issues:
- large chunks of text inserted as a 'system overview' that, for the most part, duplicates article content
- chunks of text arbitrarily deleted
- items such as infoboxes and images moved
Would definitely benefit from the attention of anatomy editors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Tom. Could you be more specific towards which articles needs attention? JakobSteenberg (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Proposed move of Anterior cochlear nucleus → Ventral cochlear nucleus
Hi all
There is a currently a proposal to make the move above, which has not had a large number of responses so far. Please go to Talk:Anterior cochlear nucleus if you have any opinion on this matter. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
We need better health images — an IEG project!
|
I've done a whole lot of work with images, from adding Sobotta's atlas of Anatomy to Wikipedia, working with X-rays, and contacting different organizations about errata concerning their images and uploading their works. I've also previously taken part in two rounds of IEGs for the Medical Translation Project. I want to tie these two together, focusing on getting images and videos out to a wider audience — both in English and in other Languages. Please take a look at the IEG I've drafted, all the details aren't finalized — but the focus is getting more image through collaborations guides on how to produce acquire images for Wikipedia!
If you feel this is worthwhile feel free to endorse or comment on the proposal — all your ideas are appreciated, and as the project isn't set in stone I will also respond to and criticism about what I plan on doing and what I plan on improving. Check it out here
- Note: The page may see some substantial updating in the coming days
Best, CFCF 💌 📧 21:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)