Talk:Human anatomy

From Citizendium
Revision as of 15:44, 18 February 2007 by imported>David Hume (→‎Books)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Definition suggestions

I think "medical gross anatomy" should be added in the definition of human anatomy. The name Gross is used so often to refer to Human anatomy that I think it is worth being redundant. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 15:36, 17 February 2007 (CST)

I added a section called "Approaches to Anatomy", where "gross anatomy" is mentioned. I hope you'll agree that the study of human anatomy involves far more than just gross anatomy, which is really a subtopic. It could be argued that the section on the systems of the human body is a subtopic of gross anatomy however, since these systems can all be studied macroscopically, microscopically, and for their pathology, etc., I put it on the main page. David Hume 14:18, 18 February 2007 (CST)

Movement

Along with orientation, I think of anatomical movements - essential for understanding of muscular skeletal anatomy. Should we include a link to the basic anatomical movements from this article? I think yes. Do you think they should be included in this article? I think no, but I like long articles, so I wouldn't mind seeing it added. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:39, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Things I added for fun that were then deleted by David

These things may have not been the best fit for this article but they were fun facts, I thought

From Mnemonic

BCS - Branches of aorta

  • Bowl - brachiocephalic artery
  • Championship - left common carotid artery
  • Series - left subclavian artery

Davide said these should go in a different article, he's probably correct. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:02, 17 February 2007 (CST)

From definition

I added words to be incorporated, Gross Anatomy, Macroanatomy, Microanatomy.

These words are covered in the parent article Anatomy, says David on my user talk page. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:02, 17 February 2007 (CST)

I have added a section including those, as you suggest. David Hume 18:58, 17 February 2007 (CST)

"parent article"

I think we can improve the way we have the link to the main anatomy article but I can't think of the wording yet. looking for input. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:06, 17 February 2007 (CST)

I like your addition of the word article. It does make it clearer and all in all it doesn't look too intrusive on the page David Hume 18:55, 17 February 2007 (CST)

The order of reference books

Netter is by far the most superior atlas written in my mind and I'm going to vote that it gets the number 1 spot. I would argue that Rohen Color atlas is also a superior atlas and I vote it also be considered for a higher rank on the reference book section. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:17, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Order them however you like, Tom. Do what you think is best. My suggestion would be to order them by complexity: introductory, intermediate, and comprehensive; alotting stars, perhaps, to indicate quality - though all books listed should be ones widely used at universities and colleges because they are considered the best and worth at least 4/5 stars. David Hume 19:56, 17 February 2007 (CST)

I don't have time to do this now - also, I only have the books I listed, but I can find the rest at the library later. I like your idea of breaking them up by difficulty. We could also break them up by type of book - text, atlas, etc. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 20:01, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Anatomy Workgroup?

I don't think we are big enough to have an anatomy workgroup at this point. Honestly, I'd like to keep the workgroups to a minimum. WP has failed to classify articles in general categories and has gotten too specific. This makes doing a category related changes : See http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium_Pilot:Biology_Workgroup and http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Category%3ABiology_Workgroup impossible. Maybe this should move to the forums for more consideration by all. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:43, 17 February 2007 (CST)

I don't disagree but anatomy is a vast topic including most of the animal kingdom. Veterinarians would have a particular interest in the anatomies of common pets like the dog, the cat, and the canary, as well as domestic animals like , the cow, the pig, and the horse. I just created it as a blank for future use as the numbers grow but I'm not fussed one way or the other. Remove it if you like. I won't object. My goal was merely to try to encourage a group of people interested specifically in anatomy to hop on board. Heck, Valentine's Day was the first time I ever laid eyes on CZ; what do I know? I haven't even had time to read the rules and figure out what goes on here. David Hume 20:09, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Attention please writers in Anatomy

It seems this article has NO A PRIORI DEFINITION. May I ask the responsible editor(s) and authour(s) to come to an understanding to how and why this article should be formulated before doing any serious editing? This TALK PAGE is the DEFACTO PLACE to discuss all matters of the article. 

If NO agreement can de devised and or constructed I will contact one of the health science or biology edt=itors and ask him or her to oversee the progress here. A reminder stays: ALL PROJECTS are COLLABORATIVE. Robert Tito | Talk 18:36, 17 February 2007 (CST)


at first glance the human anatomy seems more a topic belonging health_sciences than biology. Second, maybe you like long articles, maybe others do not. You need to come to an agreement, based upon scholarly arguments not sentiments. If in a later stage it seems nice to have a link to Biology because of general anatomy, that link can be made at that moment in time. To start with a non-existing link seems not needed. No matter how big or small a group is, the responsibility of the content still belongs to an editor with a speciality in that specific topic. So appropriate it would be to include an editor in a group no matter its size. Robert Tito | Talk 18:59, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Firstly this page deals with human anatomy, not anatomy in general, which is the parent article to this page. Anatomy is defined there. As to why there should be articles on morphology, anatomy, human anatomy, the human skeletal system, etc. I thought that would be obvious. I'm not at all sure what you are getting at and why all the shouting. Second, long articles? What do you call long?

What non-existing link? There is a link to anatomy on the biology page and one from there to human anatomy. I am currently trying to have morphology interposed between biology and anatomy for reasons stated on the biology discussion page. This would create a flow from biology > morphology > anatomy > human anatomy > systems of the human body e.g. the skeletal system > e.g. Skull > e.g. bones of the skull, etc. - all nicely linked in a logical way that would prevent any one page from getting too large. A page can't stand in isolation. It may or may not have children but it has to have a parent. And it can have more than one parent too. There's no reason a "Health Sciences" page can't link to it as well.

What brought all this on anyway? David Hume 19:47, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Cadaver Shortage

While this is a valid topic, see http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/291/1/122?etoc, I think it really belongs in an article about medical education, rather than anatomy itself. David Hume 00:23, 18 February 2007 (CST)

I don't think people know about it though and we should try to find some way to link to it. Your thoughts-Tom Kelly (Talk) 00:31, 18 February 2007 (CST)

Perhaps a heading "topics in human anatomy" could be added which links to a page "Topics in Human Anatomy", which would function as an index or table of contents to all the sub-topics of human anatomy.

The cadaver shortage problem has an interesting history, as you can see in the above article and easily merits an entire page to itself, but I don't have time myself.


Books

This section is reserved for book suggestions, comments, category, and quality rating. Please try to follow the format as it will make it easier for everyone. If you have any comments about this section itself, please put them at the bottom of this section under "Discussion". Thanks, David Hume 14:35, 18 February 2007 (CST)

Guideline for categories (introductory/intermediate/comprehensive:

  • text/i - mostly text with illustrations
  • text/p - mostly text with photographs
  • text/ip - mostly text with both illustrations and photographs
  • atlas/i - mostly drawings with some text
  • atlas/p - mostly photographs with some text
  • interactive/t - mostly text with blank spaces for answers to quizzes, etc.
  • interactive/i - mostly illustrations with either blank spaces for quizzes or opportunities to color the illustrations

Guideline for ratings:

  • 1 not recommended
  • 2 does not quite deserve to be listed on the page
  • 3 acceptable, presents all the facts adequately
  • 4 superior, has features that improve comprehension and understanding
  • 5 totally mind blowing, presents features with such amazing clarity that your vision and understanding are vastly enhanced.

NB. You may not comment on a book if you are in any way associated with the authors, publishers, or distributors of that book. 

  1. Gray's Anatomy – Henry Gray et al.
    • Comments:
      • a) David Hume 13:42, 18 February 2007 (CST)
        • There are two major versions of this book:
          • The cheap out of copyright version
            • rating: 3/5 (because it's out of date)
          • The latest expensive revised edition (39th ed.)
            • category: comprehensive - text/i
            • rating: 4/5
  2. The Anatomy Coloring Book – Wynn Kapit / Lawrence M. Elson
    • Comments:
  3. McMinn's Colour Atlas of Human Anatomy – P.H. Abrahams R.T. Hutchings S.C. Marks Jr
    • Comments:
  4. Netter - Atlas of Human Anatomy
    • Comments:
  5. Color Atlas of Anatomy - Rohen / Yokochi / Lütjen-Drecoll
    • Comments:
  6. Imaging Atlas of Human Anatomy - Jamie Weir / Peter H Abrahams
    • Comments:
  7. Essential Clinical Anatomy - Moore / Agur
    • Comments:
  8. Atlas of Clinical Gross Anatomy - Kenneth Moses / John Banks / Pedro Nava / Darrell Petersen
    • Comments:
      • a) David Hume 13:42, 18 February 2007 (CST)
        • Winner of the prestigious 2005 R.R. Hawkins Award for the Outstanding Professional, Reference or Scholarly Work
          • The Atlas of Clinical Gross Anatomy by Kenneth Moses, MD, John C. Banks, PhD, Pedro B. Nava, PhD, and Darrell Petersen, provides a clear three-dimensional understanding of anatomical structures by creating a unique photographic image collection of human gross anatomy. The book was felt to be an outstanding exemplar of its genre, innovative and compelling in terms of production, and a masterpiece of utility for students and professionals alike.


Discussion

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Human_anatomy&oldid=150097"