Talk:Anatomical terms of location

Flounder Example

I believe that the "top" of a flounder could refer to either its left or its right side is incorrect. According to https://www.koaw.org/anatomical-directionalities and other sources, the anatomical position for fish is such that the typically flat surfaces which a lay person would call "its left or its right side" would never be the "top". How could the side surfaces of the fish in anatomical position at https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5808f56fcd0f687a0363b922/1605569930028-8BIUZ8IYRGME9Y2W2FQC/Anatomical+Directionalities+of+Fishes+Fish+Ventral+Dorsal+Anterior+Posterior+Koaw+Nature.png?format=2500w possibly be described as at the "top"? It's also problematic and circular to describe "top" in terms of "left" or "right" when the purpose is to define what top, left, right, etc. are. IMO the description should be in terms of some other characteristics (such as organs located in that direction). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaine-dev (talk • contribs) 22:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

For most fish, you are correct. But for flatfish, which include "flounders, soles, turbot, plaice and halibut," although they start life as bilaterally symmetric, one eye migrates to join its mate on the "up" side, staying pigmented on the upside and usually white on the down side. These fish lie on the sand on one side, always having an "up" side. "The right-eyed flounder family (Pleuronectida) have both eyes on the right side and lie on the ocean floor on their left side. The left-eyed flounder family (Bothidae) have both eyes on the left side and lie on the ocean floor on their right side." (Quoted statements from Facts and Details: Flatfish Such as Flounder and Sole https://ioa.factsanddetails.com/article/entry-217.html). Getwood (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Anatomical terms of location

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Am willing to try and fix concerns --Iztwoz (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to say "wow" to all the work you've put in to this, @Iztwoz: You've definitely changed this for the better. I've tweaked a few things from the veterinarian's standpoint. Thanks for your dedication on this page. Getwood (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Getwood --Iztwoz (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Getwood and Iztwoz: thank you for all your work on the article. Do you feel that it now meets the GA criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I would say so --Iztwoz (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I think there may be minor tweaks going forward, but none that are fixing anything broken. Getwood (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Bilaterianism

It's a minor quibble, but not all bilaterians are bipedal or quadrupedal. Earthworms, millipedes, snakes and fish are either pedal-less or have some other variation. I'm wondering about something like "The meaning of terms that are used vary depending on the type of symmetry (bilaterian or non-bilaterian as well as the standard anatomical position (e.g.: bipedal, quadrupedal, etc.). I would vote for deleting the second sentence. Getwood (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Have adjusted Iztwoz (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

'-ad' and '-ally'

I think it's important that words like distad, proximad, etc. are used correctly as adverbs, meaning (obviously, but worth repeating) they need to modify a verb. And, they are interchangeable with -ally words. So distad = distally. Most of the textbooks cited have numerous occurences of "proximally" and "distally," but do not use "proximad" or "distad." (Gray's, Dyce, Kardong) To me, this form is a relic from when academics thought English should sound more Latin. These forms are still commonly used enough, so worth keeping, but shouldn't be emphasized over the more commonly used and easily understood equivalents. The main exception that makes sense to me is "orad," since this unambiguously means "towards the mouth" where "orally" more commonly means "taken by mouth."

Being adverbs these terms are used for two purposes: a) to describe physiological movement like blood flow or nerve conduction: "arterial blood flows distad/distally", or b) when used in a descriptive sentence such as "the biceps brachii originates proximad/proximally on the scapula and terminates distad/distally on the radius." In both cases, the term modifies a verb "flows distally" and "originates proximally," not a location like "distad of the femur," which appears to modify 'femur', bending it into adjective territory.

Here are my suggested changes (bold only for emphasis of changes): "-ad (from Latin ad 'towards'), equivalent to '-ally',used as is a suffix createsing the adverb form to indicate that something moves towards (-ad) something else. For example, "distad" means "in the distal direction," as in "arterial blood flows distad/distally.", and "distad of the femur" means "beyond the femur in the distal direction". Further examples may include cephalad (towards the cephalic end), orad, craniad, and proximad. The terms "proximally" and "distally" are in more common use in most anatomic textbooks than "proximad" or "distad." could cite Dyce, Gray here. Getwood (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Disagree with these changes - directional terms are mostly adjectival. The term distad is still referring to something that is further from as distad to xyz. Distad to the femur is different from distally to the femur. These are the anatomical terms in use. There really is no point in pointing out that terms can be changed to adverbs this to me is self-evident and may well be the usage in a number of sources. I think its safe to say that proximal and distal are more in use than proximad and distad and therefore the adverbial -ly form may also be more prevalent Iztwoz (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that directional terms are mainly adjectival. But -ad makes a word into an adverb. Distal and distad are not equals. Distad and distally are. These are not the anatomical terms in use. Gray's Anatomy, Dyce, and pretty much any modern anatomy book I can find does not use distad. While I have seen distad used as an adjective as you are suggesting, it is inappropriate. Getwood (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

As I said - they are mostly adjectival - whether the suffix makes it into an adverb is irrelevant to its use or its inclusion in an anatomical term - you say the word distad is not referred to - I don't think that it would be included in Merriam Webster if it was not in use.--Iztwoz (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)