Talk:Cranial nerves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why did you take the "See also" links to the other cranial nerves off of the pages for the individual articles for each nerve? I know that the list on the "cranial nerve" article already has the list but why force people who want to go from one cranial nerve aritcle to another to take an additional step in order to get to that information. The articles about the varioius cranial nerves form a tighly bound unit and making it easy to go from one to the other with a simple "See also" list at the bottom is not messy methinks. Qaz 01:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There. I created the template en:Template:cranial_nerves which solves this problem more elegantly. Acceptable? Alex.tan 04:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I like that. It is acceptable to me at least. Not sure if it has to appear on the original "Cranial nerves" article since that makes the same list appear there twice though, but I like having it on all the others. Qaz

Qaz, basically I thought the list of 12 cranial nerves was too long to include in each article in the way it was formatted. It seemed that it would be better to link to the main cranial nerves article, which then linked to each cranial nerve. I was thinking that a template would be a better way in the future to provide a connection between each cranial nerve article, and I see that Alex.tan has gone ahead and implemented this. I think it looks great. Cheers, —Brim 16:04, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Abducens vs. Abducent 2 Mnemonic devices 3 CN XIII? 4 Brainstem? 5 Merge with Cranial nerve nucleus? 6 Nerve 0 7 Mnemonics

[edit] Abducens vs. Abducent

At 15:20, 14 July 2005, User: 165.21.83.246 made an edit renaming CN VI to "abducent" nerve, with the claim "Abducent nerve is a more commonly used term". This does not seem to be the case. Apart from my unsubstantiated claim that every neuroanatomist, neurologist, and neuroscienctist with which I've spoken has referred to this nerve as "abducens", the major neuroscience and neuroanatomy texts (Diamond's "Human Brain Coloring Book", Kandel, Schwartz, ans Jessell's "Principles of Neural Science", Adams' "Principles of Neurology", and Nolte's "The Human Brain" just to name a few) refer to CN VI as the "abducens nerve".

"Abducent" is an adjective while "abducens" is the noun. A quick Google search for each of those exact phrases yeilds about 4,260 for "abducent nerve" and about 20,300 for "abducens nerve". A search on PubMed returns 286 journal articles with 6 reviews with the term "abducent" and 2405 journal articles with 149 reviews with the term "abducens". Further, the first item that pops up when one searches for the term "cranial nerves" on Google is from the Yale Medical School, which refers to CN VI as the "abducens nerve".

Anyway, I think I've made my point. If someone can show me stronger evidence to the contrary, then we can revert the name to "abducent" again. Until that time, I stand by my claim and by my change.

Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. JFW | T@lk 17:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Amen. Edwardian 07:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mnemonic devices

The substance of the cranial nerves is not the mnemonic device by which students learn the names of them. Would anyone mind if this is moved to a less prominent section of the article (i.e. near the end)? Edwardian 07:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

For many neuroanatomy articles I've thrown in some mnemonics because I feel they aid in education, however they are not--as you say--the substance of whatever piece of anatomy is the subject of the article. Keep the devices, but feel free to move it toward the end as a footnote or something. Semiconscious (talk · home) 06:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

On a very spurious note, I find most doctors and medical students who I know in the UK use the mnemonic "Oh, oh, oh, to touch and feel a girl's vagina and hymen". Would this be considered too profane to include in the article? Jbarfield 11:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• This is very common in the US as well. I've changed one of the two options to something also commonly used in the US. I'm not really sure what Wikipedia's view is on more risque things such as your example. I teach the "old olympus" one to my students to avoid any charges of sexual harassment. :) semiconscious (talk · home) 23:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the mnemonics have considerable value and should be in the article. Many medical textbooks use mnemonics and it is not uncommon to see mnemonics in the medical literature-- two examples are "CREST syndrome" and "CRAB" for MM (International Myeloma Working Group. Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma Working Group. Br J Haematol 2003;121:749-57. PMID 12780789.). The Anatomy & Physiology Text Book I have -- has the mnemonic "Oh Once One Takes The Anatomy Final Very Good Vacations are Heavenly." Nephron 18:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CN XIII?

User:Richardcavell recently added an entire section regarding a renumbering of the CNs. I've never heard of this, but it's really cool. Is there a citation for this any where? Semiconscious • talk 08:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone else added Andy Lelli. Also, I've been referred to 'The Spine' by Bogduk&Twomey. - Richardcavell 13:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't "Oh, oh, oh, to touch and feel a girl's vagina and hymen" leave out one of the Cranial Nerves? There should be a "V" between "feel" and "girl" for Cranial Nerve VIII Vestibulocochlear.

The vestibulocochlear is also know as the auditory vestibulocochlear; thus the word "a" represents that nerve. Semiconscious • talk 19:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively: "Oh, oh, oh, to touch and feel virgin girls' vaginas and hymens." --Antelan 00:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this whole subsection until a verifiable cite is given: just giving "Andy Lelli" is not a useful cite. (Googling for "Andy Lelli" just finds machine-translated mirrors of this page, and "Andrew Lelli" has zero hits.) -- The Anome 18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

CN XIII is hoax? I received email approaching me about a CN XIII hoax. Prof. Andrea Lelli work in University Pablo de Olavide (Spain) many years back and published a paper on this. She marry few years back and work at National University of Mexico now i think. CN XIII refers to RIS/RAS system... Controversial yes but hoax no. - Luis Martinez Millan, University of Pais Vasco

[edit] Brainstem?

Do they all attach to the brainstem? I put this on a test and got the question wrong. Mauvila 18:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The first and the second don't. I have edited to reflect this. The whole biology section of wikipedia is poor. I would advise you to not use it as a sole reference. Always cross reference with a textbook. Shushruth ^{\talk page \ contribs} 09:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Cranial nerve nucleus?

Both are considerably short articles. And any discussion of cranial nerves without their nucleii is incomplete. So I think that we should merge the two. Shushruth ^{\talk page \ contribs} 09:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this. While there should be prominent links between the two, the topics are usually taught in two separate courses in American medical schools: Gross anatomy for the nerves and Neuroanatomy for the nuclei. The nerves are best considered relative to the anatomical structures they traverse and innervate to enable the various functions, while the nuclei are most clearly understood relative to the rest of the brain. Robotsintrouble 22:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons stated above. A-giau 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nerve 0

If you're going to say that humans have CN 0, it would be advisable to reference a source. I am aware of no major text (Gray's, Moore) or atlas (Netter) which consider CN 0 to exist. This isn't to say that it doesn't - but citations should be added for such a controversial change. --Antelan ^talk 21:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone added citations. Because the claim that they are for "pheromones" does not cite a scientific, peer-reviewed journal, but instead Scientific American, I will remove this statement unless there are objections. (I will not remove Nerve 0 - just the statement that it is for "pheromones"). --Antelan ^talk 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I have removed the "pheromones" claim and added a reference to a review article that addresses the controversy. A Scientific American article does not provide sufficient backing for the highly controversial claim that humans sense pheromones. The reference that I added addresses this controversy from a scientific standpoint, and notes where research could be done to find a resolution. Per WP:NPOV: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. I think that for now, we can be more generous than that, which is why I've left the CN0 claim and added more appropriate references. Can anyone else weight in on this debate? Antelan ^talk 17:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mnemonics

I have restored the previous version of this article, since the most recent version involved the removal of several mnemonics while leaving others. It would be helpful to make a statement on the talk page before doing so in order for the rest of us to get an understanding of your rationale beforehand, especially in the case of differential treatment of material. --Antelan ^talk 11:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)