Talk:Cerebral aqueduct

Move to cerebral aqueduct

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.

---

I've moved this page from Mesencephalic duct to Cerebral aqueduct. Cerebral aqueduct is used far more often than mesencephalic duct in the texts I've come across (e.g. Barr's The Human Nervous System: An anatomical viewpoint) and Google reports a usage of 10:1 in favor of cerebral aqueduct as well. --David Iberri (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Coronal or transverse plane

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.

---

Look at the first (left side) two images in the image gallery; they show the same view but the captions disagree re which plane, coronal plane or transverse plane. --Una Smith (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This confusion arises from the presence of the "cephalic flexure" in humans, which is the kink in the central nervous system that results in the forebrain being turned ~90 degrees relative to the rest of the CNS. This was, obviously, a necessary adjustment with the evolution of upright bipedalism, to keep our eyes pointed forward when we started walking on two legs! In the first image, "coronal" is being used with respect to the nervous system, while for the second image, "transverse" is being used with respect to the (human) body orientation, i.e., a plane parallel to the ground. Both are correct and frankly, I can't decide which to change for consistency's sake, in part because the page for anatomical terms of location, and particularly the section on planes of section, is a total mess. I'll try to work on that! PhineasG (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Explanation of reversion

I am about to undo a series of IP edits and would like to explain why. I'm sure the edits were made in good faith, but they can't stand as is. For one thing, the edits converted a good wikilink into a red link; but that's minor. More importantly the edits add assertions based on a source from 1973, an article that was speculative even then. This needs a more recent authoritative source if it is going to stand. Looie496 (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I support your reversion for the reasons you've stated. If this information is reintroduced, I hope it can be with a more recent source (in the last 10 years or so), and ideally from a review article rather than a single study. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"Aquaduct of Sulvius" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Aquaduct of Sulvius. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 11#Aquaduct of Sulvius until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)