Talk:Navicular bone

Untitled

A primate bone rather than just a human one, no? Latin navicula, "little boat" --Wetman 08:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I believe you're correct; I've removed that qualifier. --Dcfleck 13:06, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

• It´s actually a mammal bone, most mammals have it. Horses have two bones called "navicular", the "true navicular" or central bone and the navicular sesamoid. --Lmalena (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a source for this assertion; I am unable to verify this. Most diagrams show only one bone. Montanabw^(talk) 21:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• I work in pedal anatomy of ungulates, but you can consult the nomina anatomica veterinaria, names in latin. I also suggest this text: The homologies of the mammalian tarsal bones--Lmalena (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw, you are far from the true navicular in that page. In the foot you have, from the tip to the legs, falanges, metatarsal and tarsal bones; the navicular is part of the tarsal bones. In that pages they are only talking about the falanges, and the diagrams show only the distal half of the third metatarsal, you lack half foot in that diagrams. Veterinarians usually call the navicular of horses "central tarsal bone", but in biology is called navicular, as that´s the name of the bone for most mammals. --Lmalena (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lmalena, you cite a 1964 text that doesn't refer to horses or equines at all, plus you don't spell things properly and you removed sourced material. I kept some of your changes but restored material you removed and removed some commentary that wasn't necessary. I am not convinced that you know what you are talking about. I COULD be convinced, but I need better evidence. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry about the spelling, I´m not an english native speaker. I cited a Scientific text of 1964, and the Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria, that it´s the principal text about anatomy denominations for vets, tradicionally they must be in latin (look for "Os tarsi centrale", also called "Os naviculare"). The pdf has no figures, but in the ilustrated version, the example is usually a horse. I removed text because it spoke about cuneiforms normally fusing, a thing that doesn´t happen in healthy humans, and the link is broken, so I cannot check the original text. If you have access, you can consult these links: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0264.1975.tb00637.x/pdf; http://journals.usamvcj.ro/veterinary/article/viewFile/3817/3540; http://users.uoa.gr/~aathanas/PDF/13.pdf; --Lmalena (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• I removed the paragraph about the bone development as the text cited doesn´t say what there is in that paragraph nor speaks of an extra navicular: http://www.aafp.org/afp/1998/0201/p474.html. --Lmalena (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I left the material on humans as you wrote it, as human anatomy is not my area and your source was acceptable. I did remove the contraction, they are informal, not used in formal, encyclopedia writing. The source on the horse says "Os navicular" so I don't see the need for the additional text. English language sources state there is one "navicular bone" the one between the 2nd and 3rd phalanges. Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw, a thing is that you don´t believe me, another it´s not believing the Nomina Anatomica or the scientific papers I cited. All of them are in english, all of them identify as "Os Naviculare" or just navicular the also called central tarsal bone. I´m not talking about the sesamoid not being "Os navicular", I´m saying that there is another "Os naviculare", the one that it´s homologous to the navicular of humans and any other mammal. --Lmalena (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that we may have been talking across each other. Here is my point: While I understand that the navicular in the human foot is the area analogous to the horse's hock, the point is that in the horse, the "navicular" bone is the sesamoid one; no one ever discusses the tarsal bones as such, in fact, other than your source, I cannot find ANYTHING referencing a "navicular" bone in the tarsal region of the horse (at least, not in English). The article states that it is a sesamoid, and in my view, that is all that is needed. Google "navicular bone" or "navicular bone horse" and google images - you will not find (at least I couldn't) a single example showing the hock of the horse, only in the foot. I'm open to considering something that notes two bones with this name, but I need something that shows or tells BOTH, and not in Latin. We have to be aware of WP:SYNTH here, especially when doing something that goes against "common knowledge," as this does. Montanabw^(talk) 17:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How about the papers I cited, have you read them? The Nomina is in latin, but the other three are not. And please, check the Nomina out, if you are ruling it out for having the names in latin, you are against most vets in the world; the Nomina is made by the International Committee on Veterinary Gross Anatomical Nomenclature, not by a random person.

I already told you than in horses, the navicular is called "central tarsal bone", and you can find that in any hock diagram. Biologists are not going to use one name for horses and another for all the other mammals, so they use "navicular" for horses too, as you can read in the papers I cited. Human navicular and horse central tarsal are homologous, they have the same origin, structures, developement, insertions; they are also analogous, they have the same function. The distal sesamoid or the horse "navicular" is not analogous or homologous to the human navicular.

other texts: http://mypage.iu.edu/~pdpolly/Papers/Polly,%202007,%20Mammal%20limbs.pdf; http://books.google.com.ar/books?hl=en&lr=&id=J9EUAAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=equus+navicular+tarsus&ots=sqCks32geD&sig=Q7Na_ipA3P8UHzrB9R18hR9AcBo#v=onepage&q=%20navicular%20&f=false; http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/8251/1/8251.pdf; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10914-010-9145-7/fulltext.html; --Lmalena (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Central tarsal bone" is what is said, then. None of your sources show a modern horse (that I can see) and most describe fossils. I get it about the latin name, but that is irrelevant in this context. I cannot tell you why the "navicular bone" in the horse names a different bone from the human, but the point is that I cannot find a hock diagram in English (Latin is a different issue) that labels the Central tarsal bone as the "navicular." EVERYTHING in English calls the bone in the horse hoof the "navicular." (I don't know why, but there you have it) As this seems to be a very important distinction to you, I added a sentence about the central tarsal bone, but the sources are not great, but please understand that in English, the hock bone is not called the "navicular." Montanabw^(talk) 19:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of those papers talk about the modern horse, they all described the navicular as the bone that it´s below the talus, and fossil horses are still horses. And just to clarify, there are more than one tarsal (hock) bone in the horse.

I don´t know why you consider that those sources are "not great", as most of them are from peer review papers, some of them very rename ones. Peer review publications are considered better than any kind of source in a scientific context, even better than books.

I think you mean "peer review". Basically, the peer reviewed ones you linked only give me an abstract, not the entire article (unless I want to buy it for $30). The ones that aren't behind a paywall are mostly either in a foreign language, or were about fossils, or just had a list of latin names for things. I'm not disputing that the latin name for the central tarsal bone is os navicular, I'm explaining that we don't call it that in horses when referrring to the "navicular bone" in English, the "navicular" in horses is the one in the hoof, not the hock. I'm not discussing Latin, I'm discussing English. That's been my only point all along. To change existing language violates the no original research and [{WP:SYNTH]] policies of wikipedia. Take a look at the edits I made to the article in the horse section and see if I have addressed your concerns about confusion between these two "foot bones". Montanabw^(talk) 21:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right, "peer" review. All the papers are in english, I don´t know what foreing one you are talking about. Even if the author it´s not a native speaker, english papers have to have at least one english native speaker editor. Sorry if you don´t have access, I put all the ones I have access to; this one for example, a fossil Equus: http://users.uoa.gr/~aathanas/PDF/13.pdf. I know it is a fossil, I bringing you the biological publications, not the vets ones, because this is a difference between biologists and vets. You can try find another open publication in google scholar. I like the changes, that was my point all along, that there is a "navicular" in horses even if it´s not usually called by that name or there is a another bone called like that.

One of the papers above was in another language, my point is just that we need to use the vernacular because this isn't a medical journal. Do my edits to the article work for you? (They are written in colloquial English and reference easy to read sources available in full text online). Montanabw^(talk) 22:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The central tarsal bone in equids is commonly called the "navicular" bone only by anatomists (denoted as the "true" navicular [1] or scaphoid bone by vets) as it is analogous to the similarly named bone in humans but veterinarians and the majority of horse owners call the distal sesamoid bone the navicular bone (mentioned in this source). My guess as to the reason is that the bone in the hoof resembles a boat more than the tarsal bone (hearsay of course :). The source is old, but so is the Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria (that tome still gives me nightmares). Froggerlaura ^ribbit 08:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That and the bone happens to be in the horse's "foot", who knows...? But the point is vernacular versus scientific nomenclature needs sources (scaphoid bone, for example...) Montanabw^(talk) 23:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hello all,

Would it be possible to link the reference to Navicular Syndrome to the corresponding [Wikipedia page] ? I know this syndrome is a hot topic in equine veterinary studies and amongst equestrians, so a link may be helpful in directing people to additional information regarding the syndrome. This is especially helpful because the syndrome is often called simply "Navicular" amongst the equestrian community, so people searching for the syndrome likely encounter this page first.

Just a quick thought!

Carolynslu (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Legit point to me, I'll be bold and add something, feel free to tweak, refine or revert. Montanabw^(talk) 03:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Follow up: never mind, it already is in the horse section. No problem to me if someone thinks the article needs a hatnote or link in the lede. Montanabw^(talk) 03:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Navicular bone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021022902/http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/uploads/7e/32/7e32a4dd9c82d711e57c148824e3b84a/PV1110_waguespack_Surgical.pdf to http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/uploads/7e/32/7e32a4dd9c82d711e57c148824e3b84a/PV1110_waguespack_Surgical.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A bit specific?

I would have thought an article on the navicular bone might not be so specific to just horses and humans. I was reading through this (https://www.donqmedia.net/word-of-the-moment/plantigrade-digitigrade-and-ungulate/) thinking to myself that it might make more sense to structure the article in terms of form following function. Most folks with a decent understanding of anatomy will know how bone structure works. In the majority of higher-order land mammals, the navicular bone, the talus or the cuneiforms will each perform a broadly similar function. Nature loves a bit of copy-paste. I suppose what I was hoping for was an explanation on how the bone appears in plantigrades (e.g. bears), digitigrades (e.g. dogs) and ungulates (e.g. horses) and from there, how the bones differ. Shtanto (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)