Talk:Spinal column

Anatomy: Gross High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Animal anatomy High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology High‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chiropractic High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 8 December 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Vertebral column to Spinal column. The result of the discussion was moved.

Untitled

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Interesting to note that Arabian Horses, as a breed, can have one-less vertebrae than other breeds -- this is an acceptable, but not required, breed standard.

Would anyone else know of any other animal group that also has this anomaly that is within the range of normal? Had a discussion with a veterinarian friend, who also wondered if this occurred in any other animal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah Tudor (talk • contribs) 15:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

For mammals, I know that sloths and mantees have unusual numbers of cervical vertebrae, though I'm not sure if they vary within the species. Outside of mammals, a lot of reptiles have highly variable vertebral counts among individuals, especially snakes, where two individuals of the same species can vary by almost 20 vertebrae (though, in this case, there were over 200 body vertebrae even in the shortest of this species). HCA (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vertebral column. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fused Coccyx?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the vertebrae section, it says: "Coccyx: 4 (3–5) (fused) vertebrae (Tailbone)"^[1]

The article about the Coccyx, however, says "Most anatomy books incorrectly state that the coccyx is normally fused in adults. In fact it has been shown that the coccyx may consist of up to five separate bony segments, the most common configuration being two or three segments."^[2]

Does this mean the section is incorrectly written?

179.97.129.16 (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

References

^ "Vertebral column". 25 February 2019.
^ "Coccyx". 29 March 2019.

Spina bifida photoshopped

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I can't help it but the photo with the Spina bifida looks like badly photoshopped. Is that permissible? I would say no. Opinions? Thanks. Peteruetz (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Racist source

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've noticed that source 5 on this page: (Bergman RA, Afifi AK, Miyauchi R. "Numerical Variation in Vertebral Column". Anatomy Atlase. Retrieved June 11, 2020.) includes racist language when talking about the differences between the number of vertebrae between people of different races. I don't know how to remove this source or how to change it but I think it is important to challenge outdated racist ideas and not continue to cite them as reliable resources. If anyone can remove this it would be great, and definitely improve the quality of information provided; thanks. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply