Talk:Embryology

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amacmanus.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This

This page should probably merged with developmental biology, which is the more modern term for the field, which encompasses embryology. Developmental biology also gets more Google hits than embryology (722,000 vs 379,000), and is the more common title of textbooks in the field. I will do the merging if nobody objects. --Lexor|Talk 09:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have no argument against merger - I put in th expansion tag. hatever happens, this article is just a stub yt relates to an important field of science and needs a lot fo work. Aren´t ny of the millions of wikipedians ou there embryologists? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that Embryology would refer to Human prenatal development, and Dev. Biology to other species too. However there may be a difference in usage on the 2 sides of the Atlantic. A search of Amazon.co.uk shows that the British teztbooks seem to have retained the word Embryology in their titles:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=sr_sp_go_as/026-2184753-4140418

Sarah the poet

Embryology vs Developmental Biology

1

The Embryology and the Developmental Biology articles should not be merged. The idea that embryology is the same as developmetal biology does not make sense neither in American English nor in British English. Embryology is the study of the biological development of embryos, but developmental biology does not only study the biological development of embryos. It also studies the development of organisms after the embryonic stage until they become adults, according to definitions from various sources, e.g. Merriam-Webster, Random House or Houghton Mifflin dictionaries. This is also true for American English. Those dictionaries are in American English, not British English.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0405948.html - developmental biology - Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease

developmental biology - "the branch of biology dealing with the processes of growth and change that transform an organism from a fertilized egg or asexual reproductive unit, as a spore or gemmule, to an adult."

Note that it explicitly says "to an adult".

embryology "—n., —pl. -gies. 1. the science dealing with the formation, development, structure, and functional activities of embryos. 2. the origin, growth, and development of an embryo: the embryology of the chick."

Here you have to look at sense 1, which starts with "the science", not sense 2. That's the sense of "embryology" which the Embryology article on Wikipedia talks about.

Another example: http://www.answers.com/developmental+biology&r=67 - The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved. [on Answers.com, found with the Google definition link]

developmental biology - "The study of the processes by which an organism develops from a zygote to its full structure. This field includes the study of cellular differentiation as well as body structure development. (See also embryology.)"

embryology - "The study of the embryo; a major field of research in modern biology."

Note that under "developmental biology" it says "an organism develops from a zygote to its full structure". "Its full structure" means the organism's "full structure", not the zygote's. "Full structure" is the structure of an adult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005-02-26T18:45Z (talk • contribs) 21:44, 23 February 2005 (UTC)

2

Google Fight : Make this fight with googleFight \"developmental biology\" VS embryology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005-02-26T18:45Z (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 March 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Neuroembryology

I don't believe Neuroembryology has enough information at this point to stand on its own. Amalas =^_^= 19:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and although I'm a believer of merging legless articles, in this case I would prefer to see the neuroembryology article fleshed out. It sounds like it could one day be distinct from embryology, but for now it's really just a placeholder. -- Serephine / talk - 23:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I also think they merit leaving separately. If - as I think is now the case - this page is to be an overview of essentially all mammalian embryology, I'd favour making this an overview with links along the lines of "Main article [[Neuroembryology]] and so on. Nmg20 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why only mammalian?! Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Embryology and Developmental Biology should be distinct

They need to be separate!!! Embryology is very useful for anatomist, and also should include invertebrate and vertebrate. Developmental biology is more molecular in approach with gene and gene networks, cell signalling, etc. However both should be linked by cross referencing where applicable. I generally make the distinction that embryology is anatomical in nature, whereas developmental biology incorporates molecular biology and mechanisms to explain structure, and it is more or less the life cycle as it goes to adult and senescence. This is a huge task and needs method to the madness. Perhaps we should draw up a plan, then work on bits of the plan as separate articles. Afterwards the embryology would be definitions and outlines with crossreferences of more detail per subject. I am working on some other stuff right now, but I can make an attempt at an outline and tackle a few subjects. I would also like to use the developmental biology and embryology as cross references for evodevo in evolution theory. GetAgrippa 18:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Neuroembryology (the link is empty) is a good start for a subheading in the bigger picture-embryology. Some has been done in cardiovascular development, and I would assume in the immune system. In any case this could be a great article for a big picture embryology with subcategorizes of basic embryogenesis, cardiovascular, neuro, immuno, gastrointestinal, senses, locomotion-skeletal muscle and bone, etc. All could be linked to gross anatomical features say heart or brain, histological features neuron or muscle, etc. I needs to be simple and straight forward, but with miniarticles of some detail cross referenced. So the idea is to go from big picture to some reliable detail.Interlinking the subjects to function as in physiology or metabolism would be very useful as well. So go from development of nervous sytem-anatomy-histology-function of neuron-function of brain-diseases could be linked-etc in an integrative fashion. Structure and function should be a theme, so we could incorporat biomechanics, electophysiology, electrocardiography, etc. That way an inquisitive soul could seek and find the depth of knowledge needed for a task or inquiry witout being overwhelmed at every level. Like I say this will be a huge project, but something that could be very, very useful for students at any level from high school,college,grad school,medical college, clinicians.It would take assistance from all these levels to make it user friendly per level. Maybe I am too grandiose in my idea, but I think it would be great for Wikipedia and incredible useful for society. GetAgrippa 18:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

New plan. Make it an index of embryology with references to invertebrate and vertebrates embryology. Use different model organisms:yeast, drosophila, zebra fish, avian, mammalian, starfish, sea urchins, etc. Many articles exists and can be cross reference to substubs to stubs. Let it evolve complexity with time, but at least get it started from an index of subjects and topics. Can slowly bring in complexity. Much more reasonable, but eventually may achieve the same end. GetAgrippa 23:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no inherent reason for doing it one way or another, your embryology is my descriptive developmental biology, or to be more exact it is "developmental biology as traditionally taught to medical students" . ;) But as said on a related page talk I will not get in your way, for what is needed here is content, on all the aspects. Although what I know (a little) is molecular, I think the classic description based on human is what is first needed, but this requires some skill with using graphics, which I absolutely do not have. DGG 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

DGG just offering suggestions, since it is not going anywhere. My wife and I both attained our degrees from a Medical School (she M.D. and I Ph.D.). Embryology at that time was mainly anatomical (descriptive) because it linked so well with human anatomy and histology. My interest now are molecular as well. That is why I believe there should be a classic embryology and then developmental biology with life cycle and molecular emphasis. The descriptive needs a place, and putting descriptive and molecular all together is too much. I generally think in terms of vertebrates and that is why I am adamant there needs to be invertebrate section as well. I've just about given up writing articles (for the moment), so I prefer Talk suggestions.

GetAgrippa 13:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at your talk page, I understand, but such problems can be worked around. It may help to simply do a number of relatively non-controversial chunks. I will gladly join others in helping you fend off the nuisances. Email me from my page for franker discussion, and a different approach. DGG 05:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Merging Embryology With Embryo

There is discussion over at the embryo discussion page with regard to merging this article into that one. I support doing so. Merriam Webster’s Medical Dictionary defines "embryology" as follows:

“ em·bry·ol·o·gy. 1 : a branch of biology dealing with embryos and their development. 2 : the features and phenomena exhibited in the formation and development of an embryo. ”

"Embryology" should be merged into "embryo." Wikipedia has a page titled "developmental biology" that says, "Embryology is a subfield, the study of organisms between the one-cell stage (generally, the zygote) and the end of the embryonic stage, which is not necessarily the beginning of free living organism." This again indicates that embryology should be merged into embryo.Ferrylodge 20:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that Embryology should be merged with embryo. This article is about the scientific discipline of embryology, and the article about embryo is about the physical entities that embryology studies. The article about embryo, for example, ought not to contain information about previous conceptions of the embryo such as preformationism and Aristotelian epigenesis, but should rather contain the most current information about embryos themselves. In essence, I'm saying that embryology, the study of embryos, should no more be merged with embryo than an article on musicology should be merged with an article on music. Ceramufary (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Or Iron with Metallurgy, or Atom with Atomic physics, or Cell with Cellular biology, etc, etc. Anarchangel (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also the embryo is just one stage in embryology, there's also zygote, blastula, gastrula etc... 129.67.53.229 (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Photos

It would be nice to have a picture of the early stages of development in vertebrate embryos (similiar to the photo on this site). Anybody who have a picture that is not copyrighted? Best wishes, Johan Karlsson 18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Stub?

Considering the enormity of this field, I would suggest that this article is a stub. I rekon it needs help from an embryologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.165.238 (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Haeckel drawings

Ernst Haeckel embryo drawings

I have removed this Haeckel image from the article as it is not backed up by a clear explanation of what it is. It is apparently discredited by modern biology, but I only found this out later, having already studied it and believed it to be a true representation.

If it is restored (which is probably of dubious merit for this particular article) it should be made clear that it is not accurate as we currently understand things. Cheers — SteveRwanda (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with the embryo drawings? When I compare with the photographic images on http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/clips/ , it looks pretty similar for those embryos shown. 213.66.250.245 (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy Check

I recently added an anatomy infobox to the epiglottis page and need a little help from someone with expertise in the field. Will someone confirm that the embryologic origin of the epiglottis is the hypobranchial eminence? I am finding literature that is either non-specific or conflicting regarding the origin(s) of the epiglottis. Adamlankford (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

article short

The article is too short considering its importance and as it is a main topic and not an obscure one. It needs to be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravjuvekar (talk • contribs) 16:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Where are the plants?

Plants have sex, fertilization, and embryological development, too. This article concentrates solely on animals and bilaterally symmetrical ones at that, with assumptions that everything has lungs and a skeleton. Can we please cover the rest of the plant and animal groups that were left out? --Monado (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Is metamorphosis embryology?

The invertebrates vs. vertebrates section suggests that metamorphosis is an extended embryology. I don't think so. Embryology takes you from the egg to a functioning juvenile organism. This section should be removed or replaced with a reference to metamorphosis. --Monado (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Embryology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Thoughtsandlogic (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Embryology. 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/20120225084041/http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/views/biolines/ to http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/views/biolines

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) 05:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

clear bias

A clear bias against the Islamic religion, in Judaism and Christianity, the embryology of taccording to their holy books is described as for Islamlike other articles on Wikipedia they focus on how Muhammad stole the embryo science from a Greek monk who never speak arabic who lived 100 years ago. Continue your absurdity rasict 41.92.57.154 (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Sushuruta

i removed the claim which mentioned that sushuruta had described the embryonic stage as in the reference it is cleary given that the Buddhist text of Garbhāvakrāntisūtra which dates about 1st to 4th century CE had given the mention of embryonic stage not sushuruta David dclork li (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Completely wrong information

most of the article in this page on history of embryology section was contributed by an anonymous user without giving any reliable references of the page.Please check at rectify it David dclork li (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

103.81.215.177

This anonymous user named 103.81.215.177 is clearly removing the edit of mine in wikipedia page now i had reverted it back i will explain why I edited the article of the Indian section on embryology. In the Indian section it's clearly describes the concept of embryology by sushuruta but the reference provide doesn't mention anything about embryology in sushuruta samahita. Reference- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7875486/ David dclork li (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)