TA2Viewer: A web-based browser for Terminologia Anatomica and online anatomical knowledge.

TA2Viewer is an open-access, web-based application and database for browsing anatomical terms and associated medical information on a computer or mobile device (https://ta2viewer.openanatomy.org/).

Revisiting the Latin vocabulary of Terminologia Histologica: I. Nouns.

Almost 20% of the Latin nouns (193/993) in Terminologia Histologica (TH), the international standard nomenclature for human histology and cytology, display linguistic problems, particularly in the areas of orthography, gender, and declension. Some anatomists have opposed efforts to restore the quality of the Latin nomenclature as pedantry, preferring to create or modify Latin words so that they resemble words in English and other modern languages. A Latin microanatomical nomenclature is vulnerable to the criticism of anachronism, so the requirement for the use of authentic Latin, including derivation of new words from Greek and Latin words rather than from modern languages, if possible, may be even greater than it is for the anatomical nomenclature.

What's in a name? Is an anatomical term only a name?

The purpose of a standard terminology is to facilitate communication. Thus, changing the name of an anatomical structure or the meaning of an anatomical term undermines that aspiration and cuts connections with anatomy's long history. Two types of anatomical terms are the most vulnerable to logical arguments for revision-ones that are descriptive, but viewed, at least by some, as inaccurate, and ones that contain words that are polysemic or vague.

General histological woes: Encore. Tissues, please.

In a previous essay, we wrote about the shortcomings of the four basic tissue dogma of histology - miscellaneous tissues lumped under the ill-fitting name "connective tissues" and the existence of human tissues that are not recognized as subtypes of any of the four "basic types". A provisional reclassification of human tissues was constructed to improve the precision and completeness of the tissue taxonomy. Here, we address criticisms from a recent paper that claims that the four basic tissue dogma is more useful than that revised classification in medical education and in clinical practice.

West meets east: Taking a stab at acupuncture point names.

Acupuncture point names written in Chinese Han characters often provide clinically useful information in both their literal and figurative meanings about location and therapeutic use. The World Health Organization (WHO) standard acupuncture nomenclature includes these names in Han characters in an unusual array that includes both "original" forms and, in parentheses, simplified forms. Construction of a multilingual table of acupuncture point names during development of a database revealed that the assumption that the "original" form in the WHO nomenclature was the traditional Chinese character was frequently false.

Substantive changes in the Latin anatomical nomenclature: Sometimes less is more.

Substantivation, the use of an adjective or participle as a noun, is commonly used informally to shorten Latin anatomical terms. Dozens of substantives also appear in the international standard anatomical terminology. Most of these are venerable and familiar as nouns in Latin anatomical terms.

Torcular Herophili: A Review of the History of the Term and Synonyms.

The eponymous term torcular Herophili has been used for the confluence of sinuses. Although no original writings of Herophilus are extant, his accomplishments and descriptions live on in the writings of such authors as Galen. However, in regard to the torcular Herophili, there are some inconsistencies in the secondary sources and their translations regarding what was actually originally described by Herophilus.

Reimagining systematic anatomy: The conclusion of the quartet.

The central dogma of systematic anatomy is the well-known hierarchy of anatomical structures: body-systems-organs-tissues-cells. This schema omits extracellular matrix and extracellular fluids, which account for a significant proportion of body mass, and distorts the meanings of the terms system, organ and tissue in anatomy. These faults are partially due to oversimplification, presumably intended for educational purposes, and confusion of anatomy's organ systems with physiological systems.

General histological woes: Definition and classification of tissues.

The modern view that the human body is composed of tissues and body fluids, and that there are four basic tissue types, may be a more significant departure from Artistotle's homoeomeres, and from Bichat's membranes and tissues, than commonly appreciated. The older concepts described these body parts as structural and functional parts of organs, whereas it is now commonplace to consider a tissue to be a grouping of similar cells with a variable amount of extracellular matrix. The development of the microscope as a useful tool in human anatomy shifted focus from tissues to cells and led to changes in the definition of tissue and the classification of tissues.

Rules of nomenclature versus principles of revision: An impudent debate.

The rules of the anatomical nomenclature are sometimes in conflict with the principles of revision of the nomenclature. This is possibly most obvious is the debate about the use of the Latin words pudendus ("shameful") and sacer ("holy") in the anatomical nomenclature. The principles of revision stress preservation of traditional terms even if there are etymological concerns.

A tale of two systems: The tracts of my tears.

Most of the terms in Terminologia Anatomica are arranged by organ systems (systemata); however, the names for these systems are often used by physiologists and other biomedical scientists for related functional systems. These functional systems may differ in their composition from the anatomist's organ systems. In addition, many functional systems have been described that do not correspond to organ systems.

Regular anatomical terms revisited: The simplest is often the right one.

Regular anatomical (RA) terminology rules were developed to simplify and clarify Latin anatomical terms in a systematic manner. These rules, which prohibit conjunctions, prepositions, and appositions, and define a consistent word order pattern, are extensions of the original 1895 rule of anatomical nomenclature that anatomical terms should be as short and simple as possible. It is not coincidental that most terms in Terminologia Anatomica (TA), and many traditional terms that were not used in TA, are consistent with RA term rules, and that the RA term rules are also consistent with the guidelines for expanding short form terms to full, unique terms.

What's in a synonym? A nose by any other name would smell.

Introduction: Communication in the biomedical sciences and clinical practice would be clearer if everyone used the same set of technical terms. Technical vocabularies, such as international standard terminologies, are attempts to avoid common linguistic problems, such as synonymy (many names for a single entity) and polysemy (many meanings for a single term).

Materials And Methods: Efforts made in human anatomical nomenclature since the late 19th century to deal with these issues were reviewed.

The principles of anatomical nomenclature revision: They're more like guidelines anyway.

Revision of the international standard anatomical terminology is required periodically to add names for new entities, delete archaic terms, and correct errors in existing terms. In addition to a small set of nomenclature rules, three principles have guided revisions: names should not be changed unless they are wrong; corrections of perceived errors should not be pedantic; and inclusion of every minor structure should not be attempted. These principles have served well, and are expected to continue to do so, but they have also proven to be subjective because their application through the history of the international terminology has varied.

How many bones? Every bone in my body.

Textbooks frequently report that there are 206 human bones, or 200 bones and 6 auditory ossicles. The human bone counts in history and within adulthood were reviewed. Tallies of 197 to 307 bones have been reported over the past several centuries.

One lump or two? One butt but two buttocks.

Future revisions of anatomical terminologies will have to give more consideration to the relationships between terms and referents, and the relationships between referents, because computer applications require greater precision. Median anatomical entities and paired entities that closely flank the median plane present common problems in nomenclature, semantics, and ontology. Some of these problems represent vestiges of usage in classical Latin.

What the 'ell? Testicle is a diminutive!

The frequency of diminutives in anatomical Latin has often been noted to be high, but that is not unusual in postclassical Latin. Although the connotation of "little" is well known, many of the diminutives in anatomical Latin do not have that meaning. The morphology of regular, irregular, and secondary diminutives is presented, along with that of adjectival forms of diminutives.

Another new organ! is this a golden age of discovery in anatomy?

Twice in fifteen months the popular press has published reports of the discovery of a new human organ. The claims that the mesentery and interstitium are organs come from medical practitioners, not from anatomical scientists. Although both of these anatomical entities are important in the functioning of the body, neither satisfies the requirements that an organ be composed of two or more tissues and perform a special function.

Loss of philological purity: Hybrid vigor or mongrelism?

Although disparaged by philologists, hybrid words enrich technical and scientific vocabularies. They are common, so, like it or not, they are here to stay. On the other hand, where there are pre-existing purebred compound or affixed words, they should generally be given preference over hybrids.

Transgendered and re-flected borrowed Greek nouns in anatomical Latin.

In this survey, almost 30 borrowed words in anatomical Latin were found to differ from the original Greek noun in gender and/or inflection. A third of these cases were judged to be errors. The rest are long-standing or widely-accepted exceptions to the usual adoption rules for borrowed Greek words.

Write right, quite right: Orthography in Latin Anatomical Terms.

Spelling variants are common in Latin anatomical terms. Some of these variants cause confusion with respect to the meaning of the word by altering the base of the word to resemble a different word base. Thus these variants should be considered errors, comparable to errors in declension of nouns and adjectives, and errors in the formation of neologisms.

One vowel or two? Diphthongs, digraphs, ligatures, and diaereses, oh my!

This is the first in a short series about orthography in anatomical Latin. Although phonology is an important aspect of diphthongs and digraphs, the focus here is on spelling, not the more complicated topic of pronunciation. Recommendations are made for standard spellings of words that contain or may appear to contain diphthongs in Latin anatomical words or their ancient Greek sources.

Ordering by the numbers in anatomy and by letters Too.

Here, new rules of Latin anatomical nomenclature are proposed to deal with cases not covered by existing or other recommended rules. Determiners (e.g.

Adoption of azygos, hemiazygos, and dartos.

Exceptions to the anatomical nomenclature rule that names must be in proper Latin include a few terms that contain borrowed Greek adjectives that are not declined like Latin words. Adoption of these adjectives into Latin would change about a half-dozen terms, e.g.

Organ or not? prolegomenon to organology.

The definition of an organ is vague, so that listing and classifying human organs is problematic. The classical Greek definition of an organ as an instrumental part of the body has been supplemented in modern biology by stating that organs occupy a hierarchical level between systems and tissues. Not all anatomical entities on that level meet the requirement of a special function.