I believe that an anatomical dictionary has already been published.
Melissa Behr, NYSDOH/Wadsworth Center
8 April 2005
Dear Sir,
I read the 15 February article by Hayamizu et al, and then surfed the informatics.jax.org/searches/AMA_form/shtml web site. I am a veterinary pathologist, thus I use Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria1 as my reference. I therefore am at a loss to understand the authors' anatomical terms, which aren't nearly as precise or descriptive as in Nomina. There are for example many more than 2400 entries in Nomina; animals don't have upper and lower bodies, since they walk on all fours; the vertebral column is divided not just into vertebrae, but into cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacral and caudal groups; vessels, muscles, bones, etc, have much more detailed names than those given in the Dictionary.
I don't believe that the Dictionary will answer the question for which it was conceived, since the "specific anatomical structures" are so poorly defined, and not described at all. Because Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria is already in place, the Dictionary is furthermore not necessary. It might be helpful for researchers to also use Terminologia anatomica2, since it has English translations of the Latin, and is a human anatomy text and CD.
Sincerely,
Melissa Behr, DVM
Diplomate, ACVP
Director, Anatomic Pathology
Wadsworth Center
1 - Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria (1994): 4th ed. Copyright by the World Association of Veterinary Anatomists
I believe that an anatomical dictionary has already been published.
8 April 2005
Dear Sir,
I read the 15 February article by Hayamizu et al, and then surfed the informatics.jax.org/searches/AMA_form/shtml web site. I am a veterinary pathologist, thus I use Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria1 as my reference. I therefore am at a loss to understand the authors' anatomical terms, which aren't nearly as precise or descriptive as in Nomina. There are for example many more than 2400 entries in Nomina; animals don't have upper and lower bodies, since they walk on all fours; the vertebral column is divided not just into vertebrae, but into cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacral and caudal groups; vessels, muscles, bones, etc, have much more detailed names than those given in the Dictionary.
I don't believe that the Dictionary will answer the question for which it was conceived, since the "specific anatomical structures" are so poorly defined, and not described at all. Because Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria is already in place, the Dictionary is furthermore not necessary. It might be helpful for researchers to also use Terminologia anatomica2, since it has English translations of the Latin, and is a human anatomy text and CD.
Sincerely,
Melissa Behr, DVM
Diplomate, ACVP
Director, Anatomic Pathology
Wadsworth Center
1 - Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria (1994): 4th ed. Copyright by the World Association of Veterinary Anatomists
2 - Terminologia Anatomica - International Anatomical Terminology (1998) 320 pp, hardcover
ISBN 0865778086 / 3131143614; $49.95 / EUR 34.95
Competing interests
I am not aware of any competing interests.