Talk:Sphenoid bone

Untitled

It looks more like a butterfly than a bat, and my anthropology teacher said it looked like a butterfly. I'm changing it to butterfly.

Reorganization

I think this page needs a major reorganization. Perhaps the topic of sphenoid bone is too big for one article, but I think a lot of the really small features that currently have their own articles can be merged with one of the larger articles. Also, I think we should make it a point to mention every structure catalogued in the Terminologia Anatomica for this bone, maybe using a bold font. Also, the Gray's format of surfaces is sort of tedious. Mauvila 01:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should be in summary format —Pengo 10:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why is the sphenoid bone of importance to vision? Spar252 23:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I replaced the old picture: With this picture:

I find Gray's Anatomy pictures hard to look at and understand. If someone disagrees they can put the old one back. SadanYagci 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Human Evolution

Seems the flexion of the spenoid is highly important to human evolution, at least according to some. e.g. the doco Homo Futurus (which is currently on the tele) goes on about it. Would be good to have some details here. —Pengo 10:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the current discoveries around the relevance of the Sphenoid in human evolution should be addressed. --Rathilien 01:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Three years later, I concur. I just watched this documentary online, which brought me to this page. The sphenoid is apparently a major bone of contention (sorry) between two opposing theories; whether our brains developed in response to the open savannah forcing us upright, or whether we changed from within, since the sphenoid has flexed over millions of years as you go through the species from lemur to human, allowing the brain to develop around it. I'm no expert, so it would be nice to have the arguments made and clarified here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.184.16 (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Wendell Holmes?

Would his famous commentary on this bone's extraordinarily complex structure be an appropriate inclusion in this article? (To a group of anatomy students: "Gentlemen, this is the sphenoid bone. Damn the sphenoid bone.") Cactus Wren (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ossification of sphenoid

I have proposed this merge, between the 'ossification' page and this article, because:

• There is no need for the information on ossification to be hidden away on a separate article. This means the information is not presented as it could be, and it is needlessly fragmented.
• It is standard on Anatomy pages, and recommended in WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, for 'Development' sections to be displayed on the same page.
• Additionally, this page is small and it would give more context to have the information displayed in a central location, rather than hidden on a separate article.
• If necessary, the article on ossification could be expanded at a later date.
• As can be seen, by having two separate articles content is already duplicated and/or displayed on one or either article, rather than displayed in a central place on just one article LT910001 (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Nomenclature

Does the name come from sphekodes (wasp-like) or sphēnoeidḗs (wedge-shaped)? Removerase (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Bad etymology. Unreliable source.

Dictionaries and etymological sources uniformly indicate that the origin is from a word meaning "wedge-like," or similar. But based on one source, Thieme Atlas of Anatomy, the article claims a derivation about wasps and butterflies. This is indicated in the text with the weasel-word "presumably."

The source given is an anatomical reference, which is not a reliable source of etymology. (I would not rely on an etymologist for anatomical information, either). It seems absurd that actual dictionaries are being ignored in favor of such an unreliable source. And justified with a weasel word.

I will leave this comment up for a while, and unless someone posts a compelling reason to ignore the experts in favor of anatomists and weasels, I (or anyone else) will feel free to replace the unreliable weasel-worded with the best information from the appropriate sources. ~2025-33171-51 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)