Talk:Facial skeleton

Dermal bones included here
While the definition ofdoabavawpyv the splanchnocranium is correct, many of the bones listed are part of the dermatocranium, not the splanchnocranium. MayerG (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem appears to be the fact that 'facial skeleton' and 'splanchnocranium' are treated as a single topic/page. I think these should be separate pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmungall (talk • contribs) 04:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Split proposal
I propose that some of the content of this article be split into a separate article with the title Splanchnocranium. The facial skeleton page would list the human facial bones (Ossa Faciei) regardless of evolutionary or embryonic derivation, based on a standard human anatomy source such as Gray's (e.g. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/subjects/subject/37#p156). The list of bones on Facial_skeleton would be the same.

The splanchnocranium page would have the classic evolutionary definition : the part of the endoskeleton derived from pharyngeal arches.

There overlap between the splanchnocranium and facial skeleton is quite small - as MayerG noted, many of the facial bones are part of the dermatocranium (which is exoskeletal, rather than endoskeletal). The splanchnocranium should also include all bones and cartilage elements derived from the pharyngeal arches.

Whilst the splanchnocranium page would be less human-centric, it still meets Wikipedia notability requirements, as it is a standard concept in comparative anatomy.

It's not clear whether viscerocranium should redirect to facial skeleton on splanchnocranium, or to a separate disambiguation page. Cmungall (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you explain in very simple terms what the difference is between a facial skeleton, a Splanchnocranium and a viscerocranium? I ask because if the opening line of the article is correct and they are all synonyms then I would be opposed to a split. OTOH, I doubt that you would have asked if it were that simple. Op47 (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am removing the split tag. It is not clear what what would be split off from this article, and in any case, the lede implies that the terms are equivalent. Before thinking about a split, we need a clear definition of the terms if they are indeed different. Op47 (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Splanchnocranium is typically defined in terms of developmental origin, whereas facial skeleton typically means literally the bones of the face.
 * Splanchnocranium: the part of the endoskeleton derived from the pharyngeal arches (see Kardong, above). Note that the endoskeleton is cartilage and the bones that replace the cartilage. Under this definition, the splanchnocranium includes the hyoid bone, laryngeal cartilages (note: not in the face), Meckel's cartilage, malleus, incus, stapes (also not in the face). It would exclude the dentary (mandible) and the maxilla as these are dermal bones and therefore *not* endoskeleton. The same for the lacrimal bone and all the other dermal bones currently listed at the start of the article. Contrast with: facial skeleton / ossa faceie - the bones of the face, regardless of developmental origin. This includes the mandible, maxilla etc.
 * In fact there is very little overlap between these two sets of bones. The bones of the splanchnocranium need not be in the face. The actual bones that are in the face are largely dermal, and therefore do not fit the classic definition of splanchoncranium. Cmungall (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect merging of splanchnocranium and facial skeleton
Previous comments regarding this article's inaccurate merging of terms are correct. The splanchnocranium is specifically derived from pharyngeal arches; it's an evo-devo concept. "Facial skeleton" is simply an anatomical concept. Most of the facial skeleton is not derived from the pharyngeal arches and does not form part of the splanchnocranium... The terms are not equivalent and clearly should not be merged. And "viscerocranium" should redirect to "splanchnocranium", not to facial skeleton. (See Kent & Carr, etc.)

The article says that the hyoid bone is "sometimes included" in the splanchnocranium, but in fact it is one of the few bones that is unequivocally part of the splanchnocranium (but not part of the "facial skeleton" because it's not part of the face...) This terrible article needs a complete rewrite.

Regarding humans, the splanchnocranium specifically should include: malleus, incus, alisphenoid, stapes, styloid process, hyoid, and thyroid cartilage. It does *not* include the entirety of the front of the face and jaw as this article suggests. Those facial bones are part of the dermatocranium, not the splanchnocranium. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

bon 154.198.71.150 (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)