Talk:Foramen of Panizza

Needs Sources
This article needs sources. It has a lot of specifics that I'm pretty sure are pure speculation. Please build this up with sources, or I'm going to edit it mercilessly. Enuja 18:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Edited, and I really don't have much to say about it. To me, this anatomy  is only interesting in light of shunting in reptile hearts, and I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is silent on that information.  So I'm not personally planning on doing a lot to improve this article (like adding sources, correctly formated), but if anyone wants to, contact me and I'll be able to point you to some sources and might even help you out a bit.  Enuja 00:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Added source from Crocodilia article. StevePrutz (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was talking about this version, which has some speculation I've never read in the scientific literature and which I'm pretty sure is out-right wrong.  Hicks 2002 from NIPS says almost nothing about the foramen of panizza.  If you'd like a good review that covers the foramen, Axelsson M.  2001.  The crocodilian heart; more controlled than we thought?   Experimental Physiology 86:6 785-789 is a very good choice, so I'm going to replace the Hicks NIPS review with the Axelsson Experimental Physiology review.  I don't want to abuse my library's journal subscriptions, but if you can't get the pdf I can email it to you, if you're interested.
 * Wang and Hicks 2002 An integrative model to predict maximum O2 uptake in animals with central vascular shunts. Zoology 105 45-53 pretty soundly defeats the "bypassing the lungs makes more oxygen available to the body" (in the absence of a regulated hypometabolism) argument, but since I removed the argument from this article, I don't think the relevance of the article is particularly clear, so I'm not going to put it on this article.   - Enuja (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Assessment for WikiProject Anatomy
Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Anatomy, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of anatomy. Since your article has fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct templates on this talk page for verification. Upon review of this article, I'd like to make a few points, as shown: I'm glad this article could fall within our scope, and I hope to see it grow large! Many thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Assess articles with class and importance factors
 * Since this is not human anatomy, I don't know if it will get large improvements from us