Talk:Neuron doctrine

Assessment
Although this article is well-written and well-sourced, I am assessing it as C-class because it gives a completely inadequate picture of the controversy between Golgi and Cajal. Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Updates
bad link deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.130.52 (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have started to rework this article. The description of the neuron theory is inadequate as the theory is made up of 8-10 postulates, none of which are described. Also credit is unduly assigned to Ramon y Cajal for the development of the theory. The evidence that prompted acceptance of the neuron doctrine is also incorrectly described, for instance one major controversy involving silver staining was whether the silver aggregates accumulated on the inside or the outside of the cell membrane. If they accumulated on the inside of the cell, then processes finer than the the aggregates could not be visualized using the technique, and cell could still be part of a reticulum. If the the aggregates were on the outside of the cell, then spines could be an artifact of the staining process and not evidence of a site of contact between cells. Rambrown (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have done a rough cut of the various elements and will add citations later. I have also removed the history since was either redundant or inaccurate. Rambrown (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am altering the "updating the neuron doctrine section". Three of the updates are irrelevent to the neuron doctrine. They are theoretical disputes that occured after neural tissue was incorporated into cell theory, and do not have any direct bearing on the elements of the neuron doctrine. I am therefore deleting neurogenesis, glial processing, and active dendrites. Rambrown (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Added some historical context relative to cell theory and technical limitations that prevented the inclusion of nervous tissue in cell theory.Rambrown (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Although you've certainly added some useful material, it seems like you've also removed quite a bit of important stuff, such as the concept of neural processes as forming a reticulum.  I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is still a work in progress. The notion of the reticulum vs discrete contact is frequently mistaken for being the critical element of neuron theory.  As I am beginning to stress, it is only one element in a larger picture.  Cell theory demanded that all of the visible structures have a cellular origin.  In the brain this meant that so long as the neuroplexus and fiber pathways had a cellular origin, cell theory was satisfied.  It did not really matter if they remained separated from neighboring processes, or if they fused into a reticulum.  Consider the circulatory system as a model, or the heart as I mention in the article.  The theory of cell contact is a smaller theory that describes the particulars of how a neuron is built, but the reticular outcome was just as compatible with cell theory.  Rambrown (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I will watch the development of the article with interest. I hope that the reticular material will come back soon, though, as many people have thought of it as the crux of the problem.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong order
Waldeyer published his theories on neuron theory in print as early as 1881 (where he also originally coined the term neuron), while Cajal's contribution was that he began empirically proving Waldeyer's theories from 1887 onwards. So it was really Waldeyer who was first, and Cajal only demonstrated that Waldeyer was right. --79.242.219.119 (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That sounds interesting! Do you have a link to this information? VENI VIDI VICIPEDIA talk 13:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)