Talk:Parenchyma

untitled
'''I would like to point out that when talking about tissues in an animal's body, it is correct to point to parenchyme rather than parenchyma. (Brusca, R. C., Brusca, G. J. 2003. Invertebrates.) Also, the given textbook including some older ones from Oxford univ. press do not use the term parenchyme in such context as in the article (regarding zoology). Rather, parenchyme is used as a specific sub-unit of mesenchyme. I would suggest being critical towards the context of the term "parenchyma" used in this article and if possible, expert verification would be highly appreciated..'''--Osmoregulator (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Although Parenchyma refers to the "functional" portions of an organ, it is mislabeled that in the Lungs the Parenchyma are soley the alveoli. Parenchyma in the lungs refers to the Segments distal to the terminal bronchiole, which would be the respiratory bronchiole+alveolar duct+alveolus(1 Lung Acinus) Therefore I feel that it should be revised to incorporate those.

Plant parenchyma and the 'ground tissue' page
There is a section on the page ground tissue called 'parenchyma' which contains more information than the one here. Is there some way of reconciling these two? For now I will add the text from the ground tissue page to this page, but leave the current text intact.Famedog (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have made some changes, which you might like to have a look at, concerning in particular the question of regarding epidermis as parenchyma. I suggest that that idea is obsolete at best, mistaken in its day, and does WP no credit. I included refs. Reactions, anyone? JonRichfield (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Concept of zoological parenchyma
Look folks, I try not to be too bold for everyone's good, but the zoological text on parenchyma has my teeth curling. I do not regard the current discussion as valid. Will anyone who thinks that the text as it stands has any historical, etymological or technical merit please tell me why, including some heavyweight references, before I find time to remove and replace it essentially entirely? I am open to persuasion, if only because it would save me trouble, but as it stands, I think it makes no sense. JonRichfield (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see that errr... John Paul?? has some reactions similar to mine. Please comment, but pls do so here at the end of the page, not up top. JonRichfield (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

---

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED Third Edition, June 2005) overall agrees with the current article's content, however I personally do not trust OED in such scientific cases. Many do. My point was that there's a contradiction between some specialized zoology textbooks and more general(?) sources. By adding the caution signs on top of the article, my goal was to make people ask further questions before an undergraduate cites wiki's parenchyme definition without any suspicion to his zoology professor. I myself am not a specialist and therefore will not change the contents of this article. (I am John Paul)--Osmoregulator (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Welcome Osmoregulator. I agree with you in general, but I suggest that we need not defer to the views of those who cite dictionaries as authorities in such a matter. Dictionaries are to be relied on in matters of linguistics, etymology etc. Lexicographers, in matters concerning fine but relevant distinctions in technical concepts, are not clairvoyant and accordingly, in technical disputes they are no more authorities than any other laymen who have taken the trouble to consult a few practitioners or authors in the subject. (Lexicographers might in fact be authorities on the history of the terminology, but that is another matter.) IOW, dictionaries have a place in both philology and scientific matters, but they cannot meaningfully stand as authorities in technical disputes where there are differences of opinion between professionals, or changes of usage during the course of time. It is a cliche among Wikilawyers that dictionaries can not be cited, but that too is nonsense; the important thing is that their authority is very context sensitive.
 * Anyhow, I have been doing a bit of spadework and as soon as I have a while, if no one has done anything definitive in the mean time, I'll produce a description of the word's historical usages etc and the current usages. It is fairly interesting, but I should not be startled if some parties make a fuss. Cheers for now JonRichfield (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Future of the article
I see absolutely no point in simply repeating the bulk of what is at the more appropriate article for plant parenchyma, namely Ground tissue, which is what this article previously did. I have added there the only two points previously made here which were not there, and reduced the section here to a very brief statement and a "main" link.

The zoological material needs to be re-written to explain that this is a historical term, not used today in relation to animals. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Has parenchyma in relation to animals really become "a historical term, not used today"? For example, the use of the term in connection with fish over the last 10 years seems quite extensive in Google scholar. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pulmonary alveolus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)