Talk:Pharyngeal arch/Archive 1

Branchial arch merging
The following discussion occurred at User talk:Mattopaedia and User talk:Dozenist: I've noticed you've done a heap with these pages. I just finished a big edit to add anatomy info and feel the first branchial arch page should be merged into branchial arch. Just thought I'd let you know in case you weren't watching. I'd appreciate your opinion. --Mattopaedia 10:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for the heads up. I see the Branchial arch article as a general article, and I could see why you would nominate to merge the subcategories, such as the First branchial arch, into it. They were previously stubs for the most part. But I initially, and continue to see, that in the future all that information placed into the branchial arch article would make for a sprawling article, and it would be better to have the information broken up. As it stands now, the first branchial arch article is really very small considering the amount of information that could and probably should be in there. But my focus is not in that field--- it only touches upon it. This is why I made the stub in the first place. If the articles are merged together, no harm will be done in the short term, but I think it will save time and effort in the long term because the information is going to need to be split up eventually anyways. Other articles may want to link to an article solely on the second branchial arch or on the sixth branchial arch, and it would be better to have readers see the specific information in that article. Also, concerning the branchial pouches and branchial grooves, I think they DEFINITELY belong on a different article. Though associated, they are entirely unique and separate topics from that of the branchial arch--- enough so that they warrant their own article. I never created separate articles for the pouches and grooves, but I figured someone would come along and create them. - Dozenist talk  15:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * After contributing the extent of my knowledge, the article wasn't much bigger and maybe if an embryology buff gets into it, it will need dividing up. Like you my need for embryological knowledge is quite peripheral.  About the pouches and grooves, "branchial pouch" redirects to this page, "pharyngeal pouch" links to a page about pharyngeal diverticula with a small disambiguation link to here, and "branchial groove" also redirects here.  That's why I put it all on the one page - I'm not too sure about how to undo redirects, and since all roads seemed to lead to Rome, I thought "seems as good a place as any to complete the discussion". --Mattopaedia 08:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

How many arches?
I'm confused: are there six arches or only one? This article claims both. ¿Que? —Phil | Talk 10:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting my mispellings!!!! I must have been blind.  There are 6 arches.  Where does it say there is only one? -Dozenist  talk  11:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think, perhaps, that Phil is reffering to the fact that the opening sentence refers to the arch as a singular organ, then later talks about the arch/es as multiple entities. - Jersyko   talk  16:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There are actually only five arches. The original author must've been confused as the arches are numbered I, II, III, IV and VI. Been corrected
 * There are 6 arches. The fifth one shows up only developmentally and then goes away in humans--- no structures result from it. - Dozenist  talk  02:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

According to my anatomy notes, the epiglottis does NOT come from arches 4/6--but I have no other sources than my class notes. Is there an error?

Not gill remnants?
I understand that Haeckel's work has been discredited, but that does not detract from the fact that the pharyngeal arches in human embryos correspond morphologically with those of the developing gills of fish. I do not think that, because ther recapitulation theory is now longer used, this means that these structures do not reflect evolution.

Evolution isn't a theory that contends we go on an accelerated evolution process in our development. Absence of morphological commonalties does not discredit evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.168.249 (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)