Talk:Human pharynx

Function

this doesnt tell you what the pharynx's function is.

What is the pharynx function??? --Gigilili 19:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC) you guys are dorks[reply]

Links

Not good style to put a general google search link in the main text. If you have a specific site or reference of interest then make an appropriate section and put it in there.Jellytussle 00:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I soo agree ,that was what I needed!! --Gigilili 19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy

"The human pharynx is bent at a sharper angle than other mammal pharynges, enabling us to produce a wider variety of sounds, but also increasing problems with choking." References please. Are these comments sustainable? Has there been a comparative study of choking in humans compared to other mammals or is this theoretical? The human pharynx does not appear to be bent at any sharp angles in any textbook or scan I have seen.Jellytussle 04:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This says where it is, but does not tell what it does, at all

Not sure how the link to SUNY Downstate Medical Center in "External Links" adds information to the article? If that institution does special research with the Pharynx then the Wikipedia entry for it doesn't say so, and the link should indicate why it's of special relevance (IMO) Xurizaemon 06:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the link, it takes you to a dissection of the pharynx. --Arcadian 13:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Happened to this Article??

Can we please restore it to the March 4th or March 9th version, which had an introduction stating first of all what the pharynx is, and a diagram of the pharynx? Seriously, the current version is complete dogshit--a serious downgrade. I don't know how anyone could possibly think removing the diagram and the intro paragraph would be an improvement.65.102.39.177 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have rv'd to the 4th March version. If anyone wishes to write a paragraph on the function of the pharynx in phonation that would be great. However, the rv'd para on pharyngeal consonants is unbalanced; all speech to a greater or lesser extent is produced using the pharynx, and this aspect needs to be addressed properly.Jellytussle 13:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, agreed. What is with the unnecessary images (For example, "A collection of front view photographs of the head end of some humans shows that each head appears to be well connected to a thorax.") and mass disorganization? I can hardly navigate the page.--138.73.72.113 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Someone seems to have pasted a huge amount of phylogenetic stuff without any consideration for context. The prose style is irrelevant. some of the phots are ridiculous. some of the additions may be relevant here, but more so on a page on comparative anatomy, but not here. Sharpening my pruning shears.Jellytussle (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human v other

This article focuses on the human pharynx when many other species have pharynxs as well. It should be diversified. -Ravedave 04:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree, since I ended up here looking for information on the vaguely analogous structure, by the same name, in gastropods. If nobody feels up to that substantial effort, we might want to rename this article "Human Pharynx". Tim Ross·^talk 00:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a very interesting idea. I wrote much of the detail of this page from a human point of view. The anatomy is based on classical human anatomy and on contemporary pathological staging, but will apply to a variable extent to other vertebrates, especially mammals. Implicitly this page refers to humans, and this has some justification since the pharynx is an important organ from the medical perspective.

However, comparative physiology and anatomy is useful and interesting. The gastropod (and other invertebrate) pharynx, whilst having the same anatomical name, is not used for phonation or respiration and is therefore not strictly a comparable structure. Can I suggest, if there is enough interest or expertise, someone starts a separate but linked page on the comparative physiology of swallowing? If there is someone with specialist knowledge of vertebrate deglution and phonation then I think it would be quite appropriate to extend the context of the current page. thanks Jellytussle 22:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In line with most of the other vertebrate anatomy articles, this page should just be named pharynx, and give at least a passing nod to the existence of homologous structures in the intro. -Craig Pemberton 06:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pharyngeal Gaps

I have removed the following from the pharyngeal anatomy section. It is an appropriate subject and it looks anatomically accurate. However, as it stands it is not formatted, it appears to be cut and pasted directly from another document, and there is no prose to explain or integrate this passage with the rest of the page. In other words it is pretty much incomprehensible to anyone without a specialist interest in the subject, who probably knows the pharyngeal anatomy in any case. Any discussion of pharyngeal gaps really needs to include a proper discussion of the pharyngeal constrictor muscles. Jellytussle (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally there are four Pharyngeal gaps:

Between the base of the cranium and the Superior Constrictor is the first gap. The structures passing through this gap include the Tensor Veli Palatini, Pharyngotympanic tube(Eustachian tube or auditory tube), Levator Veli Palatini, and the Ascending Palatine Artery
Between the Superior and Middle Constrictors is the second gap. The structures passing through this gap include Stylopharyngeus, the Glossopharyngeal nerve (CN IX), and the Stylohyoid ligament.
Between the Middle and Inferior Constrictors is the third gap. The structures passing through this gap include Superior laryngeal vessels and the internal branch of the Superior Laryngeal Nerve.
Below the Inferior Constrictor is the fourth gap. The structures passing through this gap include Inferior laryngeal vessels and the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve (a branch off of the Vagus Nerve, CN X).

I agree with Jellytussle that this is quite meaningless and badly lacking in context. With Google I've not been able to confirm that it is a copyvio, but it needs updating per the manual of style including wikilinks and lowercase names. JFW | T@lk 06:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Rv to JDW edit 5.08.08

I have rv'd a long way back to an altogether simpler but more relevant article. There is still a lot wrong with it but it is shorter and better. Recently a vast amount of out of context zoology has been added by one individual, which would be of no interest and would make no sense at all to the majority. Single paras on the comparative anatomy, physiology, embryology and pharynx are relevant, and could link to more suitable pages. A para summarising common pathologies of the human pharynx would also be relevant. Keep it concise and candid please.Jellytussle (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pharynx

it a long tube that extends to the mouth to the esaphogus.

The oropharynx location is incorrect in the image

I'm pretty sure that the oropharynx is wrong in the image, or in the very least imprecise. Reading an anatomy book here and it says: "The plataoglossal arches marke the boundary between the oropharynx and the oral cavity". The arrow is dangerously close to pointing at the oral cavity, and is more properly pointing to the palitine tonsil. Netter also confirms this statement. See here:

http://www.netterimages.com/image/4876.htm

--129.49.7.137 (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with page layout

This page does not display properly on my iPhone is regular mode. The fourth gallery picture overlaps the bottom of the infobox. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pharynges of Other Animals

So there's no article for pharynges in general? It seems odd to have "pharynx" just redirect to "human pharynx", especially when some articles (like sea cucumber) link to "pharynx", and presumably don't mean human. (I'm pretty sure sea cucumbers don't have human pharynges.) I'd Be Bold and start the general "pharynx" article myself, except that (a) I'm no expert in comparative anatomy, and (b) if it's gone this long without having been created, I guess maybe there's a reason for it? ----Smeazel (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human pharynx → Pharynx – per WP:PRECISION. Pharynx already directs here and, as noted above, articles such as sea cucumber link to pharynx and it is unlikely they are referring to a human pharynx. This is in line with other articles such as femur, rib, and stomach where humans and beasts are covered in the same article.relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC) — AjaxSmack 19:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as things stand with the content of the article. It is exclusively about the human pharynx, right? So the title should reflect that with precision. If there are no articles that cover pharynges generally or of other species in particular, such articles might be started. Or this article might be broadened. Compare several anatomical articles that mention other species while concentrating on human anatomy, like Pharyngeal arch.

The present hiatus in coverage is not an issue that affects the present choice of title for this article.

Noetica^Tea? 21:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it does if pharynx redirects here and other articles dealing with non-human pharynxes link to that. I normally agree that the title should reflect the current content of the article but the issue of non-human related links arriving here by redirect plus as similar practice with other anatomy articles have led my to temporarily abandon my orthodoxy. The intro to the article is not man-specific and a broader title will encourage relevant expansion more than a redirect will (I can't believe I said that). — AjaxSmack 21:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it is about the human pharynx, as the lead makes clear from very first sentence. And indeed, some of the details may simply be false for vertebrate anatomy generally. Certainly they are highly misleading and manifestly false for invertebrate anatomy, such as the sea cucumber that you so ecumenically link, above. It is a flaw at Sea cucumber that it links to the present article; the present article is entitled to continue addressing the human pharynx alone (or at least centrally), as it plainly does. If other articles are lacking, let them be written!

Noetica^Tea? 23:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this is a human article, without sufficient content on non-human ones, moving it would make the article unbalanced prefering humans and thus showing systematic bias. Instead, create a stub at pharynx. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pharynx redirects here, so the topic of this article is the primary topic for this term. The shorter title is more concise. As to precision, I also agree that the article scope should expand to cover pharynges of all invertebrates, not just human ones. In this chicken-egg situation (do we change the title or expand the scope first?) it's more reasonable to cover only human pharynges in an article titled "Pharynx" during the scope-expansion transition period than to cover non-human pharynges in an article titled "Human pharynx". --Born2cycle (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would any such resultant article not still have an undue focus on the human body? Any expansion would still be heavily focused on humans, likely always so, which would indicate a separate new article would be better. 70.24.245.198 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nasopharyngeal - The music group

Can anyone make a proper edit of the page that also lists Nasopharyngeal as the music band? They only released one album (Endless) and a collection of Demo tracks. It's not easy to get any information about them but if anyone is savvy enough to scour the internet, any information is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha23 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]