Rules of nomenclature versus principles of revision: An impudent debate

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The rules of the anatomical nomenclature are sometimes in conflict with the principles of revision of the nomenclature. This is possibly most obvious is the debate about the use of the Latin words pudendus (“shameful”) and sacer (“holy”) in the anatomical nomenclature. The principles of revision stress preservation of traditional terms even if there are etymological concerns. On the other hand, the nomenclature rules state that anatomical names should, preferably, have informative or descriptive value and that the official Latin terms are the basis for translations of the international standard terminology into modern, vernacular languages. This issue of Clinical Anatomy contains responses to the removal of the noun pudendum and the replacement of the adjective pudendus with pudendalis in the second edition of Terminologia Anatomica.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)312-314
Number of pages3
JournalClinical Anatomy
Volume34
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2021

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

  • Anatomy
  • Histology

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Journal Article

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Rules of nomenclature versus principles of revision: An impudent debate'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this