Rules of nomenclature versus principles of revision: An impudent debate

Producción científica: Contribución a una revistaArtículorevisión exhaustiva

6 Citas (Scopus)

Resumen

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.

Idioma originalEnglish
Páginas (desde-hasta)312-314
Número de páginas3
PublicaciónClinical Anatomy
Volumen34
N.º2
DOI
EstadoPublished - mar. 2021

Nota bibliográfica

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

  • Anatomy
  • Histology

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Journal Article

Huella

Profundice en los temas de investigación de 'Rules of nomenclature versus principles of revision: An impudent debate'. En conjunto forman una huella única.

Citar esto