Talk:Operculum (brain)

This figure appears to show that there are four opercula, which is more-or-less confirmed by my anatomy text book (Thieme atlas of human anatomy, Vol 3, page 198). Could someone please clarify whether there is one operculum per side, or four, or one operculum with four divisions? Bobsagat (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

sulcus lateralis

The top illustration has the sulcus lateralis in red, but the text mentions only the central sulcus. Since the next illustration exposes the insula after removal of the operculum, I think it appropriate to discuss more about the lateral sulcus. File:Gray717.png does not discuss the lateral sulcus, perhaps we need a source which in fact links up the operculum, and the deep structures named in Gray717.png. __Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was to merge.Iztwoz (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

---

I propose that Operculum_(brain) be merged into Parietal Operculum. These are different names to the same region in the brain, and they should be merged into one. Each one of the articles include different information about this region, so i think that merging them wisely will be good. Yarden.h (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I support a merge, but I think Operculum should be the parent article. My (limited) understanding is that frontal, temporal, occipital and parietal opercula are all distinct, but this doesn't warrant a separate article for each, given current material Cmungall (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed merge. The parietal operculum is the part of the brain's operculum found in the parietal lobe. That is, the parietal operculum is not the same as the operculum - it is part of the operculum. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Keeping in mind the above, I would support a merge in the opposite direction (ie from Parietal operculum to Operculum (brain)) --LT910001 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Support a merge in the opposite sense of the proposal, as stated by the editors above. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

opercula

this discusses only the fronto-parietal operculum in homosapiens. other primate brains (quite possibly human) have e.g. an occopital operculum (the dorsal edge of rhesus V1/2) and etc it's a general term in neuroanatomy. No I'm not writing it, I don't do wikipedia only things that are reviewed by peers and accepted or rejected. but this is wrong fix or don't. 31.6.46.67 (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting the problem. I hope this has addressed your concerns. Any further criticisms of this or any other Wikipedia neuroanatomy articles would be very welcome. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Tense

"Opinions differ on whether Einstein’s brain possessed parietal opercula. Falk, et al. claim the brain does have parietal opercula[6] while Witelson et al. claim it does not.[7]"

The first sentence is in past tense; the second is in present. Which would be most appropriate when referring to Einstein's brain? It still exists, but not in the state it once did. Spiffulent (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Since Falk & Witelson are of our time, how about referring to their claims in present trense, while saying 'the brain did have', and 'it did not', respectively.

Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)