Talk:Embryology

message: This page should probably merged with developmental biology, which is the more modern term for the field, which encompasses embryology.  Developmental biology also gets more Google hits than embryology (722,000 vs 379,000), and is the more common title of textbooks in the field.  I will do the merging if nobody objects.  --Lexor|Talk 09:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This

message: === 1 ===
HI LUIS N.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.168.218 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embryology vs Developmental Biology 

message: HI LUIS N.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.168.218 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 

message: Google Fight : Make this fight with googleFight \"developmental biology\" VS embryology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005-02-26T18:45Z (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 March 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 

message: I don't believe Neuroembryology has enough information at this point to stand on its own.  Amalas =^_^= 19:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and although I'm a believer of merging legless articles, in this case I would prefer to see the neuroembryology article fleshed out. It sounds like it could one day be distinct from embryology, but for now it's really just a placeholder. -- Serephine / talk - 23:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think they merit leaving separately. If - as I think is now the case - this page is to be an overview of essentially all mammalian embryology, I'd favour making this an overview with links along the lines of "Main article Neuroembryology and so on. Nmg20 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why only mammalian?! Adam Cuerden talk 23:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge from [[Neuroembryology]]

message: They need to be separate!!! Embryology is very useful for anatomist, and also should include invertebrate and vertebrate. Developmental biology is more molecular in approach with gene and gene networks, cell signalling, etc. However both should be linked by cross referencing where applicable. 
I generally make the distinction that embryology is anatomical in nature, whereas developmental biology incorporates molecular biology and mechanisms to explain structure, and it is more or less the life cycle as it goes to adult and senescence. This is a huge task and needs method to the madness. Perhaps we should draw up a plan, then work on bits of the plan as separate articles. Afterwards the embryology would be definitions and outlines with crossreferences of more detail per subject. I am working on some other stuff right now, but I can make an attempt at an outline and tackle a few subjects. I would also like to use the developmental biology and embryology as cross references for evodevo in evolution theory. GetAgrippa 18:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no inherent reason for doing it one way or another, your embryology is my descriptive developmental biology, or to be more exact it is "developmental biology as traditionally taught to medical students" . ;) But as said on a related page talk I will not get in your way, for  what is needed here is content,  on all the aspects.  Although what I know (a little) is molecular, I think the classic description based on human is what is first needed, but this requires some skill with using graphics, which I absolutely do not have. DGG 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DGG just offering suggestions, since it is not going anywhere. My wife and I both attained our degrees from a Medical School (she M.D. and I Ph.D.). Embryology at that time was mainly anatomical (descriptive) because it linked so well with human anatomy and histology. My interest now are molecular as well. That is why I believe there should be a classic embryology and then developmental biology with life cycle and molecular emphasis. The descriptive needs a place, and putting descriptive and molecular all together is too much. I generally think in terms of vertebrates and that is why I am adamant there needs to be invertebrate section as well. I've just about given up writing articles (for the moment), so I prefer Talk suggestions.
GetAgrippa 13:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Having looked at your talk page, I understand, but such problems can be worked around.  It may help to simply do a number of relatively non-controversial chunks. I will gladly join others in helping you fend off the nuisances. Email me from my page for franker discussion, and a different approach. DGG 05:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Embryology and Developmental Biology should be distinct

message: There is discussion over at the embryo discussion page with regard to merging this article into that one.  I support doing so.  Merriam Webster’s Medical Dictionary defines "embryology" as follows:
"Embryology" should be merged into "embryo."  Wikipedia has a page titled "developmental biology" that says, "Embryology is a subfield, the study of organisms between the one-cell stage (generally, the zygote) and the end of the embryonic stage, which is not necessarily the beginning of free living organism."  This again indicates that embryology should be merged into embryo.Ferrylodge 20:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging Embryology With Embryo

message: It would be nice to have a picture of the early stages of development in vertebrate embryos (similiar to the photo on this site). Anybody who have a picture that is not copyrighted? 
Best wishes, Johan Karlsson 18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: Considering the enormity of this field, I would suggest that this article is a stub. I rekon it needs help from an embryologist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.165.238 (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub? 

message: I have removed this Haeckel image from the article as it is not backed up by a clear explanation of what it is. It is apparently discredited by modern biology, but I only found this out later, having already studied it and believed it to be a true representation.
If it is restored (which is probably of dubious merit for this particular article) it should be made clear that it is not accurate as we currently understand things. Cheers — SteveRwanda (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with the embryo drawings? When I compare with the photographic images on http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/clips/ , it looks pretty similar for those embryos shown. 213.66.250.245 (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haeckel drawings 

message: I recently added an anatomy infobox to the epiglottis page and need a little help from someone with expertise in the field.  Will someone confirm that the embryologic origin of the epiglottis is the hypobranchial eminence?  I am finding literature that is either non-specific or conflicting regarding the origin(s) of the epiglottis.   Adamlankford (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy Check  

message: The article is too short considering its importance and as it is a main topic and not an obscure one. It needs to be improved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravjuvekar (talk • contribs) 16:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  article short 

message: Plants have sex, fertilization, and embryological development, too. This article concentrates solely on animals and bilaterally symmetrical ones at that, with assumptions that everything has lungs and a skeleton. Can we please cover the rest of the plant and animal groups that were left out? --Monado (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the plants? 

message: The invertebrates vs. vertebrates section suggests that metamorphosis is an extended embryology. I don't think so. Embryology takes you from the egg to a functioning juvenile organism. This section should be removed or replaced with a reference to metamorphosis.  --Monado (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is metamorphosis embryology? 

message: Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Thoughtsandlogic (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{la|Embryology}} 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Embryology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225084041/http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/views/biolines/ to http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/views/biolines
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A clear bias against the Islamic religion, in Judaism and Christianity, the embryology of taccording to their holy  books is described as for  Islamlike other articles on Wikipedia they focus on how Muhammad stole the embryo science from a Greek monk  who never speak arabic who lived 100 years ago. Continue your absurdity rasict 41.92.57.154 (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  clear bias 

message: i removed the claim which mentioned that sushuruta had described the embryonic stage as in the reference it is cleary given that the Buddhist text of Garbhāvakrāntisūtra which dates about 1st to 4th century CE had given the mention of embryonic stage not sushuruta David dclork li (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sushuruta  

message: most of the article in this page on history of embryology section was contributed by an anonymous user without giving any reliable references of the page.Please check at rectify it David dclork li (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely wrong information  

message: This anonymous user named 103.81.215.177 is clearly removing the edit of mine in wikipedia page now i had reverted it back i will explain why I edited the article of the Indian section on embryology.
In the Indian section it's clearly describes the concept of embryology by sushuruta but the reference provide doesn't mention anything about embryology in sushuruta samahita.
Reference-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7875486/ David dclork li (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  103.81.215.177