Talk:Cerebrum/Archive 1

Untitled

There's an accuracy dispute tag that's been here since early March, but absolutely no indication of what the dispute is over or that there's any work being done to resolve it. I'm removing it. Bryan 04:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"...cerebrum to thalamic nuclei and to other regions of the brainstem." This is gramatically incorrect unless the author means to include the Thalamus in the Brainstem. Some would, but the separateness of the Thalamic nuclei and their cortical complements is an illusion of anatomy. Inclusion of the Thalamus in reference to that thing called the brain 'Stem' is an antiquity, at best, ought to be abandoned, and usually is. tombronson@yahoo.com 7:32 6/17/05

Thanks for the cleanup

Hey! Thanks for cleaning up my article, i was going to add references, but i just wanted to make sure that all the relevant information was added. So, thanks for beating me to it!

I'll be trying to get some book references shortly, and there will be more information added for expansion, but until then, thanks to ye who beat me to it! *giggles* (JessicaX 08:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC))

Absolutely jumpstarted the article

Hey guys, i've got 18 books, free time, and my science cap is on. I'm going to do MAJOR edits on this article, the majority of information i'm adding does not come close :D.

Thanks! (Jessica(Succeeded) 20:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC))

Does this really need to be a stub?

It looks reasonably comprehensive to me. Weebs 09:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed, it does not need to be. It's been fixed. semiconscious (talk · home) 21:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)blah

Deleted text

I deleted this from the end of the first sentence of the intro, "..., which some groups would class as unique features that make humans different from other species." Reason: weasel words, "some groups." Which groups? Groups of scientists, clergymen, Hollywood actors? --TheLimbicOne(talk) 13:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

---

More Info.

I was looking for information on what type of tissues/cells its made of. Maybe I missed it, but I don't beleive it was in there. 70.39.64.254 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Superllama08

image consistency

There are at least three different images that are used to show the relationships various lobes of the cerebrum. There's which is used on the Temporal and Occipital lobe pages, , which is used on the Parietal and Frontal lobe pages, and on this page.

Wouldn't it a better if one of these images was selected and used across all five pages? It would make for more visual consistency across them. Yvain 13:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I would support that. Of the three, I like the middle one the best. --Arcadian 14:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Gray's image is nice. I've updated the lobe pages to use it. --David Iberri (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Apoptosis details - do they belong here?

Isn't that information on the morphological effects of apoptosis general to most tissues and cell types? You know - the membrane blebbage, pyknosis, etc. Does it really belong on a telencephalon page? 130.91.11.117 13:30, 9 August 2006

This struck me as odd too, wanted to ask the same question. --CopperKettle 07:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As your comments are over a year old with no other responses, I will remove the cell death section unless anyone objects.PhineasG (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dorsal and ventral telencephalon

Stumbled upon this sentence: "The telencephalon is subdivided into dorsal (pallial) and ventral (subpallial) territories, which give rise to the cerebral cortex and the underlying basal ganglia, respectively. " Should this information be included in the article? --CopperKettle 07:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, in the "avian pallium" article, there is also a mention of dorsal and ventral telencephalon subdivisions:

In the anatomy of animals, an avian pallium is the dorsal telencephalon of a bird's brain. The subpallium is the ventral telencephalon.

--CopperKettle 11:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Division of Brain

Firstly, I think that the title should be changed to cerebrum, because it is more common and more useful to those that are researching this topic. Most college textbooks call this part the cerebrum as it should be title.

Many Psychologists do not consider the Limbic System as part of the Cerebrum. (According to my textbook, anyway. Myers 8th Edition)

I did not take the liberty to change any of this since I'd rather have a discussion and have it changed with the agreement from others.

NK.

EDIT: My AP test once asked me to desribe the difference in the way different parts of the brain aid adaptation. Two of them were the cerebrum and limbic system. A little paradoxical if you consider this wikiarticle, don't you think? 68.4.82.151 07:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cerebrum is an ambivalent term, as opposed to telencephalon. The latter term should therefore be preferred. Classifying the limbic system as part of the cerebrum or not is an anatomist's job, not a psychologist's. ;-) According to the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS), the limbic system is defined thusly:

"For most authors, it includes the AMYGDALA; EPITHALAMUS; GYRUS CINGULI; hippocampal formation (see HIPPOCAMPUS); HYPOTHALAMUS; PARAHIPPOCAMPAL GYRUS; SEPTAL NUCLEI; anterior nuclear group of thalamus, and portions of the basal ganglia. (Parent, Carpenter's Human Neuroanatomy, 9th ed, p744; NeuroNames, http://rprcsgi.rprc.washington.edu/neuronames/index.html (September 2, 1998))"

Of those, at least the epithalamus and the hypothalamus are part of the diencephalon. It is therefore sloppy to say that the telencephalon consists of, among other things, the limbic system. Rather, the limbic system is located partly in the telencephalon. Furthermore, saying that any structure consists of one or more systems is ontologically incorrect, since it confuses objects and functions. -- Ernest

It's an anatomist's job to say what they think they see, but they aren't gods. If psychologists have some reason to consider the function of the limbic system as being so different from the function of the lobular structure above it, then perhaps it really is a good reason to narrow the terminology. Within their field, they no doubt have narrowed the terminology of "Cerebrum" to exclude the limbic system; perhaps this will become the established definition.

In any case, I find it ridiculous that this article is not title cerebrum since that is, in fact, what all secondary students will be told the name is. ManVhv 17:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming to Cerebrum

I agree with Earnest. As a senior biology student, I have never come across the term 'Telencephalon' as a substitute for cerebrum, and I doubt any of my fellow students have either. I suppose it doesn't matter as along as cerebrum redirects, but it is confusing when reading the article. Haylo17 04:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Haylo

Adding to the discussion. While I don't have a source to cite right now (I probably can find one on Tuesday but until then this is OR, sorry), Cerebrum is a term based on adult anatomy, whereas telencephalon refers to structures based on their developmental lineage. That said, the terms refer to the same structure. As for which term is used more frequent, I guess it depends on your field of study. If you are a functional neuroanatomist or neurophysiologist (as I am) it would be hard to imagine ever using the term telencephalon rather than cerebrum. Whereas, I imagine developmental biologists or developmental neuroscientists would feel just as strongly that cerebrum is a crude term for the structure. A quick NLM/PubMed search reveals roughly equal usage of both terms (226323 vs 228060 papers) with considerable overlap (224892). That is to say, of the nearly quarter million peer reviewed scientific journal articles dealing with the topic, only 1431 use just the term telencephalon, 3168 use just the term cerebrum, and 224892 use both. I would vote to use the term telencephalon when talking about development and the term cerebrum when talking about function. --Selket ^Talk 05:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC

Requested move

Cerebrum(brain struture) → Cerebrum — I have requested that this page be moved to Cerebrum. There is no need for the disambiguating (brain structure) in the title of the page. I can't do the move myself because Cerebrum is currently a redirect page, and there also appears to be some controversy about whether the article should be called cerebrum or telencephalon. In addition, when this page was moved from telencephalon it resulted in a double redirect, and two typos (missing space and missing "c"). At the very least it should be Cerebrum (brain structure), not Cerebrum(brain struture). —Dcooper 17:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Olfaction Section is Incorrect

Someone edited the Olfaction section so that rather than referring to the sense of smell it has some nonsense about controlling movement when the rest of the brain is dead, and restoring lost memories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.169.246 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Cerebrum anterior?

The first line of the article says "The telencephalon (pronounced /tɛlɛnˈsɛfəlɒn/), cerebrum, or forebrain is the most anterior region of the brain.". I think this is a bit misleading. The cerebrum is only really the most anterior region in the embryonic brain. When fully developed it is really the most dorsal region of the brain as it sits roughly on top of the mid brain and cerebellum. In any case I think either terminology is slightly clumsy and perhaps confusing for the layman - which is bad in the introduction. Better would be to just say it is the uppermost region of the brain or perhaps skip the location all together and just give a picture. What do you think? Ralphmcd (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The cerebrum is only "on top" of the rest of the brain in humans (and maybe some primates?). In the vast majority of mammals it is actually anterior. I see your point, though; unfortunately many of the brain-related articles here are unclear at best about whether they're referring to human brain or to mammalian brain in general, or.... It's a big job to start going through and clarifying everywhere, but we should always be specific whenever possible.PhineasG (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Opps, never ocurred to me that the article referred to brains in general - I feel a bit stupid. Still, I think since the article and the picture refers mostly to the human brain some clarification is in order. Perhaps keep the first paragraph and then go on to explain it's location in the human brain in the second. I don't have time to think about it today but if no one has any objections I may change this tomorrow. Ralphmcd (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, you changed it while I was writing that post. Nice one. Ignore my last post. Ralphmcd (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Cerebrum/Telencephalon - Developmental connotations?

The page seems to indicate that telencephalon is the immature/embryological precursor to the mature cerebrum. I think this is misleading - I'm not an expert (just a Med student) but I believe the two words have different etymological origins (as discussed by others above) and that telencephalon is preferred under naming conventions as it is more consistent with other regions (diencephalon etc.) Either way, I don't believe either of them have temporal or developmental connotations, but I could be wrong. k0911 15:19, 09 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.73.88.101 (talk)

Re new info on comparative studies

Nice to see all the information added. I'd like to mention that my understanding is that Romer's conceptions are out of date in a few respects. First, I believe that the current consensus is that the teleost cerebrum is "everted", i.e., turned inside out like a sock, so that the structures that line the ventricles in most vertebrates are on the outside in teleosts. Second, I don't think the terms "archipallium" and "paleopallium" are commonly used any more -- the terms "medial pallium", "dorsal pallium", "lateral pallium", and sometimes "ventral pallium" are used instead. Also I don't think it is any longer accepted that the cerebrum is entirely dominated by olfaction in lamprey and hagfish, but I could be wrong about this. Finally there ought to be some mention of the basal ganglia, which are clearly present in all vertebrates including lamprey. I think the added material improves the article; these are basically comments aimed at possible further improvements in the future. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

very inaccurate

Not sure I will have time to help much with this, but among other things: "cerebral cortex" is a mammalian structure. It exists only in mammals. The dorsal pallium or "forebrain" in the other vertebrate species have different structures and different names, and should not be called cerebral cortex. Birds have highly developed forebrains. HVC is but one nucleus in the forebrain, not the whole thing. The bird forebrain, like the cerebral cortex, can achieve high levels of what we call intelligence -- by some measures, crows and ravens and some parrots are as smart as any primate except humans. I'm virtually certain (but epsilon less than 100%) that the olfactory bulb is not part of the telencephelon.

Georg Striedter is an expert and leading researcher in brain evolution, some of his review articles or his book should be illuminating for this article. See also the book Comparative Vertebrate Neuroanatomy: Evolution and Adaptation by Ann B. Butler and William Hodos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdmkdm (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove X. laevis section?

The section "Cell regeneration in Xenopus laevis" seems not to belong here, but rather perhaps in an article elsewhere on nervous system regeneration/plasticity/development. Also, it appears to be a summary of a single scientific paper. I suggest removing it and will do so soon unless anyone objects.PhineasG (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you are absolutely right. Looie496 (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation requested

Please provide citations to verify the inclusion of the basal ganglia and the limbic system as parts of the cerebrum (under the section on “structure.”) Thank you. 68.55.112.31 (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations would be nice, but pretty much any neuroscience textbook will confirm that those areas belong to the telencephalon. Looie496 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there are no debate at all, especially if we are talking about the cerebrum and not the telencephalon (I vaguely remember that some part of striatum is derived from the mesencephalon, but moves rostral in embryo). I have a neuroanatomy textbook that states this. But it is in danish. Is it up to standards to use it as a source (if it is refereced prober with an original titel and a translated titel?) --JakobSteenberg (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned it doesn't really matter how it is sourced. According to strict Wikipedia policy textbooks are not good sources, since they are tertiary sources on the same level as Wikipedia itself, but for material like this there really isn't any choice -- searching out the ancient papers that originated the terminology would be absurd. My view is basically that sourcing doesn't add any value for material that can be verified by consulting any standard textbook. Looie496 (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Evilingarnett

The article states that the Arcuate Fasciculus connects Broca and Weirnecke's area. However clicking on the link Arcuate Fasciculs, the reader finds this information directly contradicted. According to the article on the AF, it was once Italic textthought to have connected these areas but this has been disproved and now connects motor areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilingarnett (talk • contribs) 20:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Bird