A reappraisal and revision of the numbering of the pharyngeal arches.


Journal

Journal of anatomy
ISSN: 1469-7580
Titre abrégé: J Anat
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0137162

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 2019
Historique:
accepted: 01 07 2019
pubmed: 14 8 2019
medline: 15 7 2020
entrez: 13 8 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The pharyngeal arches are a prominent and significant feature of vertebrate embryos. These are visible as a series of bulges on the lateral surface of the embryonic head. In humans, and other amniotes, there are five pharyngeal arches numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6; note the missing '5'. This is the standard scheme for the numbering of these structures, and it is a feature of modern anatomy textbooks. In this article, we discuss the rationale behind this odd numbering, and consider its origins. One reason given is that there is a transient 5th arch that is never fully realized, while another is that this numbering reflects considerations from comparative anatomy. We show here, however, that neither of these reasons has substance. There is no evidence from embryology for a '5th' arch, and the comparative argument does not hold as it does not apply across the vertebrates. We conclude that there is no justification for this strange numbering. We suggest that the pharyngeal arches should simply be numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as this would be in keeping with the embryology and with the general numbering of the pharyngeal arches across the vertebrates.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31402457
doi: 10.1111/joa.13067
pmc: PMC6875933
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1019-1023

Subventions

Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

© 2019 Anatomical Society.

Références

Am J Anat. 1983 Nov;168(3):257-76
pubmed: 6650439
Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2010 May;21(3):325-32
pubmed: 20144910
Zoological Lett. 2019 Feb 11;5:6
pubmed: 30788138
Dev Biol. 2000 Sep 15;225(2):339-56
pubmed: 10985854
Am J Anat. 1983 Apr;166(4):445-68
pubmed: 6858941
Curr Biol. 1999 Dec 16-30;9(24):1481-4
pubmed: 10607595
Dev Biol. 2007 Aug 15;308(2):606-20
pubmed: 17560975
Dev Biol. 2007 Oct 15;310(2):317-28
pubmed: 17826760
Zoological Lett. 2015 Jan 29;1:6
pubmed: 26605051
Clin Anat. 2013 Mar;26(2):173-82
pubmed: 22623372
Laryngoscope. 2018 Aug;128(8):1829-1834
pubmed: 29219191
Dev Biol. 1983 Mar;96(1):144-65
pubmed: 6825950
Development. 1990 Apr;108(4):543-58
pubmed: 2387234
Development. 2013 May;140(9):2015-26
pubmed: 23571219
Zoological Lett. 2016 Mar 21;2:6
pubmed: 27006783
Development. 2011 Jan;138(2):339-48
pubmed: 21177346
Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Jan 22;279(1727):224-9
pubmed: 21632625

Auteurs

Anthony Graham (A)

Department for Developmental Neurobiology, King's College London, London, UK.

Subathra Poopalasundaram (S)

Department for Developmental Neurobiology, King's College London, London, UK.

Victoria Shone (V)

Department for Developmental Neurobiology, King's College London, London, UK.

Clemens Kiecker (C)

Department for Developmental Neurobiology, King's College London, London, UK.

Articles similaires

Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice
Animals Tail Swine Behavior, Animal Animal Husbandry

Classifications MeSH