Talk:Auricle (anatomy)

Anatomy: Gross Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Left hand does not know what right hand is doing

Erm.. why does the second image (photo) look to me like a left ear and not a right ear as it is described.. Brianweaver1 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Pope—how many divisions has he got

This article should list some of the divisions of the outer ear (helix, antihelix, crest of the helix and lobule). Maybe a better image would be helpful too. The outer (and inner) ear divisions can be seen here: http://www.hearingcenteronline.com/anatomy.shtml. — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 23:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First they ignore you, ...then they fight you, then you win

This article should feature a link to and one-sentence description of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnate . One of the anatomical features of a compound leaf is the pinna (plura: pinnae), and only by a Google search was I able to find the Wikipedia article I was looking for. What would be the most clear way of expressing this? "For information on the pinnae of a compound leaf, go here"? Peppygrowlithe 20:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An army of pomous [sic.] phrases... in search of an idea

"more sophisticatedly reckoned"??? What a pomous and awkward phrase. 139.68.134.1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

In pretty good shape for the shape you are in

"The diagram shows the shape and location of these components:" No, the diagram does NOT show many of the listed components. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in Translation

"Pinna (Latin for feather)". Yes, it means 'feather', but it also means 'wing', and considering its shape surely this would be a more appropriate translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.41 (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about non-mammals?

It talks about the human pinna and gives some pictures thereof, and gives pictures showing the pinnae of two other mammals and explaining their adaptations. Moreover, it seems to most of us that only mammals have pinnae. Is this the case? For instance, in birds, is the pinna obscured by feathers, or do they not have a pinna at all? The article really should address this topic. Can we find somebody with the necessary knowledge to add this information? — Smjg (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Smjg. I'm one of the editors at WikiProject Anatomy (come join us if you like!) so this page is on my watchlist. Unfortunately this article isn't well-tended, but I, and I'm sure future readers would be very grateful if you did some research using other sources available online or in print and uploaded this information. It may require some confidence, but I'd encourage you to try and would be happy to help out along the way. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with WP markup experience, please

...after 7 years wait, make pinnae redirect to the pinna disambiguation page, and not here. See the same request in the "First they ignore you…" section above. It is silly to have the singular and plural forms of an anatomical term, with both zoologic and botanic uses, not redirect to the same page. Hence, readers have to be misdirected initially to a narrow meaning by a plural search (where the broad meaning is arrived at only by the search of the singular term). I imagine this occurred because of the Latin form, but still, we are an encyclopedia. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple ears anyone?

So on the various visible ear abnormalities, why is there no notes on multiple pinnae? Cats have the mutations that cause random ears extras so one would think there is some research someplace about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamphorse (talk • contribs) 05:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Since there's no clear evidence that the proposed name really is more common, and support/opposes are close in numbers, I don't see a consensus. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auricle (anatomy) → Pinna (anatomy) – Common name, and TA preferred english synonym. Used multiple times in this and other articles. I would like to hear the opinions of other editors on this. Should we consider a move? Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC) relisted. SST flyer 14:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see no reason to delete the page currently located at pinna and merging it into a giant hatnote on this article. If this is not the proposal, then this proposal is incompletely and improperly formatted, since it does not discuss what is to be done with the destination, so is therefore an implicit delete and merge into a hatnote proposal -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified. Request is to Pinna (anatomy). No deletion is intended --Tom (LT) (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sure, but remember to edit the article to reflect its new name if it is moved. SST flyer 15:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Auricle appears to be the preferred term, in English, for humans. The connection to aural is a strong advantage. Per the article lede, Pinna may be preferred for animals. A human bias is acceptable. Not a strong oppose, but there is definitely not a strong reason to make the change. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Auricle (anatomy). 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/20131109031214/http://www.adhb.govt.nz:80/newborn/teachingresources/dermatology/EarAnomalies.htm to http://www.adhb.govt.nz/newborn/teachingresources/dermatology/EarAnomalies.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is amplification being confused with impedance transformation?

I am not an expert on anatomy or audiology. But I do have a pretty good understanding of wave behavior including sound waves. The outer ear is a gatherer of sound power. It it cannot amplify sound power. It and the inner ear can act as an impedance transformer. That is analogous to a lever to convert sound in air to an impedance level more appropriate to drive sound into a liquid medium as found in the cochlea. It is also the equivalent of an electrical transformer that can change voltage and current so as to drive devices from our wall sockets that require different voltages from what the wall socket delivers.

For sound, the acoustic impedance is Z = ρ c where ρ is the density of the medium and c is the speed of sound in the medium. Both of these properties are much larger for a water-like medium than for air. If you tried to couple sound from air into a cochlea, most of it would be reflected because of the impedance mismatch. The middle ear takes the low pressure fluctuations in the sound and increases it by a large factor. This is not really amplification. The speed of the vibrating motion in the liquid ideally gets divided by the same factor the pressure gets multiplied. In fact however, there are losses so that there is a LOSS of power not an amplification of power. But more power gets into the cochlea than with no impedance matching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PEBill (talk • contribs) 06:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]