Talk:Neuron doctrine

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of cells.

Neuroscience Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Mid‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assessment

Although this article is well-written and well-sourced, I am assessing it as C-class because it gives a completely inadequate picture of the controversy between Golgi and Cajal. Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

bad link deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.130.52 (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to rework this article. The description of the neuron theory is inadequate as the theory is made up of 8-10 postulates, none of which are described. Also credit is unduly assigned to Ramon y Cajal for the development of the theory. The evidence that prompted acceptance of the neuron doctrine is also incorrectly described, for instance one major controversy involving silver staining was whether the silver aggregates accumulated on the inside or the outside of the cell membrane. If they accumulated on the inside of the cell, then processes finer than the the aggregates could not be visualized using the technique, and cell could still be part of a reticulum. If the the aggregates were on the outside of the cell, then spines could be an artifact of the staining process and not evidence of a site of contact between cells. Rambrown (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a rough cut of the various elements and will add citations later. I have also removed the history since was either redundant or inaccurate. Rambrown (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am altering the "updating the neuron doctrine section". Three of the updates are irrelevent to the neuron doctrine. They are theoretical disputes that occured after neural tissue was incorporated into cell theory, and do not have any direct bearing on the elements of the neuron doctrine. I am therefore deleting neurogenesis, glial processing, and active dendrites. Rambrown (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added some historical context relative to cell theory and technical limitations that prevented the inclusion of nervous tissue in cell theory.Rambrown (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Although you've certainly added some useful material, it seems like you've also removed quite a bit of important stuff, such as the concept of neural processes as forming a reticulum. I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still a work in progress. The notion of the reticulum vs discrete contact is frequently mistaken for being the critical element of neuron theory. As I am beginning to stress, it is only one element in a larger picture. Cell theory demanded that all of the visible structures have a cellular origin. In the brain this meant that so long as the neuroplexus and fiber pathways had a cellular origin, cell theory was satisfied. It did not really matter if they remained separated from neighboring processes, or if they fused into a reticulum. Consider the circulatory system as a model, or the heart as I mention in the article. The theory of cell contact is a smaller theory that describes the particulars of how a neuron is built, but the reticular outcome was just as compatible with cell theory. Rambrown (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will watch the development of the article with interest. I hope that the reticular material will come back soon, though, as many people have thought of it as the crux of the problem. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong order

Waldeyer published his theories on neuron theory in print as early as 1881 (where he also originally coined the term neuron), while Cajal's contribution was that he began empirically proving Waldeyer's theories from 1887 onwards. So it was really Waldeyer who was first, and Cajal only demonstrated that Waldeyer was right. --79.242.219.119 (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds interesting! Do you have a link to this information? VENIVIDIVICIPEDIA^talk 13:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]