Talk:Nuchal ligament

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Dubious

The article says the nuchal ligament is "unique to humans as it is required by bipedal mammals for running", but then later says 'The "paddywhack" is the nuchal ligament of sheep, cattle or the quadruped.' So obviously it's not unique to humans. The article on giraffes, for example, talks about the nuchal ligament of the giraffe. Where did this notion come from that the ligament is unique to humans? That's why I marked this phrase as dubious. Maybe I should have just removed it. Huttarl (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the above. I have now added the tag to the claim it is a "Rudiment". The nuchal ligament is supposedly absent in Australopithecus. ie the theory would seem to be that it is a convergent feature needed for supporting the head. Thus the "nuchal ligament" of the giraffe and that of the human are not on the same evoluntionary tree. Tom Pippens (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paddywhack

I can't find a reliable source to corroborate the "nuchal ligament" meaning of 'paddywhack'. For example, it's in no reliable dictionaries that I can find. (Not Merriam-Webster Unabridged, not Oxford English Dictionary, not American Heritage, etc.) CorCaroliRegisMartyris (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Paxwax' and 'paxywaxy', on the other hand, do show up in dictionaries as terms for the nuchal ligament. I would recommend changing 'paddywhack' to 'paxwax' in this entry.CorCaroliRegisMartyris (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would agree with that --Iztwoz (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a number of reliable sources to the paddywhack article showing that it is indeed that meaning. These range from publications in 2021 back to 1886 showing this is not citogenesis. There are also more cites on the talk page including from the Australian Meat Board and the Official Journal of the European Communities which I have not used in the article because they are only snippet view, but the snippeets show that it is a term of art in the meat industry. SpinningSpark 17:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. 212.159.115.41 (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Paddywhack into Nuchal ligament. I think the content in Paddywhack can easily be explained in the context of this page, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. I note that User SpinningSpark added a link to that page with edit summary "There is an article on this specific meaning. Maybe it should be merged, but right now it is separate". I also note that the only information in that stub article that is not here is evidence that Nuchal ligament is called "paxwax" and "paddywhack" when speaking of butchery/pet food. That article cannot be further expanded without repeating information in this article, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so an article on that name is WP:UNDUE 212.159.115.41 (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with merging, but I don't think the term should be re-added to the lead synonyms. I think it is a term of art of the meat industry and should be described in a meat industry section or similar title (and bolded there). I would treat the paxwax and back strap terms in the same way. SpinningSpark 17:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK the proposal has been up a week and it's a small consensus, but clearly in favour of merge. I will leave it another day and then proceed with merge on the lines of the above. If anyone thinks I should wait longer, please say so. 212.159.115.41 (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.