Talk:Respiratory system/Archive 1

Archive 1

needs cleaning up

I've added the cleanup-date tag to the top of the article, as it needs some serious work in terms of wikification (paragraph gaps are messed up etc.) and the text doesn't flow well. Parts of the article give the impression of having been copy-pasted from somewhere. --222.153.190.49 01:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Intro

The opening paragraph contains the following: "and the blood." While gases diffuse in a passive manner between alvioli and the blood, I do not think we should state this as passgas because the diaphragm contracts, consuming energy, therefore making the process as a whole active. --Glasgallow 16:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Under physiology in mammals>inhalation, the second sentence doesn't make sense. Is the "time period" a rest between breaths? Swyilk (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2012

Trees consume oxygen

"Even trees have respiratory systems, taking in carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen during the day, consuming carbon dioxide and producing oxygen constantly." Actually, plants also consume oxygen, no? That is, they are aerobic organisms, like animals, that use oxygen to break down food. I think it's important to mention this, because it's a common misconception that plants do not use oxygen. I'm neither a plant physiologist nor wiki-savvy, but can someone who is both edit this accordingly? Thanks. Rufescens 21:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's pefectly correct as is, that is "taking in carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen during the day". It just doesn't say everything. Probably should be edited anyway, though. Snake712 11:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

pictures?

I think this article would be served well by a picture, maybe something out of Gray's Anatomy. Does anyone have any suggestions? Gary 21:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I found an illustration that might be useful, but I don't know how to put it into the article. Maybe someone more knowledgable about Wikipedia can add it. I think Fig. 962 from the link below would work nicely. Of course, if someone else finds a better one, that can be used instead. http://www.bartleby.com/107/237.html

Gary 04:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been added. Gray's Anatomy? Really? There are other shows that give you a clearer view. I do love Gray's Anatomy, though.

Unconscious breathing

I think it would be interesting to see a section on the differences between conscious and unconscious breating, if there is much known about it. Meekohi 20:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

QUESTION what is produced by the body when oxgen isn't respired im doing sports studies and i can't find the answer anywhere

Carbon Monoxide. I though that human's produced that, didn't they?

Quality of Article

This is a terrible article. It really needs work done to it. The quality of this article is completely compromised. I guess that is why it is being cleaned-up... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chem Lady (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Misspelling

Under the paragraph Development, the last sentence has the word steroid spelled as "steriod." This should be fixed. Thanks

Thanks for the notice. Fixed. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

respiratory system

Eva Anderson is 85years old.Her breathing is heavy and she feels tired at any physical effort.Sometimes she feels pain in her breastbone and in her left arm when she is walking upstairs.At rest she feels good and has no physical problems. Describe the changes which may have lead to these symptoms in the body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.35.208 (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Conduction Zone" and "Respiratory Zone"

The article states:

"In humans and other animals, the respiratory system can be conveniently subdivided into an upper respiratory tract (or conducting zone) and lower respiratory tract (respiratory zone), trachea and lungs."

The classification here of conducting and respiratory zones is not accurate. The conducting zone (in which no actual gas exchange occurs) extends from the upper respiratory tract (as stated) but also includes the trachea, bronchi, and larger bronchioles. The respiratory zone is limited to terminal bronchioles and alveoli. These are the only structures in which oxygen and carbon dioxide can actually pass between the lung and the blood.

Lgin (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Role in Communication"

The "Role in Communication" has two equals symbols in front and one after; I presume it is supposed to only have one before, so as to be a higher-level category. However the subsequent sections ("Conditions of.." and "Gas exchange in plants") don't seem to be sub-categories of "Role in Communication." I am making all of these subsequent sub-sections into top-level sections. If this is incorrect, please correct it, and I'd also like to know how I could have known if I am wrong. Thanks!

Eouw0o83hf (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I found out that the following sub-sections were fixed when adding a second equals sign after. I haven't done extensive wiki formatting, so I forgot that it takes two equals signs to make a section header...So, the issue was easily remedied with replacing the second equals sign that had apparently disappeared.

Eouw0o83hf (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This section should be qualified in one important way: "extremely vital for *verbal* communication purposes."

(no user, or I'd update it myself) 2010 July 31 12:42 (UTC)

insects

..In humans and other animals, the respiratory system can be conveniently subdivided into an upper respiratory tract and lower respiratory tract, trachea and lungs, ...

I think the term 'animals' might take some refinement. I do not think it applies to most animals,e.g. the many species of insects that live on this planet. Could the article be a little less homo- of mammaliacentric? Jcwf (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Posterior???

While my knowledge of anatomical terms may be a bit dated, I strenuously doubt that humans--even at the DMV--breathe through their anal regions (even if some turtles can). Still, the article lists the "Posterior" as the first part of the airway. Is this a sneaky vandalism/joke? Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Posterior is the correct term. However, I agree that human's probably cannot breathe using their ass holes. But, I'm not a scientist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Respiratory physiology and respiration merge?

I would like to encourage those who work on this page to also examine two pages: Respiratory physiology and respiration (physiology). What would people think about merging these two pages? I also think it would be redundant to present any more informaiton on respiratory physiology on the respiatory system page; therefore, I have added only links to that section. Comments?LLDMart (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Respiratory System

After reading about the Respiratory System @ school I wanted to know more. WHEN YOU HAVE AN ASTHMA ATTACK DOES AN INHALER HELP RECOVER THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM?????

When one uses an inhaler, they inhale medication such as Salmeterol that helps you recover. Because an asthma attack is constriction of the airways, the medication in the inhaler acts as a Bronchodilator to cease the restriction and help the victim recover.

I do not believe that the two articles mentioned should be merged as they are two different topics. One covers the physiology of the respiratory system and the other deals with the physiology and mechanics of respiration (breathing itself). Thanks anyway for your suggestion, as I am sure that you intend to improve Wikipedia. If you have any more questions relating to the respiratory system, please do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Question!?

what is the term/word used to discribe when you breath in fully but then force more air in. what is the term for the volume of air you are adding to the tidal volume? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.49.31 (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that you are referring to forced vital capacity (FVC). For your second question, I am not sure that I know what term you are referring to. If you have other questions, please do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

sunenomous

what is the cure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.114.209 (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

windpipe

When breathing in, how is the air in the windpipe different from the air outside? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.11.228 (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag

I have removed the unreferenced tag because the article obviously has sources. --Rent A Troop (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Two empty sections

Someone seems to have added sections 1.1.1.4 and 1.1.1.5 to the article but they currently have no info (just the headers); I'm not the best biologist in the Marines so could someone add something to it? Thanks :)

-- Supernova0 :) 00:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

other name for respiratory system

the respiratory system can also be called the pulmonary system which means the same thing but might be preferred by some people and scientists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapulator (talk • contribs) 19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

what is the respotory system? it is a pathway for the oxygen to go through all the body parts and this is related to physical fitness because they need to exersise to keep your heart healthy --74.60.32.229 (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)so you can breathe

Quick edit

"The rspiratory helps your lungs do stuff that makes you do stuff that makes u live cause thats how it works"

^^Decided to remove that part, and a duplicate section on the talk page. 99.60.32.150 (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

everyone i need some help on what else works with the respiratory system!!!! it would be such a good help if u guys could help thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.200.242 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This page needs protection

Dear Wikipedia contributors,

I would like like to thank for all your efforts to spread knowledge. Nevertheless, vandalism has heavily affected this article too often. I think it is time to protect it. Any opinions? Can someone with more experience do this, please?

Thanks in advance! George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree this page seems to attract more than a fair share of unconstructive edits, but it also seems to be on the watchlists of quite a few active editors. Not feeling strongly about it one way or another, I don't believe it needs protection just yet. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

biology

what is gaseous exchange in plants..??(175.110.71.156 (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC))

Respiration. See Cellular respiration.

Insects: Spelling/grammar corrections, requesting approval.

Plain text only; existing links not indicated.

ORIGINAL: "Most insects breath passively through their spiracles (special openings in the exoskeleton) and the air reaches the body by means of a series of smaller and smaller pipes called 'trachaea' when their diameter is relatively large and 'tracheoles' when their diameter is very small. Diffusion of gases is effective over small distances but not over larger ones, this is one of the reasons insects are all relatively small. Insects which do not have spiracles and trachaea, such as some Collembola, breathe directly through their skins, also by diffusion of gases.[7] The number of spiracles an insect has is variable between species, however they always come in pairs, one on each side of the body, and usually one per segment. Some of the Diplura have eleven, with four pairs on the thorax, but in most of the ancient forms of insects, such as Dragonflies and Grasshoppers there are two thoracic and eight abdominal spiracles. However in most of the remaining insects there are less. It is at this level of the tracheoles that oxygen is delivered to the cells for respiration. The trachea are water-filled due to the permeable membrane of the surrounding tissues. During exercise, the water level retracts due to the increase in concentration of lactic acid in the muscle cells. This lowers the water potential and the water is drawn back into the cells via osmosis and air is brought closer to the muscle cells. The diffusion pathway is then reduced and gases can be transferred more easily.

Insects were once believed to exchange gases with the environment continuously by the simple diffusion of gases into the tracheal system. More recently, however, large variation in insect ventilatory patterns have been documented and insect respiration appears to be highly variable. Some small insects do demonstrate continuous respiration and may lack muscular control of the spiracles. Others, however, utilize muscular contraction of the abdomen along with coordinated spiracle contraction and relaxation to generate cyclical gas exchange patterns and to reduce water loss into the atmosphere. The most extreme form of these patterns is termed discontinuous gas exchange cycles (DGC).[8]"

CORRECTED VERSION (changed words or phrases indicated in bold): Most insects breathe passively through their spiracles (special openings in the exoskeleton), and the air reaches the body by means of a series of progressively smaller pipes. These pipes are called 'tracheae' when their diameter is relatively large and 'tracheoles' when their diameter is very small. Diffusion of gasses is effective over small distances only. This is one of the reasons why insects are [celeted ALL] relatively small. Insects that do not have spiracles and tracheae, such as some Collembola, breathe directly through their skins via diffusion of gasses.[7] The number of spiracles an insect has varies among species; however, they always come in pairs, one on each side of the body, and usually one per segment. Some of the Diplura have eleven, with four pairs on the thorax, but in most of the ancient forms of insects, such as Dragonflies and Grasshoppers there are two thoracic and eight abdominal spiracles. However, in most of the remaining insects, there are fewer. It is at this level of the tracheoles that oxygen is delivered to the cells for respiration. The tracheae are water-filled due to the permeable membrane of the surrounding tissue. During exercise, the water level retracts due to the increase in concentration of lactic acid in the muscle cells. This lowers the water potential, drawing water back into the cells via osmosis and allowing air to be brought closer to the muscle cells. The diffusion pathway is then reduced and gases can be transferred more easily.

Insects were once believed to exchange gasses with the environment continuously by the simple diffusion of gasses into the tracheal system. More recently, however, large variation in insect ventilation patterns have been documented. [Omitted remainder of sentence.] Some small insects do demonstrate continuous respiration and may lack muscular control of the spiracles. Others, however, utilize muscular contraction of the abdomen along with coordinated spiracle contraction and relaxation to generate cyclical gas exchange patterns and to reduce evaporative water loss. The most extreme form of these patterns is termed 'discontinuous gas exchange cycle' (DGC).[8] ReaderWriterArtist (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

About the respiratory system

The respiratory system helps you breath. It takes in oxygen and takes out the carbon dioxide. Its like a cycle. Without the respiratory system, the human body wont exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.19.60 (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide

The carbon dioxide is just a kind of air that takes the waste out of your body. It goes through your lungs then comes out. It goes in a cycle with the oxygen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.19.60 (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-human systems

I actually came here hoping for some comparitive analysis of different kinds of respiratory systems, or at least links to "reptile respiration" or something. It's rather misleading that the first paragraph says "even trees," yet the article proceeds to only talk about human respiration without explaining that choice. Should the lead be rewritten to reflect the actual focus of the article (human respiration)? NickelShoe (Talk) 19:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay it looks like we have a section that compares to non-human organisms, but the examples are charismatic mega fauna. The section needs to represent all life generally, not just big pretty animals. --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 03:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2015

154.72.26.122 (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. /wia🎄/tlk 18:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2016

182.75.56.210 (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Revision of the "Gas Exchange" section

I have taken the liberty to rewrite the "Gas exchange" section because it was physiologically very shallow, gave several wrong impressions, and perpetuated important inaccuracies. The present version attempts to provide answers to the several vexing questions: why are the lungs anatomically dead-end sacs at the end of a very long narrow tube that does not open in the front of the chest, but goes through the neck into the head to open at the end of a sometimes quite a long snout? Surely it would be more sensible, if the lungs' function was to rid the body of carbon dioxide in exchange for oxygen for air to flow in through a very short tube from the front of the chest to the lungs, and the waste blown out through a similarly short tube on the animal's back? Why do we have such a large functional residual volume? of which we breathe in or out only about 15% every 5 seconds? Why, if we hyperventilate and blow off a large proportion of our carbon dioxide do we get pins-and-needles in the extremities and muscle cramps (tetany) around the mouth and in the limbs? Or, if it happens at high altitude does it cause mountain sickness?

I have written the section with the emphasis on what actually happens when mammals breathe, with just enough teleology in the background, to make everything easier and more interesting to read, follow and understand. What receives the greatest emphasis is the homeostasis of the blood gases.

I hope the readers and reviewers of the Wiki articles find the changes worthwhile. If not, they are easily changed, corrected, or, if necessary, reverted to the old version.

Cruithne9 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Added a new section on the effect of high altitude and low oxygen tensions on the respiratory system. This section has been copied with minor edits, and small additions from the Breathing article, where I have recently updated and corrected this section. Cruithne9 (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

development

“The respiratory system lies dormant in the human fetus during pregnancy.” I don't know where this idea came from. There is a lot of activity in the prenatal lung, including fetal breathing movements, yawns, peristalsis, and tonic contractions, all of which have been shown to affect prenatal lung development. NCscientist (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)NCscientist

Separate page

Since the articles on Lung have been separated into Human lung and Lungs, think a separation would benefit both articles with a page on Human respiratory system and this one which has a mish-mash of content but which could benefit by expansion on non-human items. Would welcome any views. Iztwoz (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Overlooked suggestion - no longer put forward as Human lung and Lung have been merged.--Iztwoz (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Internationally accepted notation for partial pressures

Hi Cruithne9, You mention an internationally accepted scientific notation for partial pressure in your recent edit summary at Respiratory system. Do you have a link to a reference for this? Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Peter (Southwood). There is great variation in the notation used in the various Physiology textbooks. A very common form is pO₂, but a lower case p such as this means "the negative logarithm of the molar oxygen concentration” as in "pH" and “pK_a” for the negative logarithm of an acid’s dissociation constant. This is clearly completely inappropriate and misleading when referring to the partial pressure of a gas; but like many of the other incorrect notations is simply copied from textbook to textbook without thinking. Others use PO₂, or simply PO₂ or P(O₂). These are improvements on the pO₂ theme, but although still strictly speaking incorrect, are one's only option when using MS Word, or other text editing computer program. But note that PO₂ suggests a chemical formula, denoting an oxide of phosphorus! The correct notation is P_O2 as indicated in <Scientific Tables (Seventh Edition), Edited by K. Diem and C Lentner. pp. 544-545. Published by Ciba-Geigy Ltd, Basle, Switzerland>. This is the notation used in the article on the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation and the article on Partial pressure, and probably elsewhere in Wikipedia where the authors have written chemistry and physics articles, making sure they use the internationally correct notation. The ppO₂ used in Respiratory system article (which was actually originally entered as ppO², but changed by me to ppO₂) is an extremely rarely used notation, which the editor who changed all the P_O2s into this format deemed “simpler”, though many readers of the article, if they do not notice "pp" definition in the “Control” subsection of the article are likely find confusing. Cruithne9 (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cruithne9, most obliging. I generally use the ppO₂ notation in diving related articles and this is one of the notations I often find in the industry literature. It is simpler to code, but I don't see that it is any different in simplicity to read. I have also seen P_O2 used, which I assume is a kludge for the <math> option. ppO² is simply wrong, even ppO2 is better Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Factual and other problems

Hi Iztwoz. I am aware that you have received numerous awards for your contributions to the medical, physiological and anatomical article in Wikipedia. Congratulation on such an outstanding record. It therefore puzzles me that your recent editing of the Breathing and, to a lesser extent, the Respiratory system articles contain numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, misunderstandings and inaccuracies.

For instance, you use four different (undefined) notations for “partial pressure of oxygen” in different parts of the two articles: PO2, P_O2, PaO2, and ppO₂. The correct notation is P_O2 as indicated in <Scientific Tables (Seventh Edition), Edited by K. Diem and C Lentner. pp. 544-545. Published by Ciba-Geigy Ltd, Basle, Switzerland>. This is the notation used in the article on the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation and the article on Partial pressure, and probably elsewhere in Wikipedia where the authors have written chemistry and physics articles, making sure they use the internationally correct notation. If any of the other notations is used instead, then the “2” should at least be a subscript “2”, But then PO₂ could easily be confused with a chemical formula of an oxide of phosphorus. PaO₂ is the most confusing of all the alternatives, even if it is explained that this refers to the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (or is it the partial pressure of oxygen in the alveoli?). That basically leaves a choice between P_O2 and ppO₂, although elsewhere in the article you define “pp” as “parts per …..” (as in parts per million). P_O2 is no more “complex” or confusing than any of the other notations, and has the advantage of being unambiguous. So I would use that throughout.

I will deal with other problems sentence by sentence more or less in the order of importance. The sentences in italics are quotes from the articles

• The sentence that reads: Exercise also increases the breathing rate due to the extra demands for oxygen, makes no mention of how this is determined, thus reducing this to a teleological statement, with no scientific value. Everyone knows that your breathing rate increases during exercise; the physiological question is HOW does this come about?

• The same mistake is made elsewhere in the article: The rate and depth of breathing is controlled by the respiratory centers, according to the changing needs of the body. How do the respiratory centers work out what the changing needs of the body are?

• The sentence about the effect of exercise on the breathing rate is immediately followed, in the same line by: Information received from stretch receptors in the lungs limits the depth of inhalation and exhalation as if this is the physiological answer to the increased rate of breathing during exercise.

• You state that Diaphragmatic breathing involves the use of the main muscles of respiration whilst "abdominal breathing" shown in Fig.3 involves the use of the abdominal muscles to increase the thoracic capacity. Firstly which are the “main muscles of respiration” apart from the diaphragm? But more seriously, the abdominal muscles CANNOT “increase the thoracic capacity”. During inhalation they ALWAYS relax, whether breathing at rest or during exercise. The sentence that follows on from there reads: However, both of theses terms are often used interchangeably as diaphragmatic breathing also involves the abdominal muscles, and abdominal breathing also involves the diaphragm. This is as confusing as it is incorrect. The correct sentence should read Diaphragmatic breathing is often termed “abdominal breathing” because the movement seen (on the outside) when the diaphragm contracts is a bulging of the abdomen; whereas when the diaphragm relaxes the stretched abdominal muscle squeeze the abdomen back to its resting position. This makes it appear as if the breathing is carried out by the abdomen.

• The sentence Breathing is one of the few autonomic bodily functions that within limits, can also be controlled consciously. is incorrect as the autonomic nervous system is not involved in breathing. The word you are looking for is “automatic” or “reflex”. The motor nerves serving the muscles of inhalation and exhalation go to skeletal muscles (otherwise known as “voluntary muscles”!) The autonomic nervous system has a very specific anatomical and physiological meaning, serving smooth muscles, various parts of the heart, and various types of glands. The autonomic nervous system does not innervate skeletal muscles, and therefore none of the muscles of ventilation.

• The sentence: At sea level, where the ambient pressure is about 100 kPa, oxygen contributes 21% of the atmosphere and the partial pressure of oxygen PO2 is 19.7 kPa. is self-contradictory. If the ambient pressure is 100 kPa and 21% of that air is oxygen then the partial pressure of oxygen in the ambient air is 21 kPa (i.e. 21% of 100 kPa).

• Further down in the article you state that the PO2 at sea level is 21.0 kPa. which is correct, but contradicts your earlier claim that it is 19.7 kPa.

• When describing the diving reflex, it is stated that The metabolic rate slows right down and has the effect of transferring oxygen from other parts of the body. Slowing the metabolic rate doers not TRANSFER oxygen from one part of the body to another. The redistribution of the circulation is effected by intense vasoconstriction to the limbs (skin and muscle), and the abdominal visceral organs, while dilating the arterioles to the heart and brain. The slowing of the metabolic rate is a CONSEQUENCE or RESULT of this redistribution of blood to only a small part of the body. It is NOT A CAUSE of the redirection of the available oxygen to “other parts of the body”.

• …rise in the pH of the arterial plasma leading to respiratory alkalosis. Cause and effect have once again been switched in this sentence. The accumulation of CO₂ in the blood causes a “respiratory alkalosis” which in turn (if it is not compensated by the renal excretion of H⁺ ions in the urine) leads to a rise in the pH of the arterial plasma. Not the other way around.

• With each breath only about 350 ml, less than 15% of the residual air is expelled. The term “residual air” has a very specific meaning in respiratory physiology. The word you are looking for is Functional residual capacity.

• The partial pressures of the gases in the blood flowing through the alveolar capillaries equilibrate with the partial pressures of the gases in the FRC, ensuring that the partial pressures of carbon dioxide, and oxygen of the arterial blood, and therefore its pH, remain constant. How does the equilibration of the gases pulmonary capillary blood with those in the alveoli ENSURE that the partial pressures of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the arterial blood remain CONSTANT? The equilibration only ensures that the partial pressures of these gases are the same in the alveoli and arterial blood. Keeping them constant (unchanged) under a wide variety of circumstances requires fairly complex control mechanisms, which measure the gas pressures and institute corrective measure if they deviate from their “set points”.

• increased pressure (of CO₂) is sensed by the peripheral chemoreceptors which stimulate the respiratory centers. They respond by stimulating motor neurons at the muscles of respiration increasing the rate and depth of the breathing rate, and thereby increasing the supply of oxygen. This keeps the partial pressures of carbon dioxide and oxygen in equilibrium. Firstly the partial pressure of CO₂ is measured primarily by the CENTRAL blood gas chemoreceptors on the surface of the brain stem. The peripheral blood gas chemoreceptors are more sensitive to the partial pressure of oxygen than they are to that of carbon dioxide. But more seriously, what does the sentence This keeps the partial pressures of carbon dioxide and oxygen in equilibrium. mean? and how is this achieved?

Some minor points:

• Muscles of forceful inspiration are the: scalenes, the sternocleidomastoid, the serratus anterior and posterior, pectoralis major and minor, the levatores costarum, and the quadratus lumborum. The serratus anterior and serratus posterior are not accessory muscles of inhalation as their fibres run along the ribs (i.e parallel to them), and therefore do not help to lift them.

• Similarly, the latissimi dorsi are not accessory muscles of exhalation, as stated in the sentence: Muscles of forceful expiration are the transverse thoracic muscles, the rectus abdominis, the abdominal external oblique, and the internal oblique muscles, the latissimi dorsi, and the serratus posterior inferior muscles.

• In the sentence that reads anatomical features of the respiratory system include the trachea, bronchi, bronchioles, lungs, and diaphragm, the word features should be replaced with organs. Organs have “features” such as lobes, indentations, ligament attachments etc. But “features” do not have organs. The words are not synonyms. Furthermore the list of organs is strangely incomplete. Should “alveoli” not be included? and if the diaphragm is listed, then mention should also be made of the other muscles of ventilation.

• In the Respiratory system article, the statement that The right side of Fig. 2 shows that during exhalation, at rest is incorrect. In fact it shows FORCED EXHALATION.

• The statement in the Respiratory system article, that the so-called pump handle and bucket handle movements of the ribs as shown in Fig. 2. is also incorrect. I think you mean Fig. 1; and that figure only shows the operation of the “pump handle movement”.

There are still a number of items in both articles that need correction or re-wording, but they are of relatively minor importance, and can easily be dealt with when the other problems are sorted out.

Cheers Cruithne9 (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Have responded to same input on Breathing talk page.--Iztwoz (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of unconventional symbols for pressures and partial pressures

Iztwoz, Please use currently conventional symbols for pressures and partial pressures to minimise confusion. Please do not change from the more acceptable format previously used in the article to the system now used which is, as far as I am aware, incorrect. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Peter (Southwood) the 'ordinary' format is used on many pages including the entry page of PCO2 - should all these other pages be changed too? Cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I think they should. As far as I know they are wrong, not 'ordinary', and things that are wrong should be corrected. Things that are right should not be changed without discussion. I am currently trying to find out if there is any MOS guidance on this point. In the meanwhile I would appreciate if you would restore the correctly subscripted chemical symbols. I will cheerfully accept it if you change to the IUPAC approved symbols. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Have just looked at the Blood gas tension page and that uses ordinary format and conventional symbols when an equation is used. There are no equations on this page. ? --Iztwoz (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

and likewise Breathing gas.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have not yet checked the blood gas tension article, (or breathing gas) so not sure that I understand you correctly. However that may also simply be wrong. There is no good reason to use formatting that causes confusion when the facilities to use correct, unambiguous formatting are readily available. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Both Blood gas tension and Breathing gas use subscripts for the chemical formulae. Breathing gas uses pp for partial pressure, as this article did until you changed it. I do not get your point. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

My point is that the use is not uniform or consistent, and in my view not needed on pages being read by a general reader where the use of symbols to the uninitiated is clumsy and off-putting.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The correct alternative to using the correct symbols would be to not use symbols and use the correct term in full. Use of kludge symbols does not clarify to the uninformed reader, and makes the article look unprofessional to the informed reader, so that confidence in the overall quality of the article is eroded. We should strive for more consistency as we strive for better referencing, correct information, consistent formatting, correct spelling and grammar and all the other things that make a quality article. As long as changes consistently improve an article they are good.

I see that you have improved the article by both using correct terms and correct symbols. Thanks for this. It looks much better already. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

By looking at various relevant pages - they all (ALL) use ordinary font for use in prose and use symbols for use in formulas and equations. Is there any good reason to deviate from this? The featured article Oxygen toxicity uses 'partial pressures' 32 times with not one use of symbols. Likewise Oxygen saturation (medicine), Pulmonary gas pressures, Blood gas test, Pressure, PCO2 and on and on. Are you really suggesting all these pages should be changed? By the way I disagree with your ref to kludge symbols - they are merely abbrevs as commonly used in all articles. --Iztwoz (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Sorry it's been a long day - i've only just read your comments on 'symbols' used and ref to kludge symbols - I agree with your preferred choice if that was the way to go. --Iztwoz (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Full text is always acceptable, and ordinary font is as far as I am aware, normal usage. I refer to when a symbolic representation is used, where at absolute minimum, the correct subscripts must be used in chemical furmulae, and either a recognised symbolic system used as recommended by a reliable source, such as IUPAC, or the symbology must be defined in the article. The symbology should remain consistent throughout the article, and a recognised system should not be replaced without discussion. There does not appear to be a MoS agreement on the details, but I think this complies with the general philosophy in MoS. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Human physiology

I concur that for the most part, the general explanation uses human physiology for examples and details. There are a few examples of non-human physiology referred to in the section, but probably not a problem. The Other animals section could use a section on mammalian physiology to include the two special cases mentioned - horses and elephants - which explains that human respiratory system is very middle of the road for mammals, and that the two examples mentioned are there as exceptional cases. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Revision

The article as it stands consists of a confused, unorganized, fragmented jumble of headings, some of which contain nothing more than an uninformative sentence or a disconnected, incomplete table of data no one is likely to make sense of, or use. The content under some of the headings contradict the content of others. In other words there is no continuity of thought or the presentation of information. There are are also numerous inaccurate, misleading and confusing non-statements, many of which are listed above. There is no consistency in nomenclature, or symbols used.

I have therefore revised the entire article ensuring that there is a proper hierarchy in the headings, and that things that belong together are grouped together. I have eliminated all the inaccuracies I could identify, and made the content that is presented as generally understandable as possible, ensuring that cause always comes before effect - and that that link is obvious. Eliminated all the symbols that have a mathematical flavor, sticking to prose throughout, and proper grammar. All the figures are numbered sequentially, for easy reference (including back reference). Cruithne9 (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit, Cruithne9. I really appreciate the time you dedicate to editing these articles and also the patience with which you have tried to learn our (somewhat confusing and arbitrary) wiki-ways. New edit and structure looks wonderful. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit note

Just to note following edit made to remove: The lungs manufacture surfactants which for local use. I have posted this here since all of my more recent edits to these particular pages have been automatically reverted on the grounds of vandalism. I have only just read through the list of 'complaints' lodged against me - most of them were not even made by me - so what's occurring here? --Iztwoz (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)--Iztwoz (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The deletion of the unnecessary and out-of-place sentence mentioned above is entirely justified and an improvement to the section on surfactant. Thanks.

But your most recent edits to the lead section about the branching of the bronchi give an anatomically incorrect impression, and are far from an improvements on what was there before. They, and your edits over the past weeks, are the arbitrary, senseless ramblings of someone who seems not to have any knowledge of respiratory physiology, anatomy, zoology or physics. If this willful nonsensical editing on these pages continues I will post the list of your vanadalisms on your talk page, and add to that list as you continue rampaging your way through respiratory physiology articles.

By the way I have sampled some of your edits on the other pages where you have been busy, and they contain exactly the same sorts of off-the-point and erroneous remarks, almost every time.Cruithne9 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

last edit

Cruithne9 - here is a record of the last edits of yours which I have restored to a correct version as was - no doubt with your obsessive puerile attacks on my editing you will reintroduce the errors - as long as they're your's I suppose. your contributions in italics:

These communicate with the external environment via a system of airways, or hollow tubes, of which the largest is the trachea, which branches into the two main bronchi at the level of the angle (or uppermost joint) of the sternum. These main bronchi enter the lungs where they branch into narrower and more numerous secondary, tertiary and progressively smaller bronchi that eventually gives rise to the millions of smallest tubes, called the bronchioles.

Why introduce a seven word piped link which just goes to the sternum and not to the actual known part - the carina? Why keep insisting on going to smaller bronchi when the smaller bronchi are the bronchioles. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Iztwoz. The "carina" is name given to the branch point of the trachea (actually only part of it). So your version says that the trachea branches at the point where it branches! Not a very useful or insightful remark. Plus the ordinary reader, as well as most past students of anatomy, will not know what the carina is. So it does not help them place the branch point in their bodies. Whereas the angle of the sternum is a point on the body that can easily be located on the chest and marks the "surface anatomy" (an official anatomical term) of the branch point of the trachea. I would leave the whole sentence out, as it is of such minor anatomical, and functional concern that it hardly belongs in the lead to an article on the "Respiratory system".

Concerning the branching of the respiratory tree, and its branches: If you have a look at the section labeled "Anatomy" you will see that the name "bronchus" (or bronchi, plural) is used used to describe the majority of the ever narrowing succession of branches, down to really very small tubes. They are distinguished by their adjectives: "main", "lobar", "segmental", "large subsegmental" and "small subsegmental", the last of which is less than 1 mm in diameter. The tubes start to be called "bronchioles" only when they have no cartilagenous rings or plates to keep them open. So your contention that all the bronchi smaller than the main bronchi are called "bronchioles" is patently false and not supported by any Anatomy textbook. It is this type of fundamental ignorance of very simple anatomy, physiology, science, zoology and physics that characterizes your edits and confuses the ordinary reader, while confirming the informed readers' contention that Wikipedia content cannot be trusted.

I am therefore deleting your last edit under the "Vandalism" banner. Cruithne9 (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Daily WP perusal. Agree with your both here. "Carina" should be directly mentioned. It is a confusing abstraction to not mention it by name and instead refer to it via surface anatomy, I (personally) do not see an issue not mentioning it by name. Agree Cruithne with your correction identification of bronchi / broncioli. This content dispute is not vandalism. Tom (LT) (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I would have no problem with a sentence such as "The bifurcation of the trachea into the two main bronchi is called the carina", except that that is not true. The carina is the saddle-like ridge formed by the splitting of the trachea into the two main bronchi. It is of interest only to pulmonologists who are dealing with people who have inhaled a foreign body (e.g. food) which, as it falls down the trachea, lands astride the carina, and therefore goes down neither main bronchus, but partially or wholly blocks off one or both bronchi. So "carina" is not synonymous with the branching of the trachea. It is a structure only seen from inside the trachea, and is therefore not shown or named on a typical anatomical diagram of the respiratory tree. The use of the name is therefore confusing. Cruithne9 (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The respiratory physiology and anatomy articles: Numerous factual and other problems

Hi Iztwoz,

Here is a partial list of the many serious problems caused by your persistent edits and interferences with of the respiratory physiology and anatomy articles over the past few months. Your words (edits/sentences) are indicated in italics.

• The sentence that reads: Exercise also increases the breathing rate due to the extra demands for oxygen, makes no mention of how this is determined, thus reducing this to a teleological statement, with no scientific value. Everyone knows that your breathing rate increases during exercise; the physiological question is HOW does this come about?

• The same mistake is made elsewhere in the article: The rate and depth of breathing is controlled by the respiratory centers, according to the changing needs of the body. How do the respiratory centers work out what the changing needs of the body are?

• The sentence about the effect of exercise on the breathing rate is immediately followed, in the same line by: Information received from stretch receptors in the lungs limits the depth of inhalation and exhalation as if this is the physiological answer to the increased rate of breathing during exercise.

• You state that Diaphragmatic breathing involves the use of the main muscles of respiration whilst "abdominal breathing" shown in Fig.3 involves the use of the abdominal muscles to increase the thoracic capacity. Firstly, which are the “main muscles of respiration” apart from the diaphragm? But more seriously, the abdominal muscles CANNOT “increase the thoracic capacity”. During inhalation they ALWAYS relax, whether breathing at rest or during exercise. The abdominal muscles can only DECREASE the thoracic volume. So what you have written is complete nonsense.

• The sentence that follows on from there reads: However, both of theses terms are often used interchangeably as diaphragmatic breathing also involves the abdominal muscles, and abdominal breathing also involves the diaphragm. This is as confusing as it is incorrect. The correct sentence should read Diaphragmatic breathing is often termed “abdominal breathing” because the movement seen (on the outside) when the diaphragm contracts is a bulging of the abdomen; whereas when the diaphragm relaxes the stretched abdominal muscle squeeze the abdomen back to its resting position. This makes it appear as if the breathing is carried out by the abdomen.

• The sentence Breathing is one of the few autonomic bodily functions that within limits, can also be controlled consciously. is incorrect as the autonomic nervous system is not involved in breathing. The word you are looking for is “automatic” or “reflex”. The motor nerves serving the muscles of inhalation and exhalation go to skeletal muscles (otherwise known as “voluntary muscles”!) The autonomic nervous system has a very specific anatomical and physiological meaning, serving smooth muscles, various parts of the heart, and various types of glands. The autonomic nervous system does not innervate skeletal muscles, and therefore none of the muscles of ventilation.

• The sentence: At sea level, where the ambient pressure is about 100 kPa, oxygen contributes 21% of the atmosphere and the partial pressure of oxygen PO2 is 19.7 kPa. is self-contradictory. If the ambient pressure is 100 kPa and 21% of that air is oxygen then the partial pressure of oxygen in the ambient air is 21 kPa (i.e. 21% of 100 kPa).

• Further down in the article you state that the PO2 at sea level is 21.0 kPa. which is correct, but contradicts your earlier claim that it is 19.7 kPa.

• When describing the diving reflex, it is stated that The metabolic rate slows right down and has the effect of transferring oxygen from other parts of the body. Slowing the metabolic rate does not TRANSFER oxygen from one part of the body to another. The redistribution of the circulation is effected by intense vasoconstriction to the limbs (skin and muscle), and the abdominal visceral organs, while dilating the arterioles to the heart and brain. The slowing of the metabolic rate is a CONSEQUENCE or RESULT of this redistribution of blood to only a small part of the body. It is NOT A CAUSE of the redirection of the available oxygen to “other parts of the body”.

• …rise in the pH of the arterial plasma leading to respiratory alkalosis. Cause and effect have once again been switched in this sentence. The accumulation of CO₂ in the blood causes a “respiratory alkalosis” which in turn (if it is not compensated by the renal excretion of H⁺ ions in the urine) leads to a rise in the pH of the arterial plasma. Not the other way around.

• With each breath only about 350 ml, less than 15% of the residual air is expelled. The term “residual air” has a very specific meaning in respiratory physiology. The word you are looking for is Functional residual capacity.

• The partial pressures of the gases in the blood flowing through the alveolar capillaries equilibrate with the partial pressures of the gases in the FRC, ensuring that the partial pressures of carbon dioxide, and oxygen of the arterial blood, and therefore its pH, remain constant. How does the equilibration of the gases pulmonary capillary blood with those in the alveoli ENSURE that the partial pressures of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the arterial blood remain CONSTANT? The equilibration only ensures that the partial pressures of these gases are the same in the alveoli and arterial blood. Keeping them constant (unchanged) under a wide variety of circumstances requires fairly complex control mechanisms, which measure the gas pressures and institute corrective measure if they deviate from their “set points”.

• increased pressure (of CO₂) is sensed by the peripheral chemoreceptors which stimulate the respiratory centers. They respond by stimulating motor neurons at the muscles of respiration increasing the rate and depth of the breathing rate, and thereby increasing the supply of oxygen. This keeps the partial pressures of carbon dioxide and oxygen in equilibrium. Firstly the partial pressure of CO₂ is measured primarily by the CENTRAL blood gas chemoreceptors on the surface of the brain stem. The peripheral blood gas chemoreceptors are more sensitive to the partial pressure of oxygen than they are to that of carbon dioxide. But more seriously, what does the sentence This keeps the partial pressures of carbon dioxide and oxygen in equilibrium. mean? and how is this achieved?

• Muscles of forceful inspiration are the: scalenes, the sternocleidomastoid, the serratus anterior and posterior, pectoralis major and minor, the levatores costarum, and the quadratus lumborum. The serratus anterior and serratus posterior are not accessory muscles of inhalation as their fibres run along the ribs (i.e parallel to them), and therefore do not help to lift them.

• Similarly, the latissimi dorsi are not accessory muscles of exhalation, as stated in the sentence: Muscles of forceful expiration are the transverse thoracic muscles, the rectus abdominis, the abdominal external oblique, and the internal oblique muscles, the latissimi dorsi, and the serratus posterior inferior muscles.

• In the sentence that reads anatomical features of the respiratory system include the trachea, bronchi, bronchioles, lungs, and diaphragm, the word features should be replaced with organs. Organs have “features” such as lobes, indentations, ligament attachments etc. But “features” do not have organs. The words are not synonyms. Furthermore the list of organs is strangely incomplete. Should “alveoli” not be included? and if the diaphragm is listed, then mention should also be made of the other muscles of ventilation.

• In the Respiratory system article, the statement that The right side of Fig. 2 shows that during exhalation, at rest is incorrect. In fact it shows FORCED EXHALATION.

• The statement in the Respiratory system article, that the so-called pump handle and bucket handle movements of the ribs as shown in Fig. 2. is also incorrect. I think you mean Fig. 1; and that figure only shows the operation of the “pump handle movement”.

• The introductory figure in the top right hand corner of the Breathing article supposedly illustrates Clavicular breathing a type of breathing in humans involving the raising of the clavicles. Firstly the clavicles are not even shown in the diagram, nor is there any explanation anywhere what "clavicular breathing is, or how it comes about, or when it used. And it is certainly not the main type of breathing in humans and therefore does not deserve such a prominent place in the article. In my revision I tried to include "clavicular breathing", with an explanation of its place in breathing. So the figure needs to be removed, and if it is to be retained it needs to be redrawn (at the very least) and placed at the very bottom of the section on the Mechanics of breathing. I defy anyone ("general reader" or "respiratory physiologist" or other scientist) to see any meaning or contribution the figure makes to the subject of "Breathing".

• Figure 3 in that article is a physiological and anatomical impossibility. No one ever breathes or can possibly breath like that! The movement illustrated only occurs when someone is "pulling their belly in, and pushing their chest out" for a more flattering pose for a few seconds while a photograph is being taken. The person has to hold their breath for those few moments. So the picture is complete nonsense, in every sense. It too needs to be deleted from the article. In fact you have no concept of how erroneous your the figure is. You should try to breath like that yourself (pull your belly in, while expanding your chest - you can only do that by holding your breath in). If you call my diagrams "simplistic", then what would you call yours? They contain no useful information about breathing or how it occurs. Only fig. 1 is vaguely useful as it shows the action of the diaphragm, but contains no information about what happens to the squashed organs below the diaphragm. Figure 2 which supposed shows "abdominal breathing" is, if that is the case, the CONSEQUENCE of what is illustrated in Fig 1, and NOT a separate form of breathing.

• Figure 4 does not illustrate "abdominal breathing". It is a drawing of a person in pain, with a severe stomach ache or cramp. And if that is the case, they would be reducing "abdominal breathing" to the very minimum. Therefore the last thing the illustration shows is a form of breathing, abdominal or other wise.

• The text opposite Fig. 4 (see preceding note), which mentions what abdominal breathing, reads: Diaphragmatic breathing involves the use of the main muscles of respiration whilst abdominal breathing shown in Fig.3 involves the use of the abdominal muscles to increase the thoracic capacity. However, both of theses terms are often used interchangeably as diaphragmatic breathing also involves the abdominal muscles, and abdominal breathing also involves the diaphragm. The abdominal muscles CANNOT increase the "thoracic capacity". It is complete anatomical and physiological nonsense to make such a claim. The abdominal muscles are active only during forceful EXHALATION, by DECREASING "thoracic volume". Also to assert that "abdominal breathing involves the diaphragm" (and vice versa) is to reverse cause and effect. The movement of the diaphragm CAUSES the abdomen to buldge and retract. At rest the abdomen and its muscles are entirely passive.

• Only fig. 1 is vaguely useful as it shows the action of the diaphragm, but contains no information about what happens to the squashed organs below the diaphragm. Figure 2 which supposed shows "abdominal breathing" is, if that is the case, the CONSEQUENCE of what is illustrated in Fig 1, and NOT a separate form of breathing.

• Your "simplification" of the caption to Figure 4 (Some water vapour is lost from the surface of the alveoli and this can be seen condensing when breathed out on a cold day.) is so fundamentally untrue that it can only classed as vandalism. The water vapor that condenses as mist when breathing out through the mouth on a cold day comes from the nose and pharynx while the air is breathed in. The alveoli do not add any water vapor to the air that enters them. That air is already saturated with water vapor from the upper airways and cannot have water added to it. So the caption I wrote for that figure needs to be restored for the illustration to tell the truth.

• What does the opening sentence in the "Mechanics" section The primary and accessory muscles of respiration are classified differently across species mean? It is out of place, and is not followed up in any sort of way, or contribute to the understanding of "Breathing". This is a typical example of a "copy and paste" exercise from an arbitrary text without asking the question why it should be included it in the Breathing article, without any further elaboration.

• Almost none of your edits are referenced. And the one or two that are there, refer to pointless and inappropriate comments. The references that occur in the article are left-overs from edits made by previous editors. Your comment that you are exempt from providing references because your statements are "easily citable", leaves me flabbergasted! This is inexcusably arrogance, especially since none of the items listed above as being erroneous can be backed up by any reputable reliable sources.

• In the “Birds” section of the Gas exchange article you changed “cross-current” blood flow through the gas exchanger to “counter-current” blood flow, leaving the references that state categorically that birds have CROSS-CURRENT gas exchangers.

• On more than one occasion you removed a valid reference, and replaced it with an inappropriate “citation needed” flag.

• What does the sentence: In diazotrophs nitrogen is exchanged in denitrification and nitrogen fixation mean? “Nitrogen fixation” is the opposite of “nitrogen fixation”.

• The sentence In most fish, and a number of other aquatic animals (both vertebrates and invertebrates) that live in water contains a tautology. “Aquatic” animals live, by definition “in water”. It is a pointless clumsy edit, which was much clearer in its original form.

• You state that The lower tract includes the lower part of the larynx, the trachea, bronchi, bronchioles and pulmonary lobules that include the alveoli. How do “pulmonary lobules” fit between “bronchioles” and “alveoli”? The pulmonary lobules do indeed contain alveoli, but those alveoli that bud off from countless bronchioles.

• There are a number of stages called generations, in the branching of the airways bringing air to the respiratory surface, and these vary according to the size of the mammal. In the human the described generations are 0–16 in the conducting airways from the trachea to the respiratory bronchioles, and 17–23 in the respiratory part from the respiratory bronchioles to the alveoli. These two sentences are incomprehensible. Saying that a “stage” is called a “generation” is unhelpful, as is the comment that these stages “vary according to the size of the mammal”. It is an example of the very poor English that characterizes a great number of your edits.

• Having stated that there are 23 “generations” in the airways (of what animal?) you then proceed to give a list of the generations of airways which is only 10 items long.

• The "carina" is name given to the branch point of the trachea (actually only part of it). So your version simply states that the trachea branches at the point where it branches! Not a very useful or insightful remark. Furthermore the "carina" cannot be found in any Atlas of Anatomy, showing the trachea and bronchi.

I would have no problem with a sentence such as "The bifurcation of the trachea into the two main bronchi is called the carina", except that that is not true. The carina is the saddle-like ridge formed by the splitting of the trachea into the two main bronchi. It is of interest only to pulmonologists who are dealing with people who have inhaled a foreign body (e.g. food) which, as it falls down the trachea, lands astride the carina, and therefore goes down neither main bronchus, but partially or wholly blocks off one or both bronchi. So "carina" is not synonymous with the branching of the trachea. It is a structure only seen from inside the trachea, and is therefore not shown or named on a typical anatomical diagram of the respiratory tree. The use of the name is therefore confusing. The whole sentence should be left out, as it is of such minor anatomical, and functional concern that it hardly belongs in the lead to an article on the "Respiratory system". This advice has been studiously ignored.

• The lead of the Respiratory system article mentions that the article will cover the entire range of Biology: mammals, fish, molluscs as well as plants. It is therefore logical that the first Main heading announces which creatures will be described and discussed first. Instead the first major heading after the Introduction is labelled (unqualified) Anatomy with “Ventilatory volumes”, ”Control of ventilation”, “Mechanics of breathing”, “Gas exchange”, “Responses to low atmospheric pressures”, “Other functions of the lungs” and “Clinical significance” as subheadings! That makes no sense! "Gas exchange" is not Anatomy, or part of Anatomy as suggested by this arrangement of the headings and "subheadings"!

The next main heading after Anatomy is Other animals. Other than what animal? What is more the main heading AFTER “Other animals” is Birds followed by the next main headings: Reptiles, Amphibians, Fish, Invertebrates and Plants! This implies that Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fish and invertebrates are NOT animals! The original had Mammals is the first main heading, with “Anatomy” as the first subheading on a par with “Ventilatory volumes”, “Mechanics of breathing” etc.

I notice that this problem has been pointed out to you before under the heading "Your revert on Stomach" by Vigilius on 5 April 2017 above, without any corrective action on your part. Changing something as neat and sensible as what was there before into the mess that has now been created is nothing short of vandalism.

The list contains numerous falsehoods, misrepresentations, peculiar confusing grammar, and a total disregard for presentational neatness, and logical sequencing of facts. While the items listed above are not all equally disastrous, together they speak of an editor who has no regard for scientific truth, and the betterment of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. I call that vandalism, and will be reporting these edits as such. I have sampled some of the edits in the other articles where you have been recently and found that your style of dubious editing occurs there as well. Cruithne9 (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cruithne9, Without prejudice on the validity of the points you make above, I would like to direct you to the policy/guidance article on WP:Vandalism which in it's opening line states On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge., and later, Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful. (my emphasis) I suggest that Iztwoz's edits listed above were done as a good faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia, and any harm done was incidental, unintentional, and due to not being a subject matter expert. As you may be aware, a very large part of Wikipedia is and has been created by amateurs, in several senses of the word. They do it for love, they are not paid, and they are often not expert, but do their best based on the available material, and often imperfect understanding of the sources. In spite of these limitations, the encyclopaedia is generally improved. We have a policy to not call such people vandals, even when their efforts are counterproductive in one area, as recognition that without them the encyclopaedia would probably not exist. It is apparent to me that you have a better grounded knowledge and understanding of physiology than most people, and probably an academic background in citation procedure. This is good, and your work has greatly improved this article, but please try to be more tolerant of those who do not have your skills, but are nevertheless doing what they can to advance the project. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iztwoz, I recognise your good intentions and that you have done good work on Wikipedia, that has been recognised by other Wikipedians, but although Cruithne9 misrepresents your efforts as vandalism by Wikipedia customary standards, I understand their underlying point. You are both valuable contributors and it would be preferable if you could work together to improve articles (or if you prefer, work separately to improve different articles). Learn from each others strong points. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Pathway of Air

This is the pathway of air:
        Nose----Pharynx----Larynx----Tranchea----Bronchi----Bronchioles----Alveoli (or sacs of left and right lungs)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.121.147 (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC) 

Is there a point you wish to make? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2018

Can i please edit it because i can see a mistake and i am aJohndoegamer1211 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC) professional. Johndoegamer1211 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Anatomy

Resipiration 102.85.52.251 (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Excretory system

The excretory system is a passive biological system that removes excess, unnecessary materials from the body fluids of an organism, so as to help maintain internal chemical homeostasis and prevent damage to the body. 174.99.243.107 (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)