Talk:Thumb/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removed

Removed the "theorized evoluion", "according to evolution theory" and other nonsense. It is implicitly understood that all scientific theories are theories. Yet we don't talk about 'round-earth theory', do we?

If there is any scientific evidence against either evolution or the oblate spheroidness of the earth, I'd like to hear them.

Emphasizing that evolution is "just a theory" makes us (WP) seem like some backwater pamphlet published by the wellmeaning-but-dim local pastor.

Finally, the name 'Homo Sapiens' is not according to evolution theory - the name was coined long before evolution was discovered.

Is a thumb a finger?

Finger is a realative term much like arm. An octopus could have 8 arms or 8 legs or 4 arms with 4 legs, there is no difference as they are all just limbs in the end. Scientifically we need ways to distinguish ambiguities like this so in humans we define upper limbs and lower limbs (or anterior and posterior limbs). So a finger is a digit and a thumb is a digit too, we have 5 digits, problem solved. Thumb and finger just remain as unclear common names for the digits located on our anterior limbs.

After all, the thumb forms a natural counterpart to the rest of the fingers in that it helps holding things by pressing them against the other fingers. I agree totally with you. Dieter Simon 00:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone please mention the two phenotypes (I might mean genotype, I'm not sure) or types of thumbs: the type that stays straight, and the type that bends backwards.

Panda

Somebody please explain which kind of Panda bear this article is referring to. There's more than one kind of Panda you know, and I doubt the small red Panda has opposable thumbs. And if he does please say so too. Bernalj90 01:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Red Panda is a panda by name only, it is not related to the big white fella. It's a racoon, basically. Might still merit some clarification ... but in zoology the red panda is considered to be "incorrectly" named. Perhaps sticking the latin name in would help, I'll leave it to someone better qualified in anatomy and zoology than me! 90.195.131.159 13:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)BC

Images

Must there be TWO images of the "Thumbs Up?" The article only needs one of these images. The only reason for a second image would be to label the name of each finger, perhaps signaling out the thumb. BuildingBridges 07:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thumb a finger?

I digress that the thumb isn't a finger. Please edit the first paragraph to conform to such. Is there any new evidence I've missed that may explain this part of the article? --Andrex 16:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I usually say that a human has five fingers. "Evidence"? Heh, I think it's more a matter of definition. ;) -- Northgrove 20:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• The quoted graph on this subject, in the current revision, is not required

to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea

and thus probably not an instance of being "acceptable under 'fair use' " per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text. I am paraphrasing it (preserving the attribution of the opinions).

--Jerzy•t 17:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Focusing on the ideas of that quote clarified for me how unencyclopedic the section was overall, and how disingenuously clueless the author of the quote is, in pretending to knowledgably arbitrate between two unsound essentialist PoVs. The view on "finger" expressed by his popular-amusement book is not encyclopedic; what would be is coverage of who among serious thinkers held each of the two contending views he presents, and who, especially since Origin of Species, led the way in making fools of both of those sides by treating the linguistic issues while clarifying the inadequacy of trying to explain nature by assuming essences and refusing to do any science that could show that essences of the sort that pre-scientific philosophers came up with are about as rare as hens' teeth.
  --Jerzy•t 21:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  

Thumb is a finger or digit. no doubt about that within scientific community. digit is latin derrived word (digitus). and polex (latin) = thumb is digitus primus in human anathomy. check ANY academic anathomy to confirm my words. (Sobotta, Grey, Reicher, Sinelnikov, Thieme) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinbarkit (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Creationism

"Others dismiss this explanation and explain the development of the thumb as: 'God did it.'"

Someone deleted the above sentence. Why? Evolution v. Creation is a highly controversial topic and I see no reason why 1 sentence giving the perspective of creationism cannot exist among the many giving the evolutionist perspective. - MC24

Then you should explain your statement within the connotation of this Evolution-versus-Creationism controversy, and not just make a bald assertion assuming everyone will understand it. This is an encyclopaedia and we have readers of all persuasions, all our articles need to be as neutral as possible, thus giving opinions of either camp. Dieter Simon 00:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I agree with Jake Lancaster, I was just going to delete the statement he removed, myself. This is an encyclopaedia which is honestly trying to describe a natural science concept. Dieter Simon 14:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But the point is, you're trying to describe it just ONE way when there is a sizable number of people who have a separate view. This is supposed to be NPOV. It isn't fair to just give one view and say you're "honestly" trying to inform the reader. That's honest according to your POV, but not an honest assessment of the multitude of views that exist. Informing the reader as to another sizably held POV in just 1 sentence is not too much to ask. I'm not even asking for "equal time." Just 1 sentence reflecting the views of millions when discussing a contentious issue is entirely appropriate. - MC24

What you are suggesting has nothing to do with natural sciences. You should know that this is not , repeat not a religious or theological article; this is a natural science article. You are free to introduce what you are advocating in articles which discuss the theological side of creationism. You are free to do so, nobody is stopping you. It is quite incongruous in an article of any of the sciences, whatever they are.

However, if I may refer you to the main discussion relating to Evolution, of which your thoughts are part, please see Wikireason where a general discussion is taking place.

Dieter Simon 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Dieter Simon 02:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Opposable Thumb

Can someone explain what is meant by 'opposable' thumb?

Thank you, Emerick53 14:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)emerick53

The thumb is the only digit on the human hand which is able to oppose or turn back against the other four fingers, and thus enables the hand to refine its grip too hold objects which it would be unable to do otherwise. Just imagine holding a glass when drinking, a pencil or any other of item of limited size without the thumb forcing the item back against the other fingers. Just try to hold a glass of water without the thumb, you can see what is meant by opposable. Dieter Simon 21:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the thing about opposable thumbs evolving in homo habilis because if chimps have them I would imagine early humans did too. ~ Feel free to revert if you think I made a mistake. Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears chimps don't have opposable thumbs. Have re-entered section with three sources. Dieter Simon 23:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember talking to an anthropologist several years ago about the opposable thumbs, and he stated that simple opposition is not unique to humans, but that our ability to oppose our thumbs against the sides of our fingers is, and is more responsible for our fine motor control. I'm not well-versed on this subject, however, and I could be misremembering, and even if I'm not it could be non-universally accepted among anthropologists. I'd love it if an actual expert could clarify this notion with some appropriate citations. 64.203.237.248 (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have hitchikers thumb

I'm not double jointed but can easily (non-forcefully) bend my thumb backwards. I've also noticed that my thumbs are cannot squeeze hard. Curious if anybody else has the same?--Improfane 15:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Toe Thumb

There is a genetic condition where the final bone in the thumb is broader than normal and resembles a toe. I have been unable to find much information about this condition. It can affect one or both thumbs and may or may not be coupled with hitchiker's thumb. Does anyone have additional information that could be added? I have been unable to find any sources so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.212.34 (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article claims that the opposable thumb evolved with the H. habilis (or erectus), yet in the next section it does onto detail the various apes that also have opposable thumbs/toes. I think there needs to be some further clarification here. 203.173.147.170 00:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified the claim. I also found the following, but I'm not sure where to incorporate it into the article. But one of the things that Lucy did not have was the ability to move the pinky side of the hand toward the thumb. We've all been trained and conditioned to think of ourselves as having a hand that's unique because we have an opposable thumb. Well, in fact, we are not remotely the first species to have an opposable thumb. What we do have that no other hominid has is an opposable pinky and ring finger. [1] --Vrmlguy (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the thumb is a finger! It IS a finger, not JUST a digit! --User:Hagaraiseiji (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2009

Bad Picture

The picture of Hitchhiker's thumbs is not very good. The owner of the thumbs is forcing the joints. I can get just as much bending without external application of force. I know a much better picture is possible. Whether it's worth anyone's time, I do not know.

- Misha

216.254.12.114 (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Apposable vs Opposable

As nearly as I can tell, apposable and opposable are alternative spellings of the same word. Someone changed one section to use the former when refering to other animals with thumbs or thumb-like appendages, and left the latter spelling when refering to humans. Google turns up no other place where that usage occurs, so I'm reverting to one spelling throughout the article. --Vrmlguy (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

I understand how an "In Popular Culture" section for thumbs could get completely out of hand (pun not intended). However, perhaps a mention of Tom Robbins' Even Cowgirls Get the Blues? The thumb is a pivotal element of symbolism in the relatively well-known book. Billy beluga (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is there is no mention of things like "Thumbs Up" or "THumbs down" or biting your thumb in shakespeare or thumbing your nose at some one. 72.243.192.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC).

The palmar aspect of the thumb: what is it?

User:Fama Clamosa has added the following para in the section "As one of five digits, and as companion to four fingers":

• Opposition and apposition — two movements unique to the thumb — are not synonyms. Opposition is when the palmar aspect of the thumb is brought into contact with the fifth digit (little finger); apposition is when the thumb is approximated to another digit not using the palmar aspect. [2]

Can this be somewhat clarified? I take it when the non-palmar aspect of the thumb is offered up to the any of the others fingers, it is tucked under the finger(s)singularly or similar to a clenched fist but the thumb tucked inside all the fingers? Is that then apposition you mentioned? Dieter Simon (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no, I guess. The reference is somewhat unclear in the second line below:[2]

Opposition

Thumb: approximation of the palmar aspect of the thumb and fifth digit

Apposition

Thumb: approximation between the thumb and other digit not using the palmar aspect

I suppose they mean the palmar aspect of any digit.

Furthermore, these two words are used differently elsewhere. Often a distinction is made between "[incomplete] opposability" and [true] opposability (i.e. human opposability). For example, Napier and Napier defines it:

"A movement by which the pulp surface of the thumb is placed squarely in contact with - or diametrically opposite to - the terminal pads of one or all of the remaining digits". While an opposable thumb is one of the hallmarks of humans, it is not unique to the species. What is unique to Homo sapiens sapiens is the broad area of the contact achieved between the compressible pulps of the index finger and thumb. Not all primates are capable of opposing their thumbs.[3]

So according to the first reference, opposition always involves the little finger and the palmar aspect of the thumb. Which makes sense since these two digits have two muscles named for this movement (opponens pollicis and opponens digiti minimi). As far as I can tell, a clenched fist is definitely neither apposition or opposition but holding something with the hand in a similar position is. Most definitions would agree the palmar aspect of the thumb must be involved for the opposition to be "true"; other primates can have the tip of their thumbs touch some of the other digits but are not able to use this for a firm grip, but this fact is often ignored by [human] anatomists. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess all this was to say I agree the article needs clarification. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded and modified this part of the article. Hopefully things are more clear/detailed now. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the entire paragraph on opposition/apposition should be moved to a separate section? Looking at the article and redirects such as opposable and opposable thumb, there is perhaps even enough information for a new separate article on opposability? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you have added a lot to this article and it is very much appreciated. You certainly elucidate things, especially since you are citing good sources in your explanations. The only problem is, moving the paragraph of the opposition/apposition section needs to be well linked to this article, so that it still appears as a part of the subject "thumb" over all. What do you think, could that be done? Dieter Simon (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. A lot of articles mention "opposable" (but only a few articles actually link to it) and, for example, dinosaurs' digits can be opposable [first digits] without being "thumbs" (human definition). So a separate article makes sense. On the other hand, as you said, the thumb article can hardly be written without describing opposability, and I'm not sure Opposability can be written without a lengthy description of the thumb. I guess my preferred solution is (1) a separate section on opposability in this article and (2) redirects directly to that section. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I made opposition/apposition a separate section and redirected a number of pages to that section. If the section grows large enough, it can now easily be exported to a separate article. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, many thanks. Dieter Simon (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"The thumb contrasts with each of the other four by being the only finger that..."

The subject sentence, found within the Definition section, implies that the thumb is a finger. Apparently, the thumb is not a finger (according to a few paragraphs prior). Perhaps the word "finger" should be changed to "digit"?

69.245.179.230 (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"The thumb contrasts with each of the (other) four by being the only finger that...is opposable"

Opposable redirects to this article. The "Opposable thumbs" section states that "An animal species is said to have opposable thumbs if the thumb is capable of bending in such a way that it can touch all the other digits on the hand." Farther down in the article is the statement that "The thumb contrasts with each of the (other) four by being the only finger that...is opposable". If opposability refers to a digit with the ability to touch all the other digits on that hand, then a quick personal test demonstrates to me that all human fingers are opposable (I know that different people have different ranges of motion, so this may not be 100% true, but I suspect it is widespread). I think either the definition of opposability needs to be clarified, or this statement needs to be removed. cmadler (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is indeed a bad mess. To my knowledge, 'true' opposability refers to the ability to bring the distal pads of two fingers together, and most humans can bring the thumb into opposition to all other fingers. Chimpanzees, on the other hand, can bring thumb and index finger into contact, but are not able to oppose their distal pads. The best definition I've found is this:

Napier and Napier define opposition as: "A movement by which the pulp surface of the thumb is placed squarely in contact with - or diametrically opposite to - the terminal pads of one or all of the remaining digits". While an opposable thumb is one of the hallmarks of humans, it is not unique to the species. What is unique to Homo sapiens sapiens is the broad area of the contact achieved between the compressible pulps of the index finger and thumb. Not all primates are capable of opposing their thumbs. The necessary movement for true opposability is the rotation of the about its own long axis. Without this rotation the movement of the thumb towards the palm is a form of pseudo-opposability where pulp-to-pulp contact of the thumb and digits is not possible.
"Primates FAQ: Do any primates have opposable thumbs?". primates.com.

The article really needs some clean-up. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

But since we say that the birds' feet- the 1st digit- is opposable, why should we argue on that of primates? Sky6t (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Other animals with opposable digits

No mention there of squirrels, though they do have thumbs, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squirrel. But I do not know if theirs are opposable or not --Julien Demade (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Redundant references

I removed the following sentence from the article because it is sort of a no-brainer. It would be useful if it described a specific property in primate thumbs, but it adds virtually nothing to the article. The link is a 404 but the same source can be found here: [4]. Primate dexterity is better described elsewhere in the article, so we can do without this. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The thumb, in conjunction with the other fingers, makes human hands and those of other species with similar hands some of the most dexterous in the world.

Chaisson, Eric J. (2007). "Cosmic Evolution — Epoch 6 - Biological Evolution". Tufts University. Retrieved April 26, 2007.{{dead link}}

I also removed the following not obviously helpful statements from the same section. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The opposable thumb has helped the human species develop more accurate fine motor skills. It is also thought to have directly led to the development of tools, not just in humans or their evolutionary ancestors, but other primates as well. The opposable thumb ensured that important human functions such as writing were possible.

"Lesson Plans — Chimps, Humans, Thumbs, and Tools". National Geographic. 2006. Retrieved April 26, 2007.

Damonte, Kathleen (February 2004). "Thumbs Are Handy Digits". National Science Teachers Association: Science & Children: The Elementary Science Classroom. Retrieved April 26, 2007. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Opposable thumb

It redirects here, but this article does a poor job at explaining this concept. Also, can somebody stub Opposable big toe? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hitchhiker's thumb

The reading says that no Hitchhiker's thumb has no ill-effect on the thumb's function. I don't believe that. I have Hitchhiker's thumb, and often times, when I grasp something, I bend my thumb way back. Us441 (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact this entire section appears to be bullshit... but I'm not much a wikipedia-er so I'm not going to edit the article. Apparently this is a common genetic myth: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/myththumb.html --67.180.189.139 (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the only evidence for it being a recessive trait is http://omim.org/entry/274200 this article from 1953. I'm going to edit the section to make it a bit more balanced. Nickopops (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"First" finger/digit

Is it accurate and objective to call the thumb the "first" finger/digit on the hand? How do we define what is first? My thumb can be first on my right had if I am looking at the back and counting from the left to right, is this really what it means or is there some more scientific meaning behind the word "first" used here. If so, shouldn't it be better defined? 114.199.56.170 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Evolution of The Human Thumb

First, this article could be improved by taking a more in depth look at anatomical differences between modern humans and their distant primate relatives. Modern humans are unique in the musculature of their forearm and hand. Yet, they remain autapomorphic, meaning each muscle is found in one or more non-human primates. The extensor pollicis brevis and flexor pollicis longus allow modern humans to have great manipulative skills and strong flexion in the thumb.

Secondly, this article has a very clear depiction that bipedalism evolved after and maybe a result of “busy hands.” However, there are several studies that support the exact opposite. That walking allowed hands to become free for other activities and as a result hand movements became more complex. The complex movements then in turn made stone technology possible.

Lastly, the article could have expanded on the evolutionary history of the thumb. Chorba.12 (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)chorba.12Chorba.12 (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of birds in reptile section?

Given recent scientific advancements, it seems likely that birds are, phylogenetically, reptiles, so I propose that we fuse the two sections here. Regardless of how the section is divided, it seems a bit silly to me to include two paravians in one section, and another group in another. Thetorterra (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetorterra (talk • contribs) 22:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Doubtful Distinction Between Power and Precision Grips

Not everyone who can write can use that grip. I write with lateral grips and have never had any control with dynamic grips. 108.48.94.155 (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)