In case of modern muscle anatomy, it is clear what a muscle is. Although there is debat about very microscopic details. In my research I stumbled upon "anatomical structures" in pre-modern literature that have no overlapping connection with modern myology.
For instance I have a name "muscle", but the structure is not the same as the modern variant. The muscle is a structure that connects to the bone (without a tendon). While the nerve and/or tendon go through the muscle towards the insertion on the bone. This is different from modern conceptions.
Also the concept of a nerve, and a tendon is different in material, positioning, functioning and such like. This is interesting I think, but I have trouble describing this.
So if there are any views on this problem, or known literature, I hope to hear from you.
I think it has to do with words that refer to a certain entity.
Maybe I should use terms such as muscle morpology or architecture?
Mabye others have stumbled upon this problem in biological, medical, or anatomical research.
Thanks in advance.
Hi Peter,
" For instance I have a name "muscle", but the structure is not the same as the modern variant. "
Can you give an example?
Hi again.
In modern anatomy, a muscle is mainly composed of two tissues: muscle tissue and fibrous-connective tissue which is called tendons or aponeurosis depending on the muscle which you mention. So tendons are part of the muscle, not separate structures. Tendons are not contractile but muscle tissue is contractile. Muscle tissue builds force with contractile fibers and this force is transmitted to skeleton (thus joints) by tendons.
If you mean entitling the muscles you're right, there is no standard. Some muscle entitled due to their functions (m pronator teres), some muscles entitled due to location (m. tibialis posterior), some muscles entitled due to its shape (mm. rhomboidea) etc.
So muscles are composed of striated-muscle tissue and connective tissue (tendons).
I hope this may help you.
Best wishes
Perhaps it is simpler to consider that our modern anatomical structures are informed by our modern understanding of the body, its structure and the purpose of the parts of that structure. This is a very small (micro?) part of the modern world view. Previous understandings of anatomy, muscles, their structure, functions and purposes are connected to older views of world. Work by Latour, Foucault and even Hacking has suggested how we can gain an insight into other perspectives on the world by understanding how their adherents understand similar structures - whether the body, the mind, or the cosmos. I hope this helps a bit.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Anatomy