Talk:Fetus
|
|
Note on the spelling - the spelling of foetus/fetus came up when I was at medical school (in Australia, so no US bias here).
"Fetus" is derived from the latin root "fetus", this can be verified in any dictionary, British, American or otherwise. The pseudo-greek spelling (OE) is an error introduced by some English authors in the 19th century which seems to have stuck. There is no etymological justification for it whatsoever, and it is simply incorrect usage. I'm a diehard preserver of British/American distinctions, but in this case the American usage is actually the ONLY correct one. - MMGB
The thing is that once a variant gets used enough, it becomes an acceptable alternate form, even if its original justification was erroneous. M-W lists foetus as a chiefly British variant, so I don't think it's fair for us to call it incorrect. And no, that doesn't mean I like it or encourage its use.
Yeah - it depends on "who gets to make the call". The medical community explicitly forbids the usage of "foetus" - neither the Lancet (British) or the NEJM will permit its use in an article. No medical textbook uses it either. By this standard, it can be deemed "incorrect". IF you want to use a wider standard, then you could argue that "ain't" is correct as well. It depends on where you draw the line. - MMGB
If the medical community (including the British English medical community) says it is incorrect, then I'd say its incorrect. I like maintaining Britishisms (at least whenever they happen to be Australianisms as well) -- but I also am a slave to the opinions of scientific experts :) -- SJK
Speaking as a Briton, I see no reason to continue a widespread spelling mistake just because it's a British mistake. "Fetus" is a technical term so if the British Medical Association say "foetus" is wrong then it's wrong and the correct spelling is "fetus" no matter what the rest of the population may believe. Good British dictionaries such as Chambers or the OED point out the etymological problem even though they list the incorrect spelling Likewise a British encyclopedia such as Macmillan's has an entry for "foetus", but it just says "See fetus". I suggest that we do something similar but adding the point about the bad etymology on the "foetus" page. -- [[User:Derek Ross]
Regarding EdPoor's deletion of the sentence about the etymology: Ed - I'm sorry, I completely disagree, this is perfectly valid information and belongs on the fetus page, hence I replaced the single sentence dealing with the spelling issue. Each time I have posted I have noted that this should only be a sidenote, and that the main article needs substantial work. It's unfortunate that at the moment this sentence about the etymology exceeds the length of the rest of the article, but the information is still valid and relevant. - MMGB
Definition wrong somewhere
The definition of human fetus given here is at variance with the definition given at embryo. This needs to be fixed. AxelBoldt 19:38 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
- I agree. In embryo it says that a human embryo becomes a fetus at 8 weeks. Here it says 3 months. Also here it says that a fetus is an embryo, in the embryo definition it says that an embryo ceases to be an embryo when it becomes a fetus. We need consistency here. Any embryologists out there who can sort out the definitions properly?--84.231.87.71 17:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
True or false??
True or false: "fetus" is the American spelling and "foetus" is the Canadian spelling. 66.245.29.135 00:22, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I believe this is part true. From what I've heard, "foetus" is the general spelling in British English, Australian English, and Canadian English (and maybe some others). Interestingly, it appears that "foetus" is a technically incorrect spelling according to Fetus#Etymology and spelling variations and elsewhere. --Diberri | Talk 00:27, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
- All publications in the UK spell it "Fetus" and I'd think it's the same in Canada. I always felt that it had the O because of my dislike of americanisms, but all the textbooks spell it without. violet/riga 09:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sorry if I added a link which turned out to be inappropriate. Will see if I can find something less POV! The main article seems to need a good deal of work, as there is currently an overemphasis on the circulatory aspects and little on the general development of the fetus. Also I agree with Derek about the Fetus spelling, I think it is common to find it with an O in the UK, but _not_ in medical texts. Sarah the poet 08:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)