Note: Various muscle lists have different sets of names: the muscle names listed appear in at least two of the three sources cited. Some of these names may be multiple names for the same muscle, and there may well be many muscles or other names missed out from this list.
Contributors with medical knowledge are invited to fix this, and contribute articles for individual muscles. The Anome 15:40 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Isn't it true that you cannot copyright an alphabetic list (as in the first part of this article), but you CAN copyright an organized category scheme (as in the second part of this article), since it adds value and someone's original opinions to the list of objects? Gray's Anatomy is still being published, and they'd probably hold the rights to using their system of grouping and organizing the muscular system. GUllman 17:25 21 May 2003 (UTC)
There are probably not many absurdities that the copyright laws of, uh, some North American country would not allow - still I believe that such a category scheme may not be copyrightable. After all, it reflects anatomical facts that have mostly been known for centuries. Although every anatomy book may present the facts (groups of muscles) in a slightly different way, the facts themselves are determined by biology, not by human thinking. It is a matter of discovery, not invention. Kosebamse 17:38 21 May 2003 (UTC)
I guess I was thinking of compilation copyright... The 3-way fact checking acts as an error check, so only generally accepted names get into the list, and should also eliminate any idiosyncratic copyrightable "creative expression" from the output, if the sources are independent. I know about Feist v. Rural, but that may not apply everywhere. The category scheme is from an out-of-copyright edition of Gray's Anatomy. The Anome
Which raises the question whether such a scheme, if it were copyrighted, would remain so if still used in more recent editions. I just don´t know. Kosebamse 17:55 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Re: point of having muscle in the title
Is there a need to have the word muscle in the wiki? Most of these words are unambiguous. I reckon that teres major muscle, or just teres major is better. Tristanb
I've removed muscle from inside the wikis. Tristanb 23:16 23 May 2003 (UTC)
ANy reason why 'muscle' was put back? -- Tarquin 09:44 28 May 2003 (UTC)
Ah. thanks. I'll quote that here for future reference. -- Tarquin 13:00 28 May 2003 (UTC)
-----------------
There is, to my knowledge, only one human muscle whose proper anatomical name is single-worded (the platysma, but I may have overlooked some others). Of course you could refer to any other muscle as, say, "the biceps", and that is often done in clinical slang, but it is just that: slang. In a textbook or lexicon, you would always find it as "biceps brachii muscle" or in Latin, "musculus biceps brachii".
Some muscles are known in common language by single-word names, such as the biceps or a few others that are of relevance to athletes, such as the serratus.
This is, however, where confusion starts, as there is indeed another biceps, the biceps femoris, and there are two different serratus muscles.
IMO the clean solution would be to have entries for such popular things as "biceps" under single-word names, but these must then redirect to a page with the proper anatomical name (which is BTW "biceps brachii muscle", not "biceps brachii (muscle)" as I am sure some would suggest). Less popular things should stay unter their anatomical names and not require any redirects.
There are three "serratus" muscles; Serratus anterior, Serratis Posterior Superior and Serratus Posterior inferior. There are also many muscles whose true nomenclature within the anatomical lexicon is a singular word, such as Longissimus along the spine, Brachioradialis between the arm and forearm and Procerus on the nose to name three.
As to your main argument that two pages should be made for each muscle, one under the title of the common name, and another under the anatomical name is ridiculous. All the information within the pages would be identical, so why not just redirect the common name to the single page? Enough with your idiotic sentiment. Never grace us again with your presence.
----------------
Apparently missing are muscles of the male and female reproductive systems, especially the myometrium (uterine muscle), as well as other nonskeletal muscles such as the arrector pili.
"ABDOMEN", under "muscles of the trunk" does not point to the article on the -human- abdomen. I can't figure out how to correct this myself. 84.12.83.24920:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Seventh-Monkey
I don't quite know how. But could someone change these 'info' boxes so they have a larger easier to read font? I have a 20" LCD monitor, and they are almost unreadable with 20/20 vision.
Does anyone have one of those human muscle images
Where they show most of the human muscles in one picture? Because I was looking for that one picture when I came to this article. Would be a nice addition to this article. -Iopq13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Splitting and scope
I have reverted changes that have removed most of the content of this comprehensive list of muscles in human body. Having a comprehensive single-page list of muscles of human body is IHMO worthwhile. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Sternalis?
I like the idea of this list. When I searched the article text I could not find reference to the sternalis muscle. Is this not included here because it is a rare variant? A recent study in Clin Anat reports an incidence of only 8%.[1]
I have tried very hard to organise the content here, but a lot of it has been around for many years and I'm not sure what original sources it was derived from, so please feel free to add any missing muscles, I am sure it would be much appreciated by other users! --LT910001 (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on List of skeletal muscles of the human body. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Capitalisation of names? And English vs. Latin names
Have just fixed quite a few errors in the first few tables, some origins and insertions were mixed up. Few questions; I think there should be more consistency in terms of capitalisation across the whole page, should we capitalise all the names, or since the majority are lowercase, opt for that? Most tables of muscles I've seen capitalise, but I'm not sure whether this is because they're names or because they're the first letter, how do grammar and anatomy intersect here?? Also there's a bit of a mix of English and Latin names, are we siding more with English or Latin? e.g. 'levator labii superior' or 'levator labii superioris' ? 'Galea aponeurotica' or 'epicranial aponeurosis'? Harveyjamesm (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
oh and before I forget, there's an extra-ocular muscle mentioned in here, the 'superior tarsal' which I can't kind any mention of in the textbook I have to hand, and the wikipedia article for it describes it as a smooth muscle. Arguably, it shouldn't be in this table if it's smooth? Harveyjamesm (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
In previous copyediting, I have opted to stick with mostly lowercase for consistency and ease of reading, although there is no Wikipedia policy to back this up (so I'd be happy to reconsider if there are more opinions). Ironically, original Latin only capitalises proper nouns, so most Latin terms for muscles are best left with no capitalisation at all. English is a different question, and some consider each row in a table the beginning of a new sentence or clause and so capitalisation is preferred.
For naming, it's probably best to stick to WP:COMMONNAME, so sticking to listed article names is a good bet most of the time. I think that most terms already follow this.
Regarding the Superior tarsal muscle, it's a little oddity! It's unusual in being a smooth muscle that controls a significant external feature (the height of the eyelid), and loss of this muscle does have a noticeable drooping effect on the eye - I would opt to keep it in because of its synergistic role with Levator palpebrae superioris muscle.
Hello everyone! I've been significantly involved in copyediting this article. I wanted to raise a few points about general principles I have been following (most of which are not mentioned in WP:MEDMOS).
Avoiding the word "the". When repeated in lots of boxes, it takes up space and is visual clutter (per WP:CONCISE).
Not using the term "muscle" when naming muscles - the article is about these muscles, so particularly the left-most column does not need to repeat this. Again, it removes visual clutter (per WP:CONCISE).
Using the terms "artery" and "nerve" when appropriate. To a general glance, it is important that these terms are not mixed up (particularly when an artery and a nerve could possibly share a name, per WP:PRECISE). This is important as they are in middle columns next to each other.
Using the term "bone" only if the article name uses it (so "humerus" does not need it, but "sphenoid bone" does, per WP:COMMONNAME).
Merging cells vertically where possible - if 2 ore more muscles share an origin, insertion, artery, nerve, or function, I merge the cells. This further reduces visual clutter (per WP:CONCISE), and can be helpful for linking muscles into groups. As the list is split into so many subgroups, there is never an instance where merging of more than 5 cells (vertically) occurs.
Naming muscle actions in active present tense ("flexes forearm" rather than "flexion of forearm" or "forearm flexion"). These terms tend to be shorter and more concise (per WP:CONCISE), as well as the terms generally used in article infoboxes (per WP:COMMONNAME).
I hope that this is helpful to others who are copyediting. If there are any queries or suggested changes, this will be welcomed. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
These appear to contain duplicated information, and it would be more useful to have them on a single article. This is part of a project on WP:ANATOMY to standardise and de-fragment the numerous articles relating to the organisation of anatomical features on Wikipedia. LT910001 (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I have completed a merge of this article from its sub-articles. Having the information in two places had led to significant duplication and, essentially, no benefit - both lists were, in places, more updated than their respective counterparts. Having two articles divides the editing load, and means that the sub-articles have a greatly decreased amount of editing and quality-control, and additionally leads to a divided effort that could be better spent editing other articles. I have done my best to merge them back a single list and wikify the page. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there any regit logic behind the locational sub division of muscles? would it make sense to make a family tree structure from which one could derrive e. g.' Upper limb, Hand, Intermediate' so that one would kind of know where to be looking? when searching for certain muscles in the long tables? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
We tried merging all the tables and sub articles on the page into a long list. But this made some issues evident that we should properly address, the following:
Something funky is happening with having both rhomboid major, rhomboid minor and then one called rhomboids kind of containing the two.
might be something around extensor digitorum vs the brevis and Longus, Same goes for longissimus vs. longissimus capitis, longus capitis and longus colli. As well as transversus, transversus abdominis and transversus perinei profundus etc.
It is very confusing that only an s makes the difference between lumbrical and lumbricals, and one is on the foot and one on the hand. Is this really how it is?
What is the strange thing happening around the indend of: pectineus, psoas major, psoas minor, rectus femoris, rhomboid major, rhomboid minor
Might also be something at: orbicularis oculi, lacrimal part |orbicularis oculi, orbital part | orbicularis oculi, palpebral part but they might also be okay as they are? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Assuring consistency and sortability
Now that all the tables are on the same format, and almost all of them have been merged into 1 table we need to somehow systematically go trough them and check that the naming conventions in all the column categories are keepts. so that everyone can also benefit fully from the sortability of them. As well as remove all dublicates. How do we best go about doing that? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Draft for New Sortable list
I Tried taking the first 15 entries from multiple different tables to see, if this format works. What do you guys thing? do you think we hit any of the above discussed problems? and is there a kind of spreedsheet function somehow in wiki which allows one to sum different rows and update them in accordance with how the user choose to sort them?
I understand the argument that this is harder to look at for someone who sees it from the first time. But the current system is worse for updating and comparing to other lists. Is there a golden 3 option which we have not yet considered?
I think having empty rows just makes the table twice as long and twice as hard to navigate. These empty rows aren't presenting any useful information or links, and they're redundant with the number of occurrences column (and my proposed count column). The empty rows do makes the count increment by 1, so that "wiki nr" and the count coincide, but I think most people will be able to figure out that the count going up by 2 means there are two muscles of that name, left and right. And it is left/right bilateral symmetry we are talking about, the "1/2" numbering is just confusing as it suggests that there might be a "muscle 3" for some muscles (which there isn't).
It would be possible to have both the number of occurrences and the count, but it is easy to determine the number of occurrences by subtracting the previous row's count from the current row's count, so the number of occurrences is kind of redundant. In contrast, it quite tedious to sum up all of the numbers of occurrences in a table, so the count is actually quite useful. (It is a bit hard to add a new muscle and change all the counts, but the list of muscles changes very infrequently).
Also, a minor nit regarding your sample table, but there are standardized names for each muscle, e.g. it is not "Rectus muscles - superior" but rather simply "Superior rectus". Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I guess though, it would make sense to include a "left/right" in the location column, e.g. "Eye, extraocular (left/right)" for superior rectus. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Dear Mathnerd314159, That is some very good feedback. I highly appriciate it. Can you try to make a table with the 15 first entries as you imagine it? I think it will be eaiser to visualise and build onto if you provide an example table. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
If you like it I'll just do the whole page. Note that I reworded some of the descriptions so they are more sortable, and split apart the orbicularis oculi muscle into its parts. I also added some CSS so the header is sticky, it seems a lot more usable that way. The templates are all called with Covid19, they are from COVID-19 pandemic deaths, but per T42763 / Help:Table#Scrolling_and_sticky_headers they are the most up-to-date / accessible / mobile-friendly method. When that issue is resolved maybe there will be a cleaner way to do it.
I am not sure about the antagonist column. For the eye, there are not many antagonists listed, and looking at the page in general it seems the majority of muscles do not have antagonists. Is the antagonist column worth including or not? Someone who wants to know could figure them out from the table by reasoning about the muscle actions ("oh, adducting and flexing the toe are opposite actions, therefore the flexor hallucis brevis and adductor hallucis must be antagonistic muscles"), and of course the antagonists are listed on the individual pages.
Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
General:
That is beautiful, The scrolability of the table make it take up so much less space from the general page. I also love what you did in the location coloumn. I am not sure what the fractions mean in the count section? It is nothing major, but it is a bit annoying that the count does not automatically update when you press one of the sorting arrows. But after a little bit of googleing around i also cannot find a good way to do it. The list on this format is defeneatly also easier to compare to other lists :)))))))
About the number of muscle types:
When I see the table like this I am still missing the wiki nr enum. coloum(it should properly have a different name though), because even though this table structure give me great knowlage about how many muscles there is in total. I am lacking the number of types of muslce. I feel like if I where trying to artifically tissue engineer muscles the number og types of musles might also be very usefull to have.
Good to know with the antagonists, I guess there's a lot of work to do on that front. Regarding the numbers, from your statement "it is a bit annoying that the count does not automatically update when you press one of the sorting arrows", I think you might like the static row numbers? These are just a numbering of the rows of the table that doesn't change on sorting. With those included, it's making me rethink whether the count is useful, as with a "number of occurrences" column someone can simply import the table into Excel and sum up the number to get the count of muscles. But since e.g. we split the occipitofrontalis muscle, we also need a column for that, so as to compare with Terminologia Anatomica. So for example, for the Orbicularis oculi orbital part, there would be 2 occurrences (in the standard human body (note that this allows easily rare muscles, as occurences 0), and then the Orbicularis oculi in Terminologia Anatomica has 3 parts, so the "Number of entries in relevant TA muscle" column would be 3. The fractions I had before come up when you're trying to count the muscles (and compare with the 650 estimate in the lead) - the Orbicularis oculi orbital contributes 2/3 to the total muscle count (since I think that estimate follows TA). I'm not sure what to name the "Number of entries in relevant TA muscle" column, maybe it's not actually necessary if we aren't trying to follow TA. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I where not fammiliar with the static row numbers, they do look like a very good solution. I also think that you are absolutely right that a 'number of occurrences' row where the number does not sum up with the previous row then make more sense.
In 'But since e.g. we split the occipitofrontalis muscle, we also need a column for that, so as to compare with Terminologia Anatomica.' I am still not sure what that referes to sorry? is it a "Number of entries in relevant TA muscle" column or something else?
Is it really a problem that rare muscle can have occurences: 0 . One could not is at 0|1, 0-1 or 0~1 to show that it is 0 to one, or? I kind of see it more of an advantage that the table can also show this nuance.
Maybe I am a little slow, but I still do not understand how the fractions help count the total number of muscles? or how the Orbicularis oculi orbital counts for 2/3=0.666 muscles? but maybe I am misreading what the fractoins are denoting? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, when evaluating the statement "there are 650 skeletal muscles in the human body", there's debates on how to count muscles. I think Terminologia Anatomica (TA) is probably the best source as to what constitutes a single muscle. But in my presentation there are multiple rows for some TA muscles, like the occipitofrontalis and orbicularis oculi muscles, so I just assign those rows fractional weights. I think you have shown that it is kind of confusing, so I guess that column should indeed be omitted. So this is the final table:
Looking at both I Think the one with the TA enteries column is better, we could also short the header for the column to 'Relevant TA enteries' and then make a seperate table in the bottom of the page explaning each header. So that people who are just learning how it all works or who want to be regit can look up and compare and update. But all in all yes I would say that we are ready to start converting :)
Header
Explanation
Muscle
The name of the muscle in Lating
Location
The location of the Muscle in a standard human body
Origin
one end of a muscle, ussaly where it attaches to a bone.
Insertion
If the bone that the msucle is attachted to remains immobile for an action, the attachment is called an origin. However if the place is on the bone that can move(e. g.) during the action, the attachment point is called an insertion.
Artery
The artery which supply the muslce with Blood
Nerve
The nerve which tells the muslce when to act
Action
The thing that the muscle enables the body to do
Antagonist
The muscle which can 'cancel' or to some degree reverse the action of the muscle
Occurences
Number of times that the muscle occurs in a standard human body
I started looking up a bunch of muscles and thier antagonists, most of them are really kind of part of a group of muscles that have to act together to cancle or outdo other groups of muscle, rather then just an individual muscle. I wonder if it makes sense to have a 'muscle synergy group' column or if it is better to just add them in a () Parenthesis in those muscles where it is relevant, the latter is properly better because not all muscles are part of muscle groups. Then I would maybe add: 'The muscle which can 'cancel' or to some degree reverse the action of the muscle(Here we have also in parentathis noted to muscle syngery group when relevant)' to the description table hmm... Claes Lindhardt (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I added location to all the muscles in the head. Maybe we could start by integreating all the muscles in the head into one table consistent with the structure we have arrived at so far, and then slowly work our way down from there? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
It seems like you removed some of the antagonists I added to the list in the article before they where merged? also the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to have a TA enteries column. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Also cudoes, overall really nice work with merging everything under head! Good job :) If you have the energy. I think we can also merge everything into this table at once, then I will wait with adding more Agonistic and Antagonistic untill that is done. Should we then re-introduce the TA entries list column before or after merging the remaining tables into the main one? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah yeah, sorry about that. I did look at the diff of my changes when I was doing it but I couldn't really see anything, let alone that some antagonists were missing. Fixed.
I guess I'll work on the rest of the table today. I think the TA column can come after the full table is created. I have to mess with the column widths some more and it is easier to figure those out when all of the entries are there. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Claes Lindhardt I think you have the wrong idea about the muscle name column, it should just be the name of the muscle, no "rotator cuff" or whatever extra. That sort of stuff should be in the location column. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I tried to make a list of all the places that this error happened: Need renaming as part of name is more location: dorsal interossei, might be something around extensor digitorum vs the brevis and Longus, sometimes hallucis comes in the middle like at extensor hallucis brevis and Longus, gluteal- gluteus medius, gluteal- gluteus minimus, gluteal- inferior gemellus, gluteal- obturator externus, gluteal- obturator internus, gluteal- piriformis, gluteal- quadratus femoris, gluteal-lateral rotator group, gluteal-superior gemellus, hamstring - biceps femoris, hamstring- semitendinosus, hamstring-semimembranosus, hyoglossus, hypothenar- flexor digiti minimi brevis, hypothenar- opponens digiti minimi, hypothenar- abductor digiti minimi, | medial pterygoid, deep head | medial pterygoid, superficial head | Mobile wad- extensor carpi radialis brevis | Mobile wad- extensor carpi radialis longus | Mobile wad-brachioradialis. | Rotator cuff- supraspinatus | Rotator cuff-infraspinatus | Rotator cuff-subscapularis | Rotator cuff-teres minor | tarsal tunnel- flexor digitorum longus | tarsal tunnel- flexor hallucis longus | tarsal tunnel- tibialis posterior |
I like the way this blog post explained it (section "Doing the muscle math") - basically, there are 700-ish skeletal muscles, of which maybe 100-300 are of importance in a gym (i.e., a personal trainer only needs to know maybe 50-100 muscle names), there is one-ish cardiac muscle (the heart), and then smooth muscles are (a) involuntary, so you can't exercise them easily (b) so small and common that there are tens of thousands or millions depending on how you try to estimate them. So, basically, skeletal muscles are the ones to list. The heart is unique, and smooth muscles generally don't have names (but there are exceptions, e.g. Muscularis mucosae is the gastrointestinal smooth muscle). I've thought about making the page a "list of named muscles", so that we can list the heart and the more important smooth muscles, but haven't done it yet. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I really think this is some golden input, would it make sense to make a heading under the list, called 'what muscles are relevant to who why?' Or would that be to much? A huge part of the purpose of wikipedia is to make knowlagde not just acceisble but also understandable and not overwealming no? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Archiving this talk page?
Would it make sense to archive this talk page? as it is becoming very long and possibly overwealming for new commers? and then maybe just add the topics of:
Assuring consistency and sortability in table naming(establishing naming conventions)
Checking for fake muslce and misleading information in the table
The 100 missing muslce pairs
there is supposed to be around 350 muscle pairs yet, we can only list about 230
Making a matrix which describes the Agonistic and Antagonistic Relationships between skeletal muscles
Those seem to be the most relecant discussion that are still alive on the talk page or? maybe there is even a way to flag/tag/todo some of these things inside the article so that it is easy for new commers or people browsing wiki for important editorial todos? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Now that all the muscles have been listed so nicely by Mathnerd314159 I would say that the remaining relevant topics are:
1. Assuring consistency and sortability in table naming(establishing naming conventions)
I started comparing the lists to all the lists I have made so far, all the cervicis seems to be missing i. e. Splenius cervicis, Iliocostalis cervicis, Longissimus cervicis, Spinalis cervicis. I am not done comparing but these are the onces that I have spottet so far Claes Lindhardt (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
ther is a rectus capitis, anterior but we seem to still miss Rectus capitis posterior major, Rectus capitis posterior minor Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
External oblique and Internal oblique does not seem to be mentioned, altough the might appear in a different form somewhere. levator ani is mentioned under nerves a couple of times, but it does not seem to be listed as a muscle yet? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
TA2 changed cervicis to colli for many muscles, they're in there. Rectus capitis posterior minor/major are rows 112/113 in the default order, they have a comma so maybe you didn't find them. External/internal oblique have "abdominal" in the middle so again I could see missing them with textual search (rows 115/116). Levator ani is a muscle group, the individual muscles are listed in rows 165-169 with location including Levator ani. Mathnerd314159 (talk)
It seems most people are not really used to using wiki as a database where they can sort larger amounts of data according to thier needs. Would it make sense to have a kind of FAQ section for wiki-Non-Power users? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I mean ideally, the infomation on this page should be accessible in high detail to everyone from gym rats and grandparents to people starting university. As well as people who wants to use it as a starting point for some in-dept research. Or maybe I have the wrong idear of who the user of pages like these are? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
have a nice table where they list Muscle(Agonistic- | Antagonistic-) relationships.
Eg. Anterior deltoid(11 | 5 ) which made me thing, is there a smart way to link to lists inside a list? so that the colum could maybe be called Agonistic and Antagonistic relations and then contain (x | y) and then when you hover with the mouse over the x or why you get to specefic list? so that the specefic muscles are still easy to see, but do not distord the overall view of the nice table. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
It is interesting. It's kind of annoying that in general there's not one single antagonist for each muscle, but rather a group of muscles forms the antagonist. Regarding your suggestion, as far as I know there is not a good way on Wikipedia to make interactive things like that, it is just text, tables, and images. And in particular the "hover over to see the list" would go against WP:DONTHIDE. I think the best way to present it would probably be an image gallery, consisting of colorized correlation matrices, like File:Connectivity_matrix.jpg. Ideally, someone would have hooked up literally every muscle to the SEMG machine and gotten voluminous data on various movements, so we could have one huge matrix with 360-ish columns, one for each named muscle, but I think such data doesn't exist. More likely, we can make a few smaller correlation plots for relevant body locations: shoulder, hip, etc. For the main table's antagonist column I would prefer to list only the muscle with the strongest anti-correlation, so as to keep the table more compact. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Now that I'm looking for the correlation data though, it seems it is hard to find. The references he cites are all self-published books that don't seem to be in print on Amazon or elsewhere. The hip data is available here, but the corresponding elbow article says "see table" and then there isn't a table. I guess I will email Sella to ask him for a complete collection of spreadsheets. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
A colorized correlation Matrix with all the muslces is a great idear, but then let's remove the antagonists column? from the table and make that another project that we can get back to when the table is done? Right now it can lead to more confusion as people might assume that each muscle only have one Agonistic and Antagonistic relationship. The best solution untill we find the relevant data and format it might be to make a section called Agonistic and Antagonistic Relations and say that it works in groups and that no one have made a publicly available compleate dataset yet? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I made a sub-section on the topic in the article, then we can add the matrix there when we have it? and then leave it out of the table for now? your original intuition with removing it seems to be the best. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
So I didn't get a response from Sella, but his book Muscular dynamics is available via inter-library loan, so hopefully I will get it in a few weeks. The librarian told me it has a pretty thorough set of tables covering all major areas of the body. Due to the limitations of sEMG, I don't think it will cover the small muscles, like the eye muscles, or deep muscles like the intercostales, but we'll see. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I started making a graphig representation of all the muscles where I group them based on location, I am making this in something which can also export to .pptx files, so that hopefully it would also be easy to use to graphically show the Agonistic and Antagonistic relationship of different muscles, once we find a good way to list the relationships Claes Lindhardt (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
It says in the start of the article that there is 600 skeletal muscle in the human body.
However only 241 is listed when you count them out. Is there some of the muscles who occur in multiple places? or forms or how does one come from the 241 listed to the 600 or 800 muscles that people agree that there is in the human body? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I also made a list where I counted out all the muscles in all the lists refered here A list counting out the number of muscles in different lists of skeletal muscle even if we assume no overlay between the different lists we only reach 224+162+82=468. It seems so strange that everyone agrees that there is around 600 muscles yet a compleate list is not trivial to come by? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I cross checked with the spanish version of this page. But that also did not provide any futher answers :/ A list of the muscles on the spanish wikipedia pageClaes Lindhardt (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I am assuming that the reason that there isen't 600 unique muscles listed is because there are some muscles which occur more then once? but isen't there somewhere, where one can see how many times each muscle occurs in the body? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
If we assume that there is 2 pairs of each muscle one on each side of the body that still only gets us to 245*2=490 muscles and not the 600 mentioned. Which muscles are we missing or what muscles have more or less then 2 appearences in the body? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I also did a list from the book Grays anatomy 4. editionl, which also only comes to a total 265.
As soon as we have removed the dublicates as well as the categories of muscle sometimes beeing described as one mucle and updated the names that partly contains the muslces location. Then I can compare this list to the one from the Grays anatomy book and hopefully add a few muscles. But never the less we are still missing a lot of muslces 265*2 is still only 530. No where near 650. Where can we find all of this missing muscles? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, I did notice that there are 22 intercostal muscles of each type (internal, external, innermost). That's 60 more muscles than the row count suggests. So currently the count is something like 241*2+60=542. But I think that's the only repeated muscle like that. [2] says "There are close to 600 muscles in the human body", implying it's less than 600, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's about the right number. I think the more important thing is ensuring that all the muscles are listed, per TA and other sources. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Alright, TA2 is done (phew, a lot of inner ear and rare muscles). I glanced through Gray's Anatomy 42nd edition but there's no convenient table of muscles, meaning I'll have to read through each chapter individually. So it'll wait for a bit. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Proposed solution to some of the current ambiguities
To address some of the current ambiguities in the table, I added
To address: Sorting problems around the name due to unclear suffix vs. preffix use -
'- Anything denoting the muscles relationship to another muscle such as e.g superior, inferior etc. should always be used as a suffix and not a prefix, to create better sortability of the list.' was added to the convention for the name column
To address: Non locational information in the location column -
However this additional information must be describing location not function.
To address: Non-clear information about which muslces are only male/female and where to denote it -
Here it may also be denoted when a given muscles only occurs in a male or a female body. By (F) for female and (M) for male, if nothing is denoted. The muscle can be assumed to occur in both genders.
It should be noted that this still does not solve the issue in location with muscles being both a part of the torso and something else. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
