Talk:Coccyx

Anatomy: Gross High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

The content of Extensor coccygis was merged into Coccyx on April 9 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Vestigial

I heard that this bone is kinda pointless and is evidence of evolution. Anyone want to put this disputed bit in?

The coccyx provides an attachment for muscles, such as the gluteus maximus. You can´t move if you don´t have it.

There have been recorded cases where it's been removed without any ill effects, though. — Fatalis 17:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's possible but involves re-anchoring some muscles, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccygectomy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.7.73 (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It may have a function but that doesn't mean it's not vestigial. Vestigial does not mean 'useless.' The coccyx is not evidence for evolution because it is useless (which is debtable) but because if we are descended from animals with tails, we would expect our development to be a modification of theirs, which, judging by embryonic evidence, it is.70.57.120.186 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not automatically vestigial if it does not have a function. For decades this was used as an argument that we evolved until more popular notions became prominent that it has a function. Now it is argued that we evolved so it "must be" vestigial, using the argument to prove the "evidence". It has simply never been proven to be vestigial and the conflicting opinions shows this to be true. 41.208.48.160 (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"It's not automatically vestigial if it does not have a function" - I'm pretty sure that's the definition of vestigial, something that has partially or completely lost it's original function. Judgeking (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You can remove your eyes, your arms, your legs, and your eares. It doesn't mean you don't "need" them. - Justin from Hattiesburg, MS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.135.118 (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying 'it involves re-anchoring some muscles' does not demonstrate this is not vestigial. In order to really have use it would need a function irreplacable by other the bones (such as the ones the muscles got re-anchored to here). Hence the comparison with eyes/ears/limbs is flawed also, since these do actually serve purposes that cannot be replaced by other body parts. - 62.234.134.29 (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

evolution

Yes I believe it is fairly well indisputable. The coccyx was once helping us swing through the trees...Just been to the football and I must say that I dont think our behaviour has changed much Limbic111 03:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Our ancestral tails probably weren't prehensile since the catarrhines (Old World monkeys, our closest relatives after the apes) don't have have prehensile tails. (It's a New World monkey feature).70.57.120.186 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

if you remove your Coccux you can´t hold your food inside. you have to use diapers for rest of your live.

Contrary to the above comment, coccygectomies (removal of the coccyx) are done to relieve chronic back pain and do NOT affect bowel functions. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16343096 Marcasm (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

removing coccyx would be removing genetic information, so it´s not better. it´s worse. think what you could do if you had a tale.

We still have the "genetic information" to grow tails, and we do grow tails as embryos. By the 4th week of embryonic development, the tail comprises around 10% of the body's length. It eventually stops growing while the body continues. The tail-growing genes are shut off, but they're still very much there. There are occasionally babies born with tails; this atavism shows that the genes are still there; they are simply dormant. As for "better" and "worse," it's not neccesarily better (in terms of fitness) to have a tail. Any body part has a cost attached to it, and has to be seen as a part of a functioning whole. Organisms are adpated for particular lifestyles which may be helped or hindered by any given feature, such as a tail. No phenotypic expression, such as a tail, is "good" in an absolute sense, it can only be good in terms of how well it works in conjunction with the rest of the body to serve a particular organism living a particular lifestyle in a particular environment. If its value is outweighed by the cost of growing it and maintaining it, the organism is probably better off without it.70.57.120.186 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be some mention of the evolutionary/vestigal tail nature of the coccyx, it's very POV and biased not to. It is called the tailbone after all. 74.122.45.169 16:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow based on the pseudo-logic of the religion of evolutionists here then I can say that the uvula proves that we came from from outer space because it was used on the planet FGHTRTDF to speak FGHTRTDFneese & the fact that we have one still proves my FACTS to be true. I love it when pseudo-Science tries to play all grown up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.143.25 (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Misinterpreted x-rays

“

This error in anatomy teaching can lead doctors to diagnose a 'fractured coccyx' when they see a coccyx in several segments on an x-ray.{{Fact|date=October 2007}}

”

I removed the above sentence. To put it back, find a reference to back it up.
/ Raven in Orbit (Talk | contribs) 11:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Coccyx and pelvic tensegrity

I've made two attempts to add the information below to the article and I've now been revert twice by User:Judgeking; first because the "citation wasn't real" and then because the "source wasn't reliable" and the references was "a random web link". However, the "Third Interdisciplinary World Congress On Low Back & Pelvic Pain" is a reliable reference/source as is MD Stephen M. Levin.

Medical director Stephen M. Levin, who has described the pelvis as a tensegrity structure, conclude from his research that the coccyx no longer can be considered a vestigial organ. Instead, he describe the coccyx as the hub of a dynamical structure vital for a wide range of activities, adding: "You cannot lift any significant weight without setting your pelvic diaphragm. The coccyx moves with each breath and is integrated into all the pelvic visceral functions."^[1]

Levin, Stephen M. (1998). "The Tensegrity System and Pelvic Pain syndrome". Interdisciplinary World Congresses on Low Back & Pelvic Pain. Retrieved June 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

I added this coccyx-related information as a quote because it's still not the default interpretation of the coccyx one can expect to find in anatomy literature. It is, however, still interesting information accompanied by a credible reference. As such it should not be removed from the article. --Addingrefs ( talk | contribs ) 05:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For one, it's not a reliable source just because you say it is. That could be your own site as far as we know. As I said, check out Wikipedia:RS. Second, you admit that his view is 'not the default interpretation of the coccyx', meaning his is a rogue view and adding this info is biased and gives undue weight to one man's opinion (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight). Please don't revert this again or you will be in violation of the 3 revert rules and may be banned from editting. --Judgeking (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's an uninformed statement. Just because something is vestigial doesn't mean it's useless. That point is discussed in this article and several other vestigial articles. It's stated many times in the article how important the coccyx is, that has nothing to do with the fact that it is the remnant of a tail. --Judgeking (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My reference is reliable, not because of my opinion, but because the " Interdisciplinary World Congress On Low Back & Pelvic Pain" is an reoccuring event sponsored by a number of well-known organisations and they published Stephen M. Levin's work. I'm not affiliated with any of these organisations or the site in question.

The interpretation of the pelvis as a tensegrity structure is relatively new and therefore is not yet the default interpretation found in anatomy literature. Wikipedia articles should however include alternative views too. Adding the information above to the article pretending it is a default interpretation would be undue weight, a problem I tried to avoid by making it a quotation. Readers will then be able to associate this view with Levin.

Lastly, apparently you are familiar with the 3 revert rule and now your just violated it again. I suggest you add the information back to the article and end this edit war right now.

--Addingrefs ( talk | contribs ) 07:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A single conference paper is not considered a reliable source for biomedical claims, especially misinformed ones. Who is this guy who doesn't understand what the term "vestigial" means? Auntie E (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms which have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution. In humans the coccyx is not a tail any more but, according to Levin, it still plays an important roll in the pelvis. I can't see the problem. What is misinformed here?

Again, when I added this to the article, I didn't even try to present it as universally accepted, but as a new interesting interpretation. Levin's work is gradually being integrated into anatomy literature -- here is an example: Google Books: Principles of manual sports medicine, 2004

--Addingrefs ( talk | contribs ) 16:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Levin is that he states the coccyx can't be vestigial because it still serves a purpose. That tells me he doesn't know the meaning of the word, which makes me question what kind of doctor he is. Plus, this paper you're referencing is dated 1998. By what definition is this 'new' data? I also can't find a reference to pelvic tensegrity or biotensegrity WITHOUT seeing Levin's name, which again tells me he's probably the only doctor who supports his theories.

The topic of vestigiality is a hot issue on many wiki pages and a target for vandalism. Vestigiality implies evolution, which creationists deny. --Judgeking (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

References

[1]
Levin (1998)

File:Sacrum and coccyx.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

Proposed merge with Extensor coccygis

Society and culture section with Islamic views

Hi. I remember a while back there was one editor pushing some pseudoscience about coccyx in Islam (something like the coccyx could never be destroyed) apparently related to that people would rise from it on judgement day (sorry for offending somebody if I got part of your religion completely wrong). First of all, I know nothing the subject and for some reason the edit history have been deleted, so I can not check what was added. Would it be an idea to add a Society and culture section like we have for zygomatic bone and ears with such content? Of course not the pseudoscience the fore-mentioned user was pushing and proper referenced. If it is mentioned in the Quran or some other holy text for 1+ billion people it is relevant in my point of view, but again I am not pushing for any pseudoscience. I just like when we tie your dry, Grey´s-copied and over technical anatomy articles with other content. Please give your input. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with you JakobSteenberg - there is an interesting relevant section in a publication available on a respected website I think the removed material would have had no citation offered but basically it had been saying the same. Perhaps it could be re-added citing this site. ? Cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi JakobSteenberg. There is discussion of Jewish and Islamic tradition about the coccyx (later tradition, not the Torah or Quran) on the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luz_%28bone%29

If there was such a section, I could add something about Ancient Roman beliefs. The Roman physicians (who wrote in Greek) used the term heiron osteon (= holy bone) which was translated into Latin as os sacrum. Today that is taken as being equivalent to the English word sacrum, which excludes the coccyx, but it is clear from the texts that in at least some cases heiron osteon referred to sacrum plus coccyx, and there is a text by Oribasius (physician to Julian the Apostate) where heiron osteon clearly refers to the coccyx alone. I have no idea whether this relates to the Jewish/Islamic tradition. Jon Miles 18:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchmiles (talk • contribs)