Correspondence: Nerve–muscle specificity

A correspondence item entitled ‘A warning against revival of the classic tenets of gross anatomy related to nerve–muscle specificity’ was recently published in the Journal of Anatomy (Shinohara, 1996a). The present correspondent fully agrees with some aspects of his opinion, in particular, the 3 law...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American journal of anatomy 1997-02, Vol.190 (2), p.309-310
Main Author: KIDA, MASAHIKO Y.
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:A correspondence item entitled ‘A warning against revival of the classic tenets of gross anatomy related to nerve–muscle specificity’ was recently published in the Journal of Anatomy (Shinohara, 1996a). The present correspondent fully agrees with some aspects of his opinion, in particular, the 3 laws about applications which he described, and he also appreciates his approach to the argument based on the results of embryology and experimentation. However, his denial of morphological interpretations based on the theory of nerve–muscle specificity may be due to an incomplete understanding of the current status of the theory.
ISSN:0002-9106
0021-8782
1553-0795
1469-7580
DOI:10.1046/j.1469-7580.1997.19020309.x