Talk:Connective tissue

Anatomy: Microanatomy Top‑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 articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to microanatomy.

Animal anatomy High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: MCB Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as High-importance).

Blood?

Does blood really count as "connective tissue"? I find that counterintuitive. 19:58, 8 Jun 2005

It is counterintuitive, but embryologically and functionally it fits in with the connective tissues—it just has a more extensive and less viscous matrix—as I understand it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Currently the article does not mention blood, I suppose it should. I personally think it is a "classification fail", as it will require an exception to the "fibrous" comment. In my opinion, non-fibrous connective tissue makes no sense, field-of-biology-fail. 71.198.221.161 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pics?

Hakusa - Wiki addict: 18:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)I'm looking up pictures for my Anatomi I class. Unfortunatly there are none here. Is there anywhere on the internet I can find some?[reply]

Hakusa - Wiki addict: 18:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC) I noticed that Aveolar wasn't hear and I thought I remembered it from my textbook. Unfortunatly I don't have my textbook with me, but does anyone have any info on this? I do believe I remember hearing it was the most widely distributed CT, but not having my book, I can't verify this.[reply]

Areolar connective tissue is a type of loose connective tissue. I've added that clarification on the article. It is pretty widely distributed since it surrounds organs, blood vessels, and nerves. -- Afra Ullah 05:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

blah. suck from the nipples of success.

Should alveoli, or at least the alveolar septum, be listed?

Connective tissue (osteichthyes?)

Would it be better to put something like chondrichthyes (cartilage fish) instead-of osteichthyes (bone fish)?

Lupus as a CTD

I just lost the detailed comment I wanted to put here regards my edit when I clicked on "What is a minor edit?" below.

I'm too furious about that now to repost it, so if anyone wants to know why I've added Lupus as a CTD please simply refer to the Merck medical manual entry for Lupus here http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec04/ch032/ch032g.html, or ask me if you require further info.

Its probably better I dont explain in detail why I think Lupus should be listed as a CTD except to say that a Lupus entry here helps tie together a particular clearly visible CTD as a possible indicator of Lupus, which is very nebulous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abunyip (talk • contribs) 11:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fix-up

The "classification" section is very disorganized. Someone from one of the three associated wikiprojects should look into it. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ECM

Shouldn't there be something mentioning that connective tissues are defined by their having a particular extracellular matrix? --Crimson30 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More descriptive information needed

There should be more information in this article in general. But specifically there should be a description of connective tissue, examples, and a definition of 'fibrous tissue' as referred to in the first line. Are the terms 'connective tissue' and 'fibrous connective tissue' synonymous? There is an incredible lack of information in this article to the point where it is just the statement of a few random facts. There is no flow or continuity, and the article makes little sense in general. Even the article on 'osseous tissue' has more information than this. Shushanto (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, maybe a section diagramming the location in the body? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.248.33.226 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"fibrous, elastic," are types under connective tissue proper

From what I've read elsewhere, fibrous tissue and elastic tissue would fall under Connective tissue proper, but the paragraph seems to represent them as "other, less classifiable types of connective tissues (like 'lymphoid' correctly put here). The whole 'classification of connective types needs to be done better, as stated above, so I won't make the change, just wanted to put a note here in case someone else trying to learn about connective tissue questions the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.121.10 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fascia

Why aren't fascia mentioned in this article or the {{Connective tissue}} template? The Dense irregular connective tissue does mention it. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aponeurosis

The articles explain already in their leads, that ligaments join bones, fascia join muscles, tendons join bone to muscle, while aponeurosis is unrelated to the question what they join. That begs the question, what then is the defining characteristic setting apart the aponeurosis from the other three? Would that be being a layer, read a group, of tendons, making it a meta-structure compared to the other three? If so, perhaps that should be explained a bit more clearly in the article. For some reason, something close to a definition can be found in Plantar_fascia#Structure (where it probably should be removed as out of place). Debresser (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]