Talk:Pubis (bone)

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

humano-centric

Could a comparative anatomist add a discussion of the pubic bone in other animals, please? I came here looking to see if the vaginae of all female mammals pass between the pubis and the ischium (a dumb arrangement, it seems to me, as it restricts the size of the new-born). Even dinosaurs have pubic bones--some reference to the variety of form and function of pubes (pubii?) in different animals seems worthwhile. The same might be said for all bones and organs.165.91.64.240 (talk)RKH —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I added a bunch of spaces before the gallery since some images were overlapping with the infobox. If anyone knows of a better way to solve this please do! Horia 23:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Android pubic bone

Term no longer in article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article begins with "The android pubic bone..." What is the meaning of android in this context? Does it mean human, primate, etc? Peter Chastain (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Body of pubic bone into Pubis (bone)

Done With no objections in five months, merge performed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nonsensical to have these parts of such a small bone split into separate articles. Makes life difficult for readers, and makes the information much harder to maintain (which is why the subarticles are generally now > 100 years old) Tom (LT) (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.