Talk:Macula

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Macula article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

reorganise?[edit]

this article reads a bit back to front. one of the first things should be the function of the macula, i get the impression from the article that its function is as a sunblock :P

this sentence : "Structures in the macula are specialized for high acuity vision. Within the macula are the fovea and foveola which contain a high density of cones (photoreceptors with high acuity)" should go higher and get expanded a little? i dont have the expertise im afraid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.7.118 (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

current advances in slowing down or inhibiting macular degeneration?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.12.201.86 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 3 March 2005 (UTC).[reply]

They would be discussed in the article "Macular degeneration". AED 06:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remove word "severe"?[edit]

Article describes macular degeneration as a "severe" disease. My instinct is to remove the word as being both unnecessary (loss of vision is by its nature a severe problem) and misleading (as there are mild and slow-progressing cases of macular degeneration). Any thoughts? Pheidias 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Yes Perhaps a distinction should be made between macular degeneration and a macular hole. They aren't the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.155.173 (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Optic Disk[edit]

The macula lutea is 3mm lateral to the optic disc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avkrules (talk • contribs) 03:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article says the macula lutea is itself 5 mm wide, and optic disk also has a diameter, what is your distance based upon? Center of macula to edge of disk? Center-to-center? Edge-to-edge? S B H arris 23:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong color[edit]

The macula is a dark spot on the retina. It only appears yellow in a dissected eyeball, or when viewed with an ophthalmoscope, which filters out red light. For 200 years it was thought that the macula appears only after death because no one had seen it in a living eye. (here) Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British or American English?[edit]

The word "colour" has been there for many years. However, the article as a whole looks like it has been primarily in American English since the beginning, just based on my own subjective impression of the overall style. Maybe we could take an informal poll, or at least solicit comments. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macula of retina. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141219071400/http://www.cybersight.org/bins/content_page.asp?cid=1-8989-8993-9001 to http://www.cybersight.org/bins/content_page.asp?cid=1-8989-8993-9001

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: 18 January 2022).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity in the first sentence.[edit]

I understand that the macula is located "near the center of the retina". But, for goodness' sake, in which direction? The retina is a layer that exists in three-dimensional space. So "near the center" can mean that the macula is a part of the retina or that it exists at a perpendicular distance from the retina? The picture suggests the latter. Could you please be more precise and explain it, not here but in the content of the article? 85.193.250.200 (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. The macula is part of the retina, its central part. Its center is 1.5 mm away from the retina center, i.e. from the optic axis. I added the distance in the section "Structure" (not in the introduction).

The problem arises from the graph, a typical textbook hoax: Graphically nice but grossly misleading. It is obviously intended to show a central cross section (telling from the lens and iris), but in such a section the macula would not be visible. I will add a note in the legend. Strasburger (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]