Anatomy Is a Science of Inherited Observation

I've often said, “Modern anatomy is a science of inherited observation, continually supplemented by new observations.” This statement reminds us that we should always question what we've been taught and investigate human morphology with fresh eyes and modern investigative tools. Many of the papers in this issue of Clinical Anatomy do just that. Long-standing anatomical dictums should be revisited and tested. Who better to do this than the modern clinical anatomist? Those of us who teach anatomy have a particular responsibility to ensure that our teaching reflects the most current and reliable evidence. In an age when misinformation is readily available and can now be generated and disseminated rapidly through artificial intelligence platforms, the burden is increasingly on us as anatomists to distinguish established anatomical knowledge from assumption, repetition, and error. Where better to pursue this than in Clinical Anatomy, a journal used by clinicians, surgeons, educators, and anatomists alike to access the latest research in our field? As the papers in this issue demonstrate, even seemingly settled anatomy deserves another look.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical Anatomy
Published
2026-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.70221
Primary Topic
Anatomy and Medical Technology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Anatomy Is a Science of Inherited Observation

R. Shane Tubbs
Clinical Anatomy
Anatomy and Medical Technology
article

Anatomy Is a Science of Inherited Observation

R. Shane Tubbs
article en

Abstract

I've often said, “Modern anatomy is a science of inherited observation, continually supplemented by new observations.” This statement reminds us that we should always question what we've been taught and investigate human morphology with fresh eyes and modern investigative tools. Many of the papers in this issue of Clinical Anatomy do just that. Long-standing anatomical dictums should be revisited and tested. Who better to do this than the modern clinical anatomist? Those of us who teach anatomy have a particular responsibility to ensure that our teaching reflects the most current and reliable evidence. In an age when misinformation is readily available and can now be generated and disseminated rapidly through artificial intelligence platforms, the burden is increasingly on us as anatomists to distinguish established anatomical knowledge from assumption, repetition, and error. Where better to pursue this than in Clinical Anatomy, a journal used by clinicians, surgeons, educators, and anatomists alike to access the latest research in our field? As the papers in this issue demonstrate, even seemingly settled anatomy deserves another look.

Clinical Anatomy
Tulane University (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Anatomy and Medical Technology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.