As an anonymous user, you can only add new data. If you would like to also modify existing data, please create an account and indicate your languages on your user page.
Hm ... really only in man?? --Red Baron 17:58, 26 September 2006 (CEST)
- According to fr.wikt (the definition comes from a dictionary from 1932), it was first defined for men in anatomy (definition 1 there) and then extended to some animals (def 2 there). So, maybe we should have 2 separate definitions. Kipcool 18:29, 26 September 2006 (CEST)
- (I wrote this before reading Kipcools comment)
- Maybe not only in man, but definitely only a small group of animals. As you look at animals that are progressively farther and farther away (evolutionarily speaking) from us humans, their knee joints resemble ours less and less, both in form and function. Therefore, they cease to be knees. However, they're still similar in origin and therefore we call them knee joints.
- That said, it's not that easy to determine what group of animals do have proper knees (e.g., the kind you could comfortably stand on); looking at http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens and working my way up the taxonomy tree, once I get to the Placentalia (which includes lions, for example), I feel that you can safely say that those are not knees sensu stricto. Also see this very clear illustration that compares bone structures of man and lion.
- Let's strike middle ground and say "in primates" instead of "in man". László 18:40, 26 September 2006 (CEST)