This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Neurology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This page doesn’t mention what species have a Pineal gland.—GJK 10:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what Gray's Anatomy means by "animal matter" in the second paragraph of the structure and composition section. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 22:44, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

I think the animal matter refers to a complex of proteins. The associated anatomical structure is really peripherial. I guess removing it should be the best for the article... moostattack

According to my lectures on Human Biology and my "Henderson's Dictionary of Biological terms", epiphysis pertains to bone, while epiphyseal refers to the gland. Many sources on the net neglect this distinction and talk about only bones or mistakenly use the same term for both subjects. Anatomy terms are not double in meaning so epiphysis can and does mean only bone while the gland is refered to largely as the pineal but epiphyseal, although rare, is the correct term for the gland. I've changed the synonim in the article accordingly but had it reverted by user Sammyj. Sammy, one anatomical term cannot have two such differents meanings, period. added by 193.77.9.207

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but often terms, even medical, refer to more than one thing. Epiphysis also refers to the pineal gland. You can check Gray's Anatomy or you can enter the term in Pubmed and see that researchers use the term for both the pineal and bone end! Finally, epiphyseal is an adjective, not a noun. Sammyj 11:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. Other examples off the top of my head are Medulla (adrenal or oblongata) and cortex (cerebral or kidney).[reply]

Hehe, bubble bursted, but in a positive way. English is not my natural language, so when reading too fast, I sometimes miss important details or misinterpret the text I've read. But it is peculiar that "epiphysis" has two such different meanings. Prehaps the explanation lies in its latin source? I'll check. -added by 08:37, 1 April 2007, 213.250.59.37

I think this article is in desperate need of images. The description of where this important gland sounds like ancient Greek to someone that knows nothing about the brain and it's anatomy. JoeHenzi 18:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The third paragraph under "Functions" starts with, 'It also contains a substance which if injected intravenously causes fall of blood-pressure.' Is this supposed to refer to the correlation between blood pressure and Melatonin production?

The description in "Functions" is vague. Melatonin usally increases potassium channel conductance thereby slowing down the heart rate and possibly relaxing the endothelium (haven't checked this). moosattack

I have a cyst on my pineal gland is that dangerous? Does this have anything to do with balance?

You should consult a medical doctor, not wikipedia, for such advice :) Good luck, Nimur 14:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, research on this is limited. If you don't have any odd symptoms it may be just an anomaly and pay it no mind. Seeking a competent MD that studies of any disorders connected with the pineal gland such as cysts, size will likely leave more to be questioned than answered. I know this from seeking answers myself because I share that "cyst" diagnosis. In the 15 years it was picked up in an MRI (checking for an injury not connected) it has grown slightly and my sleeping patterns and quality of rest have worsened. This is beyond my scope of study and any practitioners I've worked with are clueless on the matter (to say quite frankly). --Neoursa (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(The 29 May comment was apparently deleted by the author of the above 29 June comment. I've added it back in and fixed the indenting.) --Hordaland (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read this at http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/serotonin/introduction.htm

Is that true? If so, shouldn't it be added so it says it produces 'melatonin' and 'serotonin'. I believe the endocrine system would need to be edited too.

The above-linked page is very pretty and looks authoritative. However, the info about the pineal gland is either misunderstood or perhaps a typo. The gland uses serotonin to produce melatonin. The pineal gland does not produce serotonin. --Hordaland (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What causes the pineal gland to calcify and is there any possible connection between the pineal gland and diabetes ?

This is not a science answer but a philosophical one. Suppose that the pineal is an antenna to the universal mind, designed to pick up vibrations/waveforms from external sources (I have been told of studies in Biology where a leaded hood is placed over a birds head and while wearing this hood, they no longer display instinctual behaviors), then maybe when we teach our children to "stop daydreaming and pay attention" to stimuli from our other senses, the pineal calcifies from lack of use. I also have heard that when a human dies, the pineal expands and shatters this calcified shell leaving "brain sand". 72.35.34.145 19:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I've heard this in every neuroanatomy class I've taken, I've never seen a reference given. After some searching, it appear it's from Descartes' Treatise of Man. Note I haven't checked this myself yet, but I found that information here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-gland/#2 Semiconscious (talk · home) 20:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Descartes treatise "On the Passions of the Soul", particularly sections 1.31-2ff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.34.169 (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reputable evidence that fluoride has any influence on humman sexual maturity. In fact, the contrary exists. So, let's just drop this line in the article until peer-reviewed data is available.

Restored anonymous comment

An anonymous user posted this link, purporting "proof" of fluoride accumulation: [1]

Discussion follows.

A study exists that claims accumulation of fluoride in the pineal. The standard errors of the measurements are huge, however ^[1]. AlbertHall 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the original source cited probably does not satisfy WP:Reliable sources. AlbertHall, it is best not to modify the text of another user's comments on a talk page; I will restore their link even though I disagree with it. Nimur 21:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot that I was at discussion page and not the actual article. AlbertHall 21:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Encyclopedic, Effects of Quran, Discordianism, Lack of Balance "least important", blah blah blah

Shouldn't the somebodies who obviously have a vested interest in housekeeping this incredible, marvellous, genius work of scholarly objectivism hurry up, be honest, take their own perogatives initiative and consign the myth "nuts" to some such PC subheading as Third Eye and link it to this article? I think it's their job to do so, not the nuts, who obviously have lost it and are unable to... It seems like someone has their own personal encyclopedic knowledge of what is "important" here124.177.64.162 (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just want to emphasize the following viewpoint. I understand Wikipedia aims to be encyclopedic and present all sides of an issue, but we need to prevent pseudoscience from discoloring all of our articles, including this one. Some of the previous edits have made strong claims about the psycho-mystical third eye and pineal gland connection. While we should mention this as a historic or philosophical angle, the best way to present this is in a clearly labeled sub-heading, such as "Philosophy" or "Mysticism." This will help prevent people from confusing science and medical fact from religious or new-age ideas.

Also just want to reiterate the distinction between fact and theory. Even the non-New-Age elements in this article sort of blur the distinction sometimes. (Particularly noting the evolutionary biology elements - at best, these are speculations based on evidence, no matter how solid that evidence is)... even these should be adequately discussed and cited.

Nimur 02:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that the pineal gland secretes melatonin, which produces Melalin, which by websters definition is any of a class of insoluble pigments that are found in all forms of animal life and account for the dark color of skin, hair, fur, scales, feathers, etc. and is the greatest or most active in African or Afrocentric peoples, and isnt calcified. If it is in the brain, believe me it is there for a reason.

Regarding fact and theory: Whilst most 'post-structuralists' laugh themselves out of whatever club they choose to join, I think altering the title of this section to Mythologies Cultures and Philosophies... is a valid and arguably logical shift to include the grey-areas. Bataille's contribution to science and logic is small, but his cultural cache is high- having investigated the role of rationale and myth in regards to the pineal (and more lucidly elsewhere) I think this reviewed section (under the wing of Denis Hollier) may offer a good pathway for peoples looking at the intersections of fact and fiction (re: Third Eye)- J.N Nov 2006

...To claim "is great if not well understood" is both emphasising a unqualified ambiguity in the term "greatness" and a superior understanding ("well understood"); which is debatable.

request: Add link to the article about chakras, note: the science of chakras has been around a loong time, "western-based" scientific 'knowledge' does not have patent, nor should it even have precedence on the subject of 'brain'. Not to mention that knowledge and wisdom are different things.

could not understand the following passage.

Reports in rodents suggest that the pineal gland may influence the actions of drugs of abuse such as cocaine [1] and antidepressants such as fluoxetine (Prozac)[2]; and contribute to regulation of neuronal vulnerability[3].

"may influence the actions of drugs of abuse such as cocaine" ??? What does it mean? Can someone who knows more please correct it. Thanks--Pietrosperoni 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pineal gland does produce small amounts DMT, it is documented: Guchhait RB "Biogenesis of 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine in human pineal gland." J Neurochem 1976 Jan ;26(1):187-90 PMID:1255170. Also trace amounts can be found in the body and urine, all documented.

The paper does not describe the presence of DMT or, for that matter, of 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine in the human pineal. It does describe the ability to use pineal extracts in vitro to synthesize 5-methoxy-N,N-DMT if provided with the appropriate substrate. There is no evidence to date for pineal synthesis of DMT in vivo.

What is required for making evident the pineal synthesis of DMT in bodies alive - in vivo? I'm also curious of what is noted as 'appropriate substrate' for synthesizing 5-methoxy-N,N-DMT? Is such substrate also possibly endogenic? I'm curious of this also because of the paramount challenges Dr. Rick Strassman, the author of the book DMT - The spirit molecule, experienced along his project. Rick Strassman was in the position to become the first researcher to use humans, not merely animal testing, in studies on psychedelics, or entheogenic substances, after 20 years intermission-period in the United States of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xact (talk • contribs) 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather simple: blood needs to be assayed for the presence of DMT, as that is how it would get from the pineal into the brain (the pineal is outside of the blood-brain barrier). To date, DMT has not been found endogenously in human blood. AlbertHall (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe that trace amounts have been found in human blood. Either way, there has never been found DMT in the Pineal Gland itself. According to Strassman, DMT occurs in the bodies of both humans and subhuman animals, in subthreshold amounts, and according to other research the chemicals needed to synthesize it in the body are found in high concentrations in Pineal tissue, so it is not unreasonable to come to the speculative conclusion that the Pineal Gland is where it is synthesized. Silverring06 (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the Wikipedia runs into trouble - quoting people that have not actually made the effort to examine their hypotheses and publish peer-reviewed papers (or find others that have). There are two problems with the statement "I believe that trace amounts have been found in human blood." First, belief is not proof, so a citation would be useful (no criticism intended). Second, depending on the actual concentration, a trace amount may or may not be able to activate a receptor proposed to elicit the response hypothesized. AlbertHall (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no intention of changing anything in the article proper until I have verified my sources. As a matter of fact, I think that the mention DMT is granted is enough. Give me time to access my book, and you can have all the citations (and corrections to what I've recalled from memory) you need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverring06 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the manga Elfen Lied, the Diclonius have special powers that are the result of an enlarged and a vastly developed pineal gland. Should that be mentioned in the article under that cultures section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.80.172.222 (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Probably not. See our WP:Notability guidelines. Nimur 19:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following section that lacks attribution it also seems out of place in an otherwise excellently researched article, perhaps if there is any merit to it we could come to some better wording and perhaps some attribution SallyBoseman 02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to a recent study by Dr. Ahmed El Kadi, of Akber Clinic in Panama, Florida, the recitiation or listening of the Quran, the Islamic Holy Scripture. "The echo of sound has a medical effect and is now widely utilized," says Dr. Greenberg. "The recitation of or listening to the Qur'an has an effect on the body, the heart and the mind. It is said that the Arabic letter Alif echoes to the heart and the letter Ya echoes to the Pineal Gland in the brain.

Dr. El Kadi conducted and published the effects of listening to Quranic recitation of physciological paremeters (ie. the heart, blood pressure and muscle tension), and reported improvement in all factors, irrespective of whether the listener was a Muslim or non-Muslim, Arab or non-Arab.

This is one person's idea - there is neither other philosophical, Islamic nor refereed scientific support for this concept. -5HTman 02:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The article as it stands right now is slightly contradictory, that the pineal gland is the only unpaired structure in the brain and that it under microscope has two hemispheres.Brallan 10:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image in the upper right, Illu_endocrine_system.jpg shows the anterior portion of the brain facing the left side of the screen. The backdrop image of the head should also face towards the left side of the screen instead of facing out of the screen. Apenton 15:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the citation really needed for the connection between the intellect and the pineal gland? The references before it seem sufficient. Musically ut (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the following: "Research suggests that the pineal gland may serve a magnetoreceptive function in some animals." with this ref: http://www.djpineal.org/pineal-gland.htm#Integration (Deutschlander et al.,1999), as the ref gives only a 404, and such a claim can't remain without a ref. --Hordaland (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading about the pineal gland but got stuck when trying to research the substance pinoline, which apparently is produced in the gland. The article ought to mention it. I also think some discussion of the commonly hypothesized relationship between the pineal gland and DMT and 5-MeO-DMT should be present. Andre (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google, with quite a few hits, shows that there is such a compound as pinoline.

This one suggests that its behavioural effects in rats "resemble those of drugs with an antidepressant profile". And Commons has this (at right) image of it, used in the article beta-Carboline (which links here) with pinoline red-linked. So you are apparently right that its article should be created. Hope someone comes along who feels up to the task. - Hordaland (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK, I started the page for pinoline. It's a stub so far. - Hordaland (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add an imagemap to the infobox so we can click the labels (and/or the actual locations) and get linked to the appropriate article?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 11:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks an detail image of the actual structure of the pineal gland. Any chance someone knows of a free one that can be used in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.172.242 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, why do we need a picture of the whole body? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.79.7 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole body, whole system picture is fine. And in the picture gallery one can see the gland's position in the brain. But I agree that there really ought to be, in addition, a picture of the gland itself! - Hordaland (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Encyclopedic, Effects of Quran, Discordianism, Lack of Balance "least important", blah blah blah

Shouldn't the somebodies who obviously have a vested interest in housekeeping this incredible, marvellous, genius work of scholarly objectivism hurry up, be honest, take their own perogatives initiative and consign the myth "nuts" to some such PC subheading as Third Eye and link it to this article? I think it's their job to do so, not the nuts, who obviously have lost it and are unable to... It seems like someone has their own personal encyclopedic knowledge of what is "important" here124.177.64.162 (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cultures, philosophies and mythologies" section is the longest section here! and the least important. 72.226.202.116 (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do so agree! I wonder if someone's really invested in all that stuff, or if it could be whittled down without protest...? - Hordaland (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've shortened the section. Since the pineal isn't mentioned in our articles about Madame Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine, Alice Bailey's, A Treatise on White Magic, New age nor Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, it can't be all that central to those items and I've removed mention of them from this section. - Hordaland (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are invested. Please see the note on "Discordianism" below.

Thank you for the trimming! AlbertHall (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Anatomy, and WikiProject Biology have all rated this article as Start-Class on the quality scale. I wonder if it might not have earned a higher rating now? - Hordaland (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, there was an entry under Culture referencing the Discordian belief that the Pineal gland is the primary source of spiritual enlightenment. If the problem is an editor that doubts the religion's WP:Notability, a simple web-search should settle any concerns. The first reference to the Pineal gland is on page 00015 of the Principia_Discordia, where is says, "THE PINEAL GLAND is where each and every one of us can talk to Eris." If someone could please put the reference back.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.18.10 (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. to the comment above: The reason I'm not editing it myself is that I'm not wholly comfortable with the markup for citations. There are several valid ones on the page for Principia_Discordia. I understand that it's not relevant to the medical / scientific discussion of the gland, but given Discordianism's important role in the history of online community, I would consider it at least as significant as the Descartes quote. Furthermore, considering that the Discordian religion itself is intimately related to hippie / drug culture, the above discussions on DMT might make its reverence even more noteworthy than Descartes'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.18.10 (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article barely mentions non-humans. Someone (maybe me, someday) should add info about other animals, particularly birds and reptiles. Some have a pineal which itself is directly light-sensitive, through thin bone or membrane. Knowledge of this may well have lead some peoples to the "third eye" concept. - Hordaland (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melatonin is described as the the most potent compound then known to lighten frog skin. If this is vandalism, it's quite old. If it's an actual true fact of relevance to the article, it deserves some kind of explanation.—Kww(talk) 12:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]