Template:Not a forum

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

Anatomy High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline. Biology Mid‑importance Pineal gland is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Neuroscience Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Shouldn't there be more emphasis on the fact that the pineal is found in fish (including Lampreys etc) as well as land vertebrates? This is important in evaluating theories on the function(s) of the gland.86.159.139.46 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add it also — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.114.199 (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Descartes, in his treatise "On the Passions of the Soul", section 1.30, says that the soul is united to all parts of the body. In the subsequent section 1.31, says that it nevertheless exerts a special action at the Pineal gland, compared to the rest of parts. Therefore I thing that, the expression that according to Descartes the soul resides in the pineal gland is not correct. I propose to change it to "Descartes ......considered that the soul exerted a particular action on the Pineal gland".--Auró (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it kind of poor form to go back to historical primary references? Presumably much has been written about Descartes' views (no doubt employing sophisticated expertise regarding the context, meaning of language, contemporary ideas of his time, and more that most of us are naively oblivious to), which should trump our own original interpretations of his treatises. Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking I agree with your statement, but it may be that is not very applicable to the present occasion. In fact I am making no interpretation, it is the other way round. I only say what Descacrtes is saying. I think the expression "seat of the soul" is an exaggerated interpretation. True, Descartes considered that the action of the soul on the body was exerted through the pineal gland, but this does not mean he considered it to seat there, particularly since he considered it to have no extension. I think this is consistent with the following reference

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-gland/#2.

Do you find any difficulties with the article as it is edited at present?--Auró (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that your own reference (Stanford encyc. philos.) summarises at the top that: "[Descartes] regarded [the pinneal gland] as the principal seat of the soul [emph. added] and the place in which all our thoughts are formed." You may feel "seat of the soul" to be an exaggerated interpretation but it is a widespread and authoratively supported interpretation. (It also happens to be more or less a direct quote that Descartes himself repeated on multiple occasions. You have not offered anything of similar weight to contradict it. I suspect misguidance with your alternative proposal, since to the extent that the soul was supposed to have acted on the rest of the body this action was still normally facilitated by the pinneal gland.) In the article, I think your original interpretation (claiming support by a historical primary source) must be replaced with the accepted mainstream interpretation (with tertiary sourcing).

That reference also has useful information on ancient views of the gland, and on when the mystic third eye became associated with it. Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you like this reference, I am also hapy with it, but still I think that "principal seat of the soul" is more close to the reference citation.--Auró (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice you said: [Descartes] considered [the soul] to have no extension.

But linked in your next sentence: In the secondary literature one often meets the claim that Descartes maintained that the soul has no spatial extension, but this claim is obviously wrong in view of Descartes' own assertions. Those who make it may have been misled by Descartes' quite different claim that extension is not the principal attribute of the soul, where ‘principal’ has a conceptual or epistemic sense.

Evidently the latest word you added to the article is one that can tend to produce confusion, so I have to wonder whether that word is the most appropriate for clarity? Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the opinion on whether Descartes considered that the soul had or had not extension is divided. Nevertheless this article is not about Descartes, and though it was me that introduced the subject, I think it can be left quiet. As for the use of the word "principal", for me "main" would be quite synonymous. Does it seem more neutral to you?--Auró (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2011 (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]

I sugguest putting flouride accumulation back into the article as a possiblility or "areas under research". It has real implication otherwise. A large possibility of error is still some effect. --59.189.75.127 (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2013 (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]

I would like to add that a drug is not a living thing that can perform "action" as indicated above and may be the reason for some of the confusion. Perhaps if it said "may influence the reactions of drugs of abuse such as cocaine. Meaning (perhaps, still kinda foggy) that it influences, either in increasing or decreasing fashion, the reactions that certain drugs - whom, either by opinion or through survey, for which he forgot to add a citation, the writer finds to be a substance commonly abused by those who try it. I will read his other citations and respond later with a verdict.

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]

Some debunking of the issue: http://forums.mycotopia.net/botanicals-cactus-misc-entheogens-psychedelics/68499-no-proof-dmt-pineal-gland.html I have yet to read the book, but I don't think Strassman ever claimed that it was actually produced in the pineal gland, and he definitely never produced a paper to prove that it was true. Melatonin, perhaps, is the spirit molecule (necessary for sleep) =) --Notmyhandle (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2010 (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]

I agree. Someone please suggest a better image. -Mike 68.28.105.231 (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was easy to fix, here. We don't need pictures of all the endocrine glands in an article about just one of them, so I removed the picture.

The problem as described above doesn't disappear, however, as the same illustration is used in the Endocrine article(s). It is disquieting to see a brain rotated within a head. There must be a better image? - Hordaland (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2009 (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]

Yup, strange but true. As I recall, the substance was discovered and played with to find out what it was good for. As it lightened frog skins, it was named a name similar to Melanin, that is, something to do with pigments. We've come a long way since then. Perhaps the story should be told more thoroughly, either here or at Melatonin where it at present seems not to be mentioned at all. - Hordaland (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting background on UpToDate.com HERE; I don't know if that's an acceptable source. A photo of Dr Lerner & some info is HERE, tho I don't believe this is an acceptable source. Similar info in THIS BOOK. While Dr. Lerner is credited with "discovering" and naming melatonin, the discovery that extracts of cow pineals could lighten frog skin was made in 1917. Lerner, a dermatologist, discovered its chemical structure. - Hordaland (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've now added a short 'History' section to Melatonin, redlinking Aaron B. Lerner. Guess I'll have to start a stub on him; one thing does lead to another. - Hordaland (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little expansion here would help, too, or perhaps the factoid could be deleted. It's all much better than my conjectures about schemes to bleach frogs for fun and profit.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much too interesting to just delete.  :-) So I added to it. And have also written a stub about Prof. Lerner. - Hordaland (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A positive correlation has been found between the amount of calcium and fluoride in the pineal gland. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11275672?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Somehow that got turned into "Calcification is typically due to intake of the fluoride found in water and toothpaste" which is complete nonsense. The cited source never once mentions fluoridated water or toothpaste, and never once discusses causation. I removed the text in question. This article should not advocate WP:FRINGE claims as if they were fact. Eubulides (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. This article tends to get fringe/pseudoscience in it a lot. Nimur (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melatonin has been found to combat the neurotoxic effects of fluoride. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19159082?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Also, there's many New Age ideas about the pineal gland. I'm assuming that they've been posted here at various times and then removed. It's not the editors job to judge what deserves to be in the articles, but to present it in an unbiased manner. For well over a thousand years mystical traditions have placed the third eye in front of the pineal gland. Recently scientists discovered the pineal gland likely evolved from a primitive eye. Quite an interesting coincidence. The mystic traditions also associated it with consciousness, imagination, and visualization, and now modern science finds that it produces melatonin, which influences dreaming. Sometimes the mystical traditions are far more accurate than science would care to acknowledge (like Buddha and modern psychology). --66.243.197.47 (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just reverted, removing 2 edits by same person: diff. Seems to me that removing that much text should first be discussed. - Hordaland (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content from the talk page, even if it is incorrect. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - particularly Wikipedia:TALK#Editing_comments. Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. I have reverted this edit. Nimur (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forum comments can always be removed, per WP:NOT#FORUM. I've removed the worst section again.—Kww(talk) 22:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that interpretation in general (at least, it's a gray area); but since the edits that had been removed were clearly not helpful to improving the article (and did request medical advice), I'll agree with Kww regarding the comments-removal in this instance. Nimur (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not so that this organ is responsible to the creation of the dmt molecule, which has significant spiritual values? if so, why is it that this entire article does not even refferecne this compound even once..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.38.79 (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not so. 92.15.55.237 (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear people, the article now says "The structures of the third eye in the tuatara are homologous to the cornea, lens and retina". I'm not a specialist here, but I always assumed this eye is an analogy to the "main eye", not a homology. Is it even regulated by the same set of genes, to be claimed to be a homology? If you know the answer, and if I am right, could any of you please fix it? Khakhalin (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]