This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anatomy: Systems Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to systems. Animal anatomy Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Systems Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Archives

1

Other articles use lymphatic basin or lymph node basin but it's not defined here. Is the basin a cluster of lymph nodes or the region of the body drained through said cluster ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the opening, which says firstly that the lymphatic system is part of the circulatory system then follows it up by saying 'unlike the circulatory system, the lymphatic system is not a close system'. I can see that it's possible for x to have characteristic y but a particular component of x not to have that characteristic in itself, but I'm not given the impression that that is the intended meaning, I'm given the impression that contradictory statements are in close proximity, possibly due to confused terminology. Scatterkeir (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The region of the lymph node called the paracortex immediately surrounds the medulla. Unlike the cortex, which has mostly immature T cells, or thymocytes, the paracortex has a mixture of immature and mature T cells. Lymphocytes enter the lymph nodes through specialized high endothelial venules found in the paracortex."

I think there is confusion between cortex/medulla of thymus and cortex/medulla of lymph node. Thymocytes migrate from cortex to medulla during T cell development in the thymus and are not found circulating in peripheral lymphoid tissue.

2607:FEA8:87E0:F41:24FB:A4F1:13A1:4A0 (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Alexander Monro Secundus/Junior was important but it's simply mistaken to throw all the credit to him the way the current article does. The lymphatic system was popularized by a feud between Monro and Hunter over priority that ended up discovering that Francis Glisson had already figured it out and published a century earlier. (Currently Wiki's coverage of all of this is so bad that the lymph system is only mentioned on Hunter's brother's page and omitted entirely from Glisson's stub.)

• Ambrose, Charles T. (January 2007), "The Priority Dispute over the Function of the Lymphatic System and Glisson's Ghost (The 18th-Century Hunter–Monro Feud)", Cellular Immunology, vol. 245, pp. 7–15, doi:10.1016/j.cellimm.2007.02.015.

See also here

• Hendriksen, Marieke M.A. (October 2015), "Anatomical Mercury: Changing Understandings of Quicksilver, Blood, and the Lymphatic System, 1650–1800" (PDF), Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, vol. 70, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 516–548.

which goes into much more detail (b) about how mercury was essential to the studies and experiments that established the basic location and functions of the lymphatic system.

Finally, (c) some other sources give priority not to Glisson but to a guy named Hoffmann. We should figure out if that's true and then mention and link him if it turns out he was a few years ahead of Glisson. — LlywelynII 20:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

• Natale, Gianfranco; et al. (September 2017), "Scholars and Scientists in the History of the Lymphatic System", Journal of Anatomy, vol. 231, pp. 417–429, doi:10.1111/joa.12644, PMID 28614587.
• Ribatti, Domenico; et al. (2010), "The Embryonic Origins of Lymphatic Vessels: An Historical Review", British Journal of Haematology, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 669–674, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.08053.x.

 — LlywelynII 21:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction tells us the article is about anatomy for vertebrates in general but the rest of the article frequently ends up talking about human anatomy without letting the reader know that a shift has occured. I suspect many editors naturally have a focus on human anatomy and lose the general viewpoint required to prevent that shift being made implicitly. I think the best approach would be to write the article so it applies to all vertebrates, using human anatomy only for examples. It would be great to get a review by someone knowledgeable in this topic as it applies to vertebrates in general. Jojalozzo (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a sentence referencing Kelly Kennedy’s contributions to public education in lymphatic health, fascia work, and integrative therapies. Kennedy is recognized in several third-party interviews and podcasts (linked in citations) where she provides educational content on lymphatic flow and health optimization. I believe this inclusion adds context to the evolving public awareness efforts surrounding the lymphatic system.

Happy to discuss or refine further if needed. KellyKennedyLymph (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If mentioning you by name would indeed prove the article, someone other than you will almost certainly do it. Remsense 🌈 论 17:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion from crap sources. No thanks. Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion. Bon courage (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I've tagged this article with the AI generated template as I believe Parker.Josh's edits are AI; on other articles they have done things like leave in chatbot responses in diffs, and their text also contains other less blatant signs of LLM use. Thus all of their additions here also need review for accuracy, hallucinations, source-to-text integrity, and synthesis/editorializing. I am not a subject matter expert here so this review should probably be done by someone who is. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I removed the relevant content due to aforementioned issues. ~2025-30835-80 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

regarding AI generated material (not bashing anyone in any particular instance. this is a general note about AI-generated material that), I hope to be of some use in providing understanding of how people react to this: I am currently interested in learning more about the lymphatic system and cancer, as I have just found I have a cancerous lymph node in my head. In spite, or because of my high motivation, I now discount the entire article as unreliable. Even after reading the note provided here in talk, I still prefer to know that even some of the information may potentially be imaginary (an hallucination), as it still effects my trust in this article. Moreover, while I may have referred specifically to this article, my note would apply to any article I find that is tagged as having had potential AI involvement in the "creation" of the information. AI does not make us smarter, and it can corrupt the few things that actually do. 100.14.160.128 (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]