Vestigial Structures
A popular piece of evidence used by proponents of macroevolution (evolution from a single-cell organism to humans) is so-called vestigial structures. Vestigial structures refer to organs and anatomical features that are supposed to be evolutionary remnants. They are claimed to have completely or partially lost their original function, or to have changed their function.
However, organs initially assumed to be vestigial have frequently turned out to be mere gaps in our knowledge whose functions were discovered later. Before addressing specific alleged vestigial structures, it should be clarified to what extent vestigial structures actually contradict creation theory:
Naturalists assume that vestigial structures can only be explained within the framework of evolutionary theory. But this is not the case. Vestigial structures are also conceivable within the creation model: Based on the Fall of Man described in the creation account, it is to be expected that the initially perfect creation began to degenerate. Within this framework, it is entirely possible that organs not strictly necessary for survival partially or entirely lose their function.
List of covered vestigial structures:
The recurrent laryngeal nerve
The vermiform appendix
Wisdom teeth
The coccyx
The abdominal bones of whales
Human body hair
Darwin's tubercle
Flightless birds
Prominent canines
The nictitating membrane vestige
Eye remnants in cave fish
The hind spurs of pythons and boas
Blind moles
The grasping reflex
Male nipples
Shoulder and pelvic bone remnants in glass lizards
The Jacobson's organ
1. The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve:
The recurrent laryngeal nerve takes a seemingly useless detour around the heart:
Proponents of evolution see no purpose in this detour, claiming the only explanation lies in the hypothetical evolution from fish to mammal, during which the neck lengthened and the heart migrated deeper into the body.
However, it has since been demonstrated that this detour is by no means useless. As is well known, nerves do not only transmit commands from the brain to the organs, but also convey sensory and visceral information from the organs to the brain. In a sense, they provide "feedback" to the brain. This is crucial so that the brain can issue the correct commands in every situation.
In addition to its involvement in speech production, the larynx also regulates the flow of air into the trachea and of food and liquids into the esophagus. This is undoubtedly a vital task, especially considering that a trachea blocked by food can lead to death by suffocation. Anatomically (in terms of structure and arrangement), it is evident that the recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies numerous autonomic and sensory nerves along its "detour," branching off to the trachea, esophagus, aorta, and heart.1
Thus, this apparent detour lies precisely between the organs from which the recurrent laryngeal nerve gathers information for the brain, thereby fulfilling a purpose.
In very rare cases, humans are born without this detour. Indeed, mild swallowing difficulties and a foreign-body sensation during swallowing have been observed in some of them.2 This provides additional indication of the function of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. To be entirely certain, however, other potential causes for these symptoms would need to be ruled out.
Therefore, the recurrent laryngeal nerve poses absolutely no problem for a Creator. The claim that the detour arose in the course of evolution is merely an interpretation based on the presupposition that macroevolution occurred. While this interpretation may not be refutable to my knowledge, it cannot be definitively proven either. Ultimately, the recurrent laryngeal nerve appears to be compatible with both models.
2. The Vermiform Appendix:
Another very well-known yet long-refuted alleged vestigial structure is the vermiform appendix. It was previously thought to be completely useless and a formerly functional part of the cecum that was no longer needed due to changing dietary habits and consequently degenerated.
However, it has long been known that the appendix fulfills important functions. It performs a function similar to the tonsils by defending against pathogens. Furthermore, it serves as a refuge for symbiotic bacteria that promote the growth of beneficial gut bacteria.
When the intestines are emptied by diarrhea, these bacteria are spared and enable rapid recolonization of the gut. This is important because a healthy gut flora is particularly crucial for ontogeny (personal development during childhood).
Regardless of its function, the appendix presents a problem for evolutionary theory (ET) in another respect: The appendix occurs in many different animal species that are not closely related from an evolutionary perspective. Normally, identical or similar traits in different animal species are attributed to a common ancestry. These are then referred to as "homologous".
However, phylogenetic tree reconstructions based on morphological (externally visible) traits frequently yield contradictory trees. To resolve such contradictions, it must be assumed that a portion of these traits arose convergently (independently multiple times). In the case of the appendix, it occurs in at least 50 animal species and would have had to evolve convergently at least 32 times. This graphic illustrates this:
The problem for ET is that convergences should be extremely rare from an evolutionary standpoint (which was the prevailing assumption before the frequency of convergences became known), because evolution is undirected and not expected to lead to the same result twice. Yet precisely that would have to be the case for the appendix and many other convergent traits if they had actually evolved.
The better explanation is a common Creator who can repeatedly incorporate and combine similar features as desired (modular system) simply because they work exceptionally well.
Moreover, the frequent convergent occurrence of the appendix is also a clear indication of a function from an evolutionary perspective—obviously, it must confer a selective advantage if it is supposed to have arisen convergently so often.
Thus, the vermiform appendix is readily compatible with a Creator and, on the contrary, even poses a problem for ET.
A more detailed article on the appendix can be found here.
3. Wisdom Teeth:
Almost everyone knows them: teeth that erupt into our jaw and for which we lack space. Most of the time, they have to be surgically removed. In fact, this is a kind of vestigial structure—in the sense that at least humans in wealthy nations no longer have any use for them.
However, this is no evidence for macroevolution, because wisdom teeth have only caused problems since the Industrial Revolution. Before that, there were few to no problems with wisdom teeth.3
The most likely explanation is diet: Before 1700, food was generally much coarser, resulting in greater tooth wear. This greater wear led to a reduction in the height of the crown.
Once this reduction had progressed far enough, it created more space in the dental arch, allowing wisdom teeth to erupt normally and function like any other molar. 4
Harder-to-chew food also has the effect of making jawbones larger and more robust. Through tooth wear and the resulting growth and development of the jaws, more dental space is created for all molars.
As a result, wisdom teeth are not only useful but also advantageous and necessary to withstand the rigorous demands placed on the dental system in pre-industrial times. Thus, contemporary human groups, such as Australian Aborigines or rural Nigerians, can still make good use of their wisdom teeth. 5, 6
The fact that wisdom teeth serve no purpose for many people today is not due to hypothetical macroevolution, but rather to our "modern" diet that is gentle on our dentition.
A more detailed article on the subject can be found here.
4. The Coccyx:
The coccyx is interpreted as the remnant of a former tail because it is located approximately where the tail begins in tailed primates. However, since it fulfills important functions, this is not the only possible interpretation:
The coccyx serves as an attachment point for various ligaments and muscles of the pelvis, pelvic floor, and hip joints. The ligaments and muscles in this area are important for keeping organs in place, as the pelvis is open at the bottom.
Furthermore, it absorbs the forces exerted by the attached muscles, ligaments, and tendons of the pelvic floor, pelvis, and hips, making it important for body mechanics and upright posture.
The articular connection between the sacrum and the first two vertebrae of the female coccyx is also important during childbirth:
When the infant's head passes through the birth canal, pressure causes the tip of the coccyx to move backward by about 2 centimeters, thereby enlarging the pelvic outlet and facilitating the baby's passage. The coccyx owes this mobility to its origin in the vertebral column.
The coccyx is likewise readily compatible with creation. Interpreting it as a tail remnant is purely subjective, based on the presupposition that humans are descended from ape-like ancestors. Objectively speaking, the spinal column simply has to end somewhere.
Slightly more detail on the coccyx can be found here.
5. The Abdominal Bones of Whales:
Abdominal bones (pelvic bones) in whales are small bones without a connection to the vertebral column located in the rear part of the whale. They are interpreted as remnants of a hypothetical former pelvic girdle:
However, the non-functionality of this structure has also been disproven. The abdominal bones support the musculature of the reproductive organs, are consequently developed differently in male and female whales, and thus play a vital role in mating.7 A 2014 study also found a correlation between the size and shape of the abdominal bones and whale mating behavior.8
Consequently, classifying abdominal bones as vestigial structures is now obsolete. Nothing speaks against the idea that they were created.
Slightly more detail on this can be found here.
6. Human Body Hair:
Evolutionists view sparse human body hair as a non-functional remnant of an earlier coat of fur. First of all, humans have hair almost everywhere. Aside from the visibly prominent hair, we have tiny, colorless hairs everywhere except on the palms of our hands and the soles of our feet. Yet, as so often, naturalists oversimplify this as well. An important difference between us humans and furry animals is how we cool ourselves.
Most animals cannot sweat and consequently require a dense coat of fur for thermal insulation. Instead, they cool themselves by panting. Humans, however, can sweat, and are cooled by the evaporation of sweat on the skin. A long coat of fur would hinder this process.
Another difference is that animals also need their fur as protection against the sun's UV radiation, whereas we humans protect ourselves primarily through skin tanning and clothing—only our head hair also fulfills this function.
Furthermore, our hairs—including the tiny, colorless hairs—serve a sensory function: all hair follicles (where the hairs are anchored in the skin) are equipped with sensory nerves and can be compared to motion detectors. When the hairs are moved by anything, sensory signals are sent to our brain. This can hardly be called vestigial.
In addition, hair follicles are important in restoring the skin surface after injuries. Specifically, they serve as an important source of epidermal cells for skin regeneration. Without them, even a graze would require a skin graft.
At the base of each hair are sebaceous glands that secrete an oily substance called "sebum". This protects the skin from drying out and keeps it supple. The hairs act as "channels" through which the sebum is transported to the skin surface.
The frequently mentioned goosebumps are also not non-functional. The muscle activity of the arrector pili muscles generates a certain amount of warmth, and the hairs raised thereby warn the person of a body temperature issue.9 Furthermore, goosebumps also occur during emotional stimuli such as joy or fear and can serve as a warning signal. This can hardly be interpreted as a remnant of a former warming function.
In addition, as is well known, men and women possess differing amounts of body hair. From a creation perspective, this can be interpreted as a visual distinction between men and women intended by the Creator.
Human body hair is by no means vestigial and is readily compatible with a Creator.
More information here.
7. Darwin's Tubercle:
Many animals can move their ears. While we cannot do this, we possess an allegedly non-functional tubercle of cartilage on the rim of our auricle (pinna) that is supposed to be a remnant of this ability.
Yet here, too, the function is now known. The neural circuits of the ear muscles in our brain cause our eyes to move reflexively to the side upon sudden sounds. This reflex is accompanied by a slight curvature of the auricle.10 Together with other depressions and folds of the auricle, the tubercle contributes to spatial hearing.
Darwin's tubercle is likewise not a definitive vestigial structure and is fully compatible with creation.
8. Flightless Birds:
Some feathered birds are unable to fly because their wings are unsuited for flight:
Proponents of evolution view these wings as remnants of earlier flight-capable wings.
Nevertheless, the wings still fulfill functions. In the kiwi, for example, they regulate balance. Furthermore, in flightless birds, wings can be used for warmth in cold weather and cooling in warm weather. They can protect the ribcage during falls, be used in courtship displays, shelter chicks, and serve in defense. Emus, for instance, run toward their enemies with open beaks and flapping wings.
In this case, it is entirely possible that the wings have partially degenerated. However, this is also compatible with the creation model and is not an indication of macroevolution. Due to their existing functions, the possibility that they were created this way from the beginning cannot be ruled out either. What applies must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Where flightless birds live on islands, this could be an indication of degeneration, for example, because island birds often have fewer or no enemies and can thus safely remain on the ground.
That such wings are vestigial is possible, but not mandatory, and ultimately irrelevant to the question "Creation or Evolution?"
9. Prominent Canines:
Naturalists assume that our prominent canines have become smaller over the course of evolution. The reason lies in the fact that our canines are shorter than those of apes and the presupposition that we descend from ape-like ancestors.
Obviously, this is a subjective interpretation from the perspective of ET. Objectively speaking, our canine does not give the impression of having undergone regression and does not contradict the creation model. Furthermore, the fact that humanity's earliest alleged animal ancestors — the australopithecines — had smaller canines than humans contradicts the evolutionary interpretation.
Thus, this is neither evidence for evolution nor a problem for a Creator.
10. The Nictitating Membrane Vestige:
In many vertebrates, the nictitating membrane is a transparent third eyelid at the inner corner of the eye that can be drawn across the entire eye for protection when needed. Humans also have a kind of nictitating membrane at the inner corners of our eyes, but it is immovable in us and is interpreted by proponents of evolution as the remnant of a formerly movable nictitating membrane.
Yet here, too, this is merely one possible interpretation, because our nictitating membrane serves the purpose of gathering foreign particles that have entered the eye into a sticky mass at the corner of the eye, where they can then be removed safely. Moreover, the human nictitating membrane differs structurally and significantly from the nictitating membrane of birds.
Interpretation as a vestigial structure may be possible from an evolutionary standpoint under the assumption of partial loss or change of function, but it is not a strict necessity. Since the nictitating membrane fulfills a function, it could also have been created that way from the beginning.
11. Eye Remnants in Cave Fish:
Fish that live in caves are blind and possess only eye remnants. The reason is that cave fish do not need eyes due to the darkness, so regression carries no disadvantage and consequently is not selected against. On the contrary, it even brings an advantage, as blind fish cannot injure their eyes when bumping into cave walls, for example.
However, this regression is also compatible with the creation model and is not proof of macroevolution, since the regression took place only within the respective fish species and corresponds to the direction of development expected in the creation model. An experiment also demonstrated that this regression cannot have existed for millions of years:
Richard Borowsky and his colleagues reasonably assumed that different mutations had led to vision loss in different populations. "Populations" here refers to different groups of the same species (in this case Astyanax mexicanus) that are spatially and/or temporally separated from one another.
They took four different populations of the Mexican cave fish and crossed them with one another. As a result, nearly 40% of the offspring were able to see.11 Because the loss of vision in the different populations was due to different damaged genes, the defects of one parent could be counterbalanced in the offspring by the healthy genes of the other parent.
Dr. Richard Borowsky states: "Not only are the structures of the eye restored to the point where they regain function, but all the connections to the brain for proper processing of information not used for that enormous length of time are restored."12
The fact that offspring with functioning eyes could be produced allows for two conclusions:
The genetic information for functioning eyes is still present in the genome of blind fish.
Consequently, this regression cannot be very old. Over a span of millions of years, this information would have been eliminated long ago. That is, it would have degraded further through mutations, and since it is not needed, selection would not have maintained it in the population.
Blind cave fish are therefore fully compatible with the creation model. A bit more detail on this can be found in this article.
12. The Hind Spurs of Pythons and Boas:
Pythons and boas have hind spurs that naturalists interpret as remnants of former legs. Regardless of whether this is true, the hind spurs are helpful when moving through branches and during mating. An interpretation as a vestigial structure is therefore not mandatory.
However, from the perspective of biblical creation theory as well, snakes are expected to have had legs previously:
Genesis 3:14: "So the LORD God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life!'"
The Bible thus implies that the snake was created with legs in the beginning. Therefore, if these are indeed remnants of earlier legs, this can be interpreted within both the evolutionary model and the creation model. It should be noted, however, that interpretation within the evolutionary model is not evidence for macroevolution, since something was lost rather than newly created.
A bit more detail on this can be found in this article.
13. Blind Moles:
Moles are known to be frequently blind. While they do have eyes, these are covered by an outer layer of skin and are only suitable for distinguishing between day and night.
Naturalists view these eyes as vestigial structures, and they are sometimes brought forward as a design flaw against intelligent design.
First of all, the loss of vision, as already explained for cave fish, would not be a problem for creation. But do the mole's eyes even have to be vestigial?
Moles spend most of their time underground in the dark; "normal" eyes would be superfluous here. Moreover, they dig primarily with their snouts, where normal eyes would pose a risk because they could be injured and become inflamed while digging.
Moles come to the surface to forage for food, move about, and mate. With sighted eyes, they would first have to adjust to the light and would be disoriented, which can be quite life-threatening for animals at the lower end of the food chain. As it is, blind moles cope much better in daylight than sighted nocturnal rodents,13 which means they require much less time to adjust to daylight.
In addition to distinguishing between day and night, eyes in mammals also serve as an important link in thermoregulation, reproduction, and hibernation, all of which require information about changes in the time of day. Accordingly, moles have functional retinas that produce melatonin, which also contributes to thermoregulation. Thus, a 1990 study showed that the removal of the eyes leads to an impairment of thermoregulation.14
We thus see that the mole's eyes are optimally designed for the mole's habitat and are by no means a design flaw. Whether the mole was created blind or lost its vision through degeneration, both are compatible with the creation model.
The topic is discussed in more detail in this article.
14. The Grasping Reflex:
Newborn children possess a grasping reflex, whereby the infant automatically grips with its hand when something touches its palm. This reflex occurs unconsciously and can appear up to the 9th month after birth. Proponents of evolution see the origin of this reflex in the typical gripping of branches by apes and the clinging of young apes to their mother's fur.
However, developmental-physiological contexts cast doubt on this explanation. During early differentiation, the arm rudiments undergo a developmental movement called "growth grasping".
On an unconscious embryonic level within the framework of arm development, this prepares the later conscious grasping. Starting from the 5th week of pregnancy, the embryo's little arm begins to grow sideways and then forward. Afterwards, the elbow is slightly bent, resulting in a slight approximation of the hand to the anterior chest wall. Subsequently, the hand is led to the mouth.
Starting from the 7th week of pregnancy, a maturation-related and growth-stimulating grasping movement can be observed here. In the newborn, this grasping movement can still be elicited as the palmar grasp reflex and disappears over time through the further maturation of the brain, nervous system, and motor system. Incidentally, the plantar grasp reflex is explained by similar relationships.
This functional explanation, as well as the facts of ontogenetic maturation processes, render the interpretation as a vestigial structure superfluous. (Ontogeny = development of an individual multicellular organism) The grasping reflex is in no way in contradiction to creation.
A bit more detail on this example can be found in this article.
15. Male Nipples:
Male nipples are also a popular vestigial structure cited by proponents of evolution. Since they obviously do not produce milk, they are considered useless. While this assumption seems plausible at first glance, is it really true?
Men and women are physiologically identical in the early stages of embryonic development. Nipples belong to the basic human body plan and are already present when sexual differentiation begins.
Both male and female nipples contain abundant nerve tissue and are therefore very sensitive to touch.15 They are innervated by multiple nerves,16 which in itself points to a function. Male nipples have several functions, but are primarily involved in sexual stimulation,17,18 and are just as sensitive as female nipples.19 However, women's nipples have more and larger erogenous zones than those of men.
The significance of male nipples is also indicated by attempts to reconstruct the nipple-areola complex following an accident or illness.20 Breasts and nipples are involved in sexual intercourse only in humans; there is no evidence of an evolution of this function in lower primates.
It would also be interesting to know what exactly male nipples are supposed to be a vestige of, a question that is usually not addressed.
Thus, male nipples are thoroughly functional and by no means to be classified as vestigial.
A more detailed article on this topic can be found here.
16. Shoulder and Pelvic Bone Remnants in Glass Lizards:
Although glass lizards look like snakes at first glance, they are classified as lizards. Features such as movable eyelids and ear openings place them closer to lizards than to snakes, which lack these features. Furthermore, their jaws are less elastic and their locomotion is less fluid and stiffer than in snakes.
Glass lizards also possess bones that are interpreted as non-functional remnants of shoulders and pelvis. These (putative) vestigial structures are explained by descent from lizards. First of all, the existence of a function cannot be definitively ruled out methodically. If a function were present, glass lizards could have been created that way as well.
However, if the bones are indeed remnants of earlier legs, one could discuss from a creation-science perspective whether microevolutionary genetic variation mechanisms (recombination (inheritance); epigenetics: jumping genes, ...; variation programs) could also produce the traits that are interpreted within evolutionary theory as newly acquired during vestigiation within a created kind. As we know today, a considerable degree of variation and latent programs is possible at the microevolutionary level (without an increase in information).
In the specific case of the glass lizard, however, this approach would need to be examined more precisely using current data.
Moreover, descent from (other) lizards is not mandatory from a creation perspective. If glass lizards are understood as a separate created kind that may have been able to walk in the past, its morphology (body structure) might have resembled today's glass lizards more closely than other lizards resemble today's glass lizards, and the differences to be explained microevolutionarily would be smaller. The similarities between lizards and glass lizards would then be created convergences.
Glass lizards can thus be interpreted within the framework of both models.
17. The Jacobson's Organ:
The Jacobson's organ, or vomeronasal organ, is a secondary olfactory organ and is present in mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Humans also possess this small organ located behind the nostrils.
While it is recognized as serving the perception of pheromones (chemical messengers for communication) in animals, in adult humans it is supposedly preserved only as a non-functional vestige.
However, the Jacobson's organ was described as functional some time ago. In a 1996 study, the vomeronasal organ was exposed to specific pheromones, whereupon changes in the functioning of automatic bodily functions were observed. In addition, specific hormones were secreted, and electrical brainwave patterns changed.21
Two years later, it was published that the local reaction of the Jacobson's organ involves gender-specific behavioral changes, a modulation of autonomic nervous system function, and the release of specific regulatory hormones from the pituitary gland.22
The vomeronasal organ is demonstrably functional and by no means vestigial. Further details on its functionality can be found in this article.
Further (alleged) vestigial structures will be added over time. (Last updated on October 11, 2026)
General Remarks:
Vestigial structures are cited as some of the best evidence for evolution. Yet soberly considered, this is not the case. Wherever a genuine vestigial structure exists, it testifies to degeneration, not evolution. However, ET requires progressive development instead of regressive development. Regressive development is the direction of development expected in the creation model, and accordingly, vestigial structures are also conceivable here. Vestigial structures could (clearly) point to macroevolution in individual cases only if the regression had taken place across created-kind boundaries — perhaps in conjunction with the emergence of new organs or structures—as would be the case, for example, with whale pelvic bones.
Yet even if such seemingly unambiguous vestigial structures were to exist, proponents of evolution face the problem that they cannot empirically (through observation and experiment) prove the non-functionality of an organ. Non-functionality is merely a subjective assumption under the presupposition of ET. In fact, there could equally well be a previously unknown function, as has already been the case with so many alleged vestigial structures.
Furthermore, naturalism represents an obstacle to scientific research and the acquisition of knowledge in this regard. For why should one investigate something that one is convinced is a useless vestigial structure? Rather, science based on creation theory spurs further research.
Ultimately, any genuine vestigial structures are a matter of interpretation and are weak arguments for macroevolution rather than strong ones.
Literature:
Rae P (2015) Vagus Nerve. Essential Clinical Anatomy of the Nervous System, Massachusetts: Academic Press, 10.7.1. ↩︎
Hong YT & Hong KH (2018) The Relationship Between the Non-recurrent Laryngeal Nerve and the Inferior Thyroid Artery. Indian Journal of Surgery 80 (2), 109–112. ↩︎
Cramon-Taubadel (2011) Global Human Mandibular Variation Reflects Differences in Agricultural and Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence Strategies. PNAS 108 (49), 19546–19551, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113050108; Sengupta A et al. (1999) The Effects of Dental Wear on Third Molar Eruption and on the Curve of Spee in Human Archaeological Dentitions. Archives of Oral Biology 44 (11), 925–934, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9969(99)00095-3. ↩︎
Cramon-Taubadel (2011) Global Human Mandibular Variation Reflects Differences in Agricultural and Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence Strategies; Kaifu Y et al. (2003) Tooth Wear and the 'Design' of the Human Dentition: A Perspective from Evolutionary Medicine. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 122, 47–61, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10329. ↩︎
Coruccini RS (1990) Australian Aboriginal Tooth Succession, Interproximal Attrition, and Begg's Theory. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 97 (4), 349–357, https://doi.org/10.10889-5408(90)70107-N. ↩︎
Odusanya SA & Abayomi IO (1991) Third Molar Eruption Among Rural Nigerians. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, and Oral Pathology 71, 151–154, https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(91)90457-N. ↩︎
Wieland C (1988) The Strange Tale of the Leg on a Whale. Creation 2 (3), 10–13. ↩︎
Dines JP et al. (2014) Sexual selection targets cetacean pelvic bones. Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12518. ↩︎
Bergman J & Rowe G (1990) „Vestigial organs“ are fully functional. Creation Research Society Monograph Series No. 4, Terre Haute, IN. ↩︎
Hackley S (2015) Evidence for a Vestigial Pinna-Orienting System in Humans. Psychophysiology 52 (10), 1263–1270, https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12501. ↩︎
New York University (2008) Progeny of blind fish can regain their sight. ScienceDaily, Jan 8, 2008, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107120911.htm (Die Arbeit wurde offiziell in einer Ausgabe von Current Biology veröffentlicht). ↩︎
Ref. 11. ↩︎
Avni R et al. (2008) Exploration and navigation in the blind mole rat (Spalax ehrenbergi): global calibration as a primer of spatial representation. Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 2825, https://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/211/17/2817.full.pdf. ↩︎
Sanyal S et al. (1990) The Eye of the Blind Mole Rat, Spalax ehrenbergi, Rudiment With Hidden Function? Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 31 (7), 1402–1403, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21014181_The_eye_of_the_blind_mole_rat_spalax_ehrenbergi_Rudiment_with_hidden_function. ↩︎
Samadi NS & Lee FD (1996) An anatomical study of the nerve supply of the breast, including the nipple and areola. British J. Plastic Surgery 49 (3), 156–164; Samadi NS et al. (1997) Nerve supply of the breast with special reference to the nipple and areola: Sir Astley Cooper revisited. Clinical Anatomy 10 (4), 283–288; Sykes PA (1969) The nerve supply of the human nipple. J. Anatomy 105 (1), 201; Wuringer E et al. (1998) Nerve and vessel supplying ligamentous suspension of the mammary gland. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 101 (6), 1486–1493; Robinson JE & Short RV (1977) Changes in breast sensitivity at puberty, during the menstrual cycle, and at parturition. British Medical Journal 1 (6070), 1188–1191; Kapdi CC & Parekh NJ (1983) The male breast. Radiology Clinical North America 21 (1), 137–148. ↩︎
Sykes PA (1969) The nerve supply of the human nipple. J. Anatomy 105 (1), 201. ↩︎
Sloand E (1998) Pediatric and adolescent breast health. Lippincolts Primary Care Practice 2 (2), 170–175. ↩︎
Masters W & Johnson V (1966) Human Sexual Response. Little Brown, Boston. ↩︎
Stoppard M (1996) The Breast Book: The Essential Guide to Breast Care & Breast Health for Women of All Ages. Dorling Kindersley, New York. ↩︎
DeBono R & Rao GS (1997) A simple technique for correction of male nipple hypertrophy: the 'sinusoidal' nipple reduction. Plastic Reconstruction Surgery 100 (7), 1890–1892; Aische AE (1991) Male chest correction. Pectoral implants and gynecomastia. Clinical Plastic Surgery 18 (4), 823–828; Vasconez HC & Holley DT (1995) Use of the tram and latissimus dorsi flaps in autogenous breast reconstruction. Clinical Plastic Surgery 22 (1), 153–166; Kincaid SB (1984) Breast reconstruction: a review. Annals of Plastic Surgery 12 (5), 431–448; Liebau J et al. (1998) Gynecomastia of the male nipple. Annals of Plastic Surgery 40 (6), 678–681. ↩︎
Berliner DL et al. (1996) The functionality of the human vomeronasal organ (VNO):
evidence for steroid receptors. J. Steroid Biochemical Molecular Biology
58(3):259–265, S. 259. ↩︎
Monti-Bloch L et al. (1998) The human vomeronasal system: a review, Annals of the
New York Academy of Science 30(855):373–389, 1998; S. 373. ↩︎
Comments