This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Limbic system article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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

Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Anatomy: Neuroanatomy 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 been classified as relating to neuroanatomy. 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. Neuroscience High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Etymology The etymology section in this article is within the scope of the Etymology task force, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of etymology 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.EtymologyWikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/EtymologyTemplate:Etymology sectionEtymology

Evolution non sequitur or obsolete/fallacious opinion about evolution:

In section Evolution, number list, item 3:

Similar development of the neocortex in mammalian species unrelated to humans and primates has also occurred, for example in cetaceans and elephants; thus the designation of "superior mammals" is not an evolutionary one, as it has occurred independently in different species.

(The bold added by me) My comment: if it occurs independently in different species, it is definitely an effect of evolution in combination with selective pressure and competition between species. How independent occurrences can disprove evolution is beyond my understanding, unless one perceives evolution as kind of a divine predestination for some elected species to become the "crown" species according to some mystical idea of what is "better" and "worse" by some human standards. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think what is meant is that, since it's a convergent feature, "higher mammals" are not a clade. The use of "evolution" here is erroneous, but the point it's trying to make isn't. Hairy Dude (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this incomprehensible sentence. Perhaps it was meant to say "the components interacting with the limbic system are often ..."? Smyth (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the writer meant to refer to the paralimbic components and it got garbled? Wcmead3 (talk) Wcmead3 (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The intro should be completely rewritten. As it stands, it is a taxonomy of the components of the limbic system, and to the reader seeking general information, it is a jumble of meaningless names. Would an article on the United States be introduced by a list of the states? Wcmead3 (talk) Wcmead3 (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Youngstown State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am very new to editing Wikipedia, so forgive me in general. I am struggling with the fact that this page seems to reflect older, anatomical/histological ways of thinking about the brain. While the limbic system is often still discussed in modern research, I think the conceptualisation of this brain area as one cohesive system is somewhat outdated, and modern researchers refer to these areas as 'limbic' based on historical precedent rather than functional unity. Could there be a way to restructure this article to emphasise the historically-contingent nature of this topic, while also highlighting the modern research in both molecular and systems neuroscience that conceptualises these brain areas in a more functional/circuit-dependent manner? TSEliotNess (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]