|
The brachiocephalic trunk. This entity receives its name from the tradition and no change would be welcome. However, a few comments are necessary in order to explain what would be a formally correct version of the terminology.This terminology is mainly presented as a partonomy on one side, and as a taxonomy based on the Foundational Model of Anatomy FMA on the other side. The partonomy is declined around the part_of relation, which receives formal definitions be several authors.In contrast to the past terminologies, including TA98, which were not formally defined and consequently somewhat approximative or ambiguous about the part_of relation, we want to be strict on this point of view here. Because several relations of the partonomy are of type branch_of, concerning the vessels and the nerves in particular, it is necessary to define the branch_of relation as a specialisation of the part_of relation.To do that, we consider (following the arguments of the FMA) each vessel or nerve to be the entire tree resulting from it: the main part is the trunk and the several issued attributions are the branches of this tree, this definition being recursive. In this way, the branch_of relation between the vessel or nerve and one of its branches is a part_of relation: the branch is part_of the tree. Under this condition, the partonomy is properly defined, including the branch_of relation. As a side effect, the trunk generally has no children: the brachiocephalic trunk should better be call brachiocephalic artery because an artery is always defined as the whole arterial tree in this terminology!
|