I'm just posting this in case some medical student is lurking.

>>9154892

I don't know much about medicine but my impression from actually paging through my copy and its occasional discussion on /sci/ is: it's MOSTLY a meme, but not completely.

What I mean, exactly, is this: GA is obviously a dated text and if you're going to actually learn and/or practice nowadays, the obvious preference among actual med people is a contemporary text with better pictures and recent context.

ON THE OTHER HAND. I doubt that human anatomy and that human anatomical nomenclature have changed significantly over the past hundred years, unless one refers to things like increased height, weight (obesity) and longevity in first-worlders. The point being that if my above thing is correct with those caveats, that GA is still presumably a somewhat relevant compendium, if not a first choice for today's professional. I have heard med people on /sci/ claim that they actually used GA in the course of their education. For further expansion please refer to an actual student/professional who will obviously know more than me on this.

I also differentiate anatomy from other areas of medicine that have obviously changed plenty (now we can cure/vaccinate XYZ diseases that we couldn't a year ago, other areas of inquiry apart from anatomy, etc).

It's a nice book to have a cheap copy of on the shelf, the pictures do have a certain cultural relevance. I'd like to read the skeletal system at some point.

>>9155075

*a hundred years ago

>>9155075
Good post, yeah, that's pretty much what I read after some googling. Turns out my scripts have been using the Netter illustrations, which aren't half bad but don't really give a 'full' picture, such as my OP pic does.

I don't really understand how much things could have changed regarding anatomy, considering any bum with a scalpel can see how stuff is arranged. Also no idea why Americans have accepted anglicized notations, it makes it much more uncomfortable to learn compared to Latin.