Does ANYONE use Gray's Anatomy, EVER?

[Ezekiel20]

Dear all

I went to the medical library and picked up a copy of the 38th edition of Gray's (I think the latest is 39th), having only taken a passing glance at it before.

When I sat down and opened the book, I was horrified at how much text there was and how little diagrams. The few diagrams it had were in black and white and very difficult to make out the structures.

I know Gray's is supposed to be the 'bible' of anatomy, and the grand mother of all anatomy texts. But I couldn't help thinking that at this rate, Gray's will be phased out by the more colourful, student friendly texts such as Netter's and Moore's.

Seriously, Gray's approach to anatomy is 'describe every single curvature of bone, every single detail without omission'. It's like describing Andre Agassi as 'x feet tall, male, x years old, living in USA, arm spam x inches, leg length x inches etc etc', instead of saying, 'an American who is one of the greats of the modern tennis era, who was the archrival of Pete Sampras and has won the grand slam 8 times'.

Just a thought

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[UCLAstudent]

Let's see. I have Gray's Anatomy, Netter, and Clemente. Can't say that I use any of them very often. I agree that Gray's has a ton of text.

The "dead body book" has been the most useful to me.

 

[virilep]

Dear all

I went to the medical library and picked up a copy of the 38th edition of Gray's (I think the latest is 39th), having only taken a passing glance at it before.

When I sat down and opened the book, I was horrified at how much text there was and how little diagrams. The few diagrams it had were in black and white and very difficult to make out the structures.

I know Gray's is supposed to be the 'bible' of anatomy, and the grand mother of all anatomy texts. But I couldn't help thinking that at this rate, Gray's will be phased out by the more colourful, student friendly texts such as Netter's and Moore's.

Seriously, Gray's approach to anatomy is 'describe every single curvature of bone, every single detail without omission'. It's like describing Andre Agassi as 'x feet tall, male, x years old, living in USA, arm spam x inches, leg length x inches etc etc', instead of saying, 'an American who is one of the greats of the modern tennis era, who was the archrival of Pete Sampras and has won the grand slam 8 times'.

Just a thought

it's the bible because everyone regards that as the purist anatomy book. but for our purposes (That of a med student instead of a PhD anatomist), netters or rohens or whatever is a whole helluva lot better.

 

[usnavdoc]

All you need is your disection manual, class notes, and netters.

 

[indo]

All you need is your disection manual, class notes, and netters.

Gray's Anatomy is available in a facsimile version which is much larger and has extensive drawings of the anatomy. Check it out if you get the chance.

 

[emack]

Gray's is a text, as opposed to, for example, Netter and Rohen, which are atlases. I guess most of us have figured out that learning anatomy by text is painful & inefficient.

I have Gray's Anatomy for Students, which is a (somewhat) abridged text with some really helpful images. Instead of those crowded, sometimes confusing & overwhelming atlas images, Gray's will give you idealized pictures that are often a good 'first look' at the anatomy of a given region.

Sample image:

 

[Random]

I tend to use Gray's and Netter's for my presentations but for studying I think that Rohen and Moore are way better. Oh, and the online version of Gray's is in color.

 

[azzarah]

My school provides us with the online version free of charge, so if there's something anatomy-related I need to look up, I use it.