Netter's or Grants
Started by Nflow
i don't really like any of them (but i don't have a better alternative either). the reason that i would recommend Netter (even though i find the layout/organization inefficient and many of the plates to be excessively complex) is just the sheer volume of images (it's got a picture of everything and will give you 3-4 different perspectives of the same regions). Grant's doesn't, and it can be a bit limiting. plus, the pictures are dark and i find it difficult to read. Rohen is nice, but i would not get it either. the labels are too confusing if it's your first time studying anatomy, and with a color atlas, it's easy to fall into the trap of just studying the pictures instead of putting in lab time. if you do that (ie, just study Rohen), you will crash and burn on the practical, because none of the bodies in the lab will look that pretty.
netters is good for getting you to understand the general organization of structures in the body (grant's is terrible for this stuff IMO). Rohen's is good but like they said, its very nicely done and the practical will never look that nice
You can see most of Grant's on Bartleby's (actually, I don't know if its most since I've never seen the whole thing, but its a lot)
http://www.bartleby.com/107/indexillus.html
Its free, and sometimes clearer than Netter. They work well in combination.
http://www.bartleby.com/107/indexillus.html
Its free, and sometimes clearer than Netter. They work well in combination.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
In addition to Netter's, you should also get Rohen's photographic atlas -- it has real pictures, not drawings.
I liked Netter for learning and Rohen for review. I didn't like big Moore cause I was more of a visual learner. But, if you want to read about the relationships of everything, be my guest... The blue boxes in Moore were pretty useful, but that's cause the info in them tended to show up on tests here until they changed books.
We had a Grant's in lab, but we never used it. Some people found it useful though. I wouldn't use it so much as an atlas though.
We had a Grant's in lab, but we never used it. Some people found it useful though. I wouldn't use it so much as an atlas though.
tag team: netter and grant's
Tag team, yes, but different teammates.celticmists18 said:
Netter: useful for pretty, idealistic pictures. Very high-yield for lecture exams.
Rohen: useful for "ok, now where the hell is CN XI REALLY located?" Very high-yield for practicals.
Grant is way too cluttered for me to get any use out of it. I have a copy on my bookshelf, but it's mostly for looks. 😉
High Yield Anatomy and BRS Biochem (Emphasis on Biochem!!!)
just kidding, not really but...
I would use Rohen and Netters. With these 2, u dont even have to go to lab.
peace
just kidding, not really but...
I would use Rohen and Netters. With these 2, u dont even have to go to lab.
peace
grants sucks. i'm still mad that i got it over netter since it was recommended by my course instructor.
i couldnt stand moore
ugh so annoying
for me anatomy consisted of netter (until someone in lab stole my tables copy)
then grant and chung
thats just me
ugh so annoying
for me anatomy consisted of netter (until someone in lab stole my tables copy)
then grant and chung
thats just me
jonb12997 said:
I love Clemente, too. Wished I'd gotten it instead of Netter's--I really don't see the big deal about that one.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
aphistis said:
Ughhh... Anatomy is going to turn ME into a cadaver, I can't wait until Christmas break.
Netter and Rohen sound like a good tag team, I just hope the info will sink in and stick.
Grant's dissector is good. Netter is a better atlas than grants, in my opinion, since the diagrams are drawn in such a way to make important anatomical points clear.
Moore's essential clinical anatomy is fantastic for studying for written exams, and rohen is great for studying for practicals (since they are actual pictures of cadavers, and cadavers don't look anything like the diagrams in most atlases. Use the ones at the library -- I don't see the sense in buying all of these, as they will go straight to the ash heap after anatomy is over (you would never use any of these for board review -- there is too much detail).
Moore's essential clinical anatomy is fantastic for studying for written exams, and rohen is great for studying for practicals (since they are actual pictures of cadavers, and cadavers don't look anything like the diagrams in most atlases. Use the ones at the library -- I don't see the sense in buying all of these, as they will go straight to the ash heap after anatomy is over (you would never use any of these for board review -- there is too much detail).
Netter's was great for high-yield, "this is what it would look like if your body was 'typical' and you were a fantastic dissector" kind of pics...it was good for giving me a really good idea of where to look. i'm a visual and hands-on learner, so the best thing for me was to take my Netter's book up to lab and go through all the different bodies so I could have my own "hey lookee!! i found the common bile duct!!!" moment.
there was 1 section (i think it was the foot) where grant's was better, but all in all i didn't like grants. the pictures were way too dark.
there was 1 section (i think it was the foot) where grant's was better, but all in all i didn't like grants. the pictures were way too dark.
I really disliked Grant's Atlas. To reiterate what another poster said, the colors aren't clear, and important anatomical relationships are really NOT clear-- it is also really arbitrary the views he choses to illustrate, and the one's he leaves out. Netter's may seem cartoonish, but that's good for your first crack at the anatomy. Rohen, gets my vote for understanding how things really look in a well dissected specimen. And, at least at my school, they did try to pick cadavers that were good examples of the tagged structure.
