This level-4 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Anatomy: GrossHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAnatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article has been classified as relating togross anatomy. Animal anatomyHigh‑importance This article is part ofWikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related toanimal anatomy apart fromhuman anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further atWikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot ofWikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. PalaeontologyHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpalaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. ChiropracticHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofChiropractic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale.

On 8 December 2024, it was proposed that this article bemoved fromVertebral column toSpinal column. The result ofthe discussion wasmoved.

Interesting to note that Arabian Horses, as a breed, can have one-less vertebrae than other breeds -- this is an acceptable, but not required, breed standard.

Would anyone else know of any other animal group that also has this anomaly that is within the range of normal? Had a discussion with a veterinarian friend, who also wondered if this occurred in any other animal.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDeborah Tudor (talk •contribs)15:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For mammals, I know that sloths and mantees have unusual numbers of cervical vertebrae, though I'm not sure if they vary within the species. Outside of mammals, a lot of reptiles have highly variable vertebral counts among individuals, especially snakes, where two individuals of the same species can vary by almost 20 vertebrae (though, in this case, there were over 200 body vertebrae even in the shortest of this species).HCA (talk)17:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links onVertebral column. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttp://web.archive.org/web/20160715114832/http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowFulltext&ArtikelNr=68948&Ausgabe=228995&ProduktNr=224197 tohttp://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowFulltext&ArtikelNr=68948&Ausgabe=228995&ProduktNr=224197
• Added archivehttp://web.archive.org/web/20081120164559/http://www.harms-spinesurgery.com/ZUS01E tohttp://www.harms-spinesurgery.com/ZUS01E

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed to let others know (documentation at{{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)21:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the vertebrae section, it says: "Coccyx: 4 (3–5) (fused) vertebrae (Tailbone)"^[1]

The article about the Coccyx, however, says "Most anatomy books incorrectly state that the coccyx is normally fused in adults. In fact it has been shown that the coccyx may consist of up to five separate bony segments, the most common configuration being two or three segments."^[2]

Does this mean the section is incorrectly written?

179.97.129.16 (talk)23:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help it but thephoto with the Spina bifida looks like badly photoshopped. Is that permissible? I would say no. Opinions? Thanks.Peteruetz (talk)13:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that source 5 on this page: (Bergman RA, Afifi AK, Miyauchi R."Numerical Variation in Vertebral Column".Anatomy Atlase. Retrieved June 11, 2020.)includes racist language when talking about the differences between the number of vertebrae between people of different races. I don't know how to remove this source or how to change it but I think it is important to challenge outdated racist ideas and not continue to cite them as reliable resources. If anyone can remove this it would be great, and definitely improve the quality of information provided; thanks.192.76.8.66 (talk)11:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectSpine(anatomy) has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 29 § Spine(anatomy) until a consensus is reached.Steel1943 (talk)22:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectSacral and coccygeal vertebrae has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 29 § Sacral and coccygeal vertebrae until a consensus is reached.Steel1943 (talk)22:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectVertebral has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 29 § Vertebral until a consensus is reached.Steel1943 (talk)23:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectAcanthoid has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 31 § Acanthoid until a consensus is reached.Steel1943 (talk)03:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectSpondylous has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 31 § Spondylous until a consensus is reached.Steel1943 (talk)19:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectCervico-thoracic has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 2 § Cervico-thoracic until a consensus is reached.Steel1943 (talk)19:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectLumbosacral has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 2 § Lumbosacral until a consensus is reached.Steel1943 (talk)19:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectThoracolumbar has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 2 § Thoracolumbar until a consensus is reached.Steel1943 (talk)19:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectApe vertebral column has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 3 § Ape vertebral column until a consensus is reached.Steel1943 (talk)13:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Whole article is backwards: should begin with vertebrate condition as a whole, i.e. evolved in sea, vertebral column to support swimming muscles. Then land animals, with horizontal spine, supported on legs: very different engineering. Then apes/humans with upright spine, different engineering again. I'd suggest the human account be split off to a separate article as it's grossly distorting the rest of the explanation for tens of thousands of species. Should also remove the repeated statements that animal backbones are much like human ones: a) not remotely true for fishes, and not especially accurate for snakes (to name just a couple); b) backwards.

2) Article doesn't say that the function of the column is to support swimming muscles! But with a human orientation it's maybe not surprising that a coherent view of function has been lost. Article needs a section on locomotion using the vertebral column, first swimming, then walking on 4 legs. Then the article needs to be split, as above.Chiswick Chap (talk)10:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that article needs to be split into something like "Spinal column (human)" and "Vertebral column" that refer to each other. They are two separate topics that each lend themselves to a different type of article.Hypehuman (talk)12:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the image showcasing the human vertebral column also shows the skull which may mislead one to think the skull is part of the vertebral columnTlah6313 (talk)15:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class level-4 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
• C-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
• C-Class Anatomy articles
• High-importance Anatomy articles
• Anatomy articles about gross anatomy
• WikiProject Anatomy articles
• C-Class Animal anatomy articles
• High-importance Animal anatomy articles
• WikiProject Animal anatomy articles
• C-Class Palaeontology articles
• High-importance Palaeontology articles
• C-Class Palaeontology articles of High-importance
• WikiProject Palaeontology articles
• C-Class Chiropractic articles
• High-importance Chiropractic articles
• WikiProject Chiropractic articles

• All Wikipedia vital articles