Customer Reviews:
 Are we talking about anatomy?! I wonder... November 25, 2007
Dr. Cat
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Being a young professor teaching comparative anatomy using Dr. Kent's textbook, I can't stop wondering what was the goal that Dr. Kent had in mind when he wrote this textbook. Judging the content by the viewpoint of a classically trained anatomist, Dr. Kent's anatomic prospect over his subjects is far worse than inadequate. He put up with anatomic pictures of disproportionally emphasized part (e.g., the pelvis of a turtle), and displayed it in a skewed view that, to the best ot if, will only confuse the students/readers. In addition, Dr. Kent had a tendency to write examples that are exception to the general scheme, and made it read like a general case. This will definitely confuse, and mislead the readers/students.
Further, the content need to be updated. For example, we all know that oxytocin can loose pubis symphysis during laboring. However, in the textbook Dr. Kent still described this hormone as "relaxin". This is pretty strong proof that the content is very outdated. There are plenty of typo, and in one instance, one portion of a big three-part figure was missing. The editorial office apparently did an excellent job in omitting such an obvious "detail". Excellency to the highest!
By comparison, I think Dr. Kardong's textbook did a much better job. (I have both copies)
 Detailed to say the least September 25, 2003
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
I have to say this text is very interesting but not clear at all times. It's got loads of information jammed into a book that's rather thin for a college text but it's very informative. My only problem? It's so detailed that you can barely make out what any of it means. Also, the glossary is not as complete as it should be, but it does give plenty of latin prefixes and suffixes to help aid in the translation of scientific jargon. If they had put in about five or so more chapters (or at least that amount in pages) they could have explained confusing concepts more and avoid just jamming as many neurocranial bones as they can figure out in one paragraph.
 Update of an inadequate text April 13, 1999
1 out of 4 found this review helpful
I have not read this edition of Dr. Kent's book, but as a former student of Dr. Kent's, I was forced to buy his text when I took his comparative anatomy course. At the time, I found it a difficult read of marginal usefulness. When he left Louisiana State, a different, far better text was introduced. If this is merely an update of that volume, I echo others who recommend other sources.
 Interesting, but a disappointing lack of detail. August 4, 1998
5 out of 5 found this review helpful
Though this book is a decent introductory guide to comparative vertebrate anatomy, there is a significant lack of detail in certain sections. The text is very condensed, and difficult to read at certain parts. I recommend using a similar book by Walker.
|
