Nomenclature, the tradition of giving definitions and names to structures and phenomena is as old as science itself. The early modern anatomist from the 16th and 17th century had to create order in the thousands of new phenomena, objects, organs and structures that they (literally) dis-covered with their new approach of dissecting human bodies and of structural analysis. Giving names and definitions is from all scientific disciplines: although very often nowadays adaptations and corrections have to be made to his taxonomy and nomenclature modern biologists still base their nomenclature on the work of Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century.
Is there a need or a necessity for the community of scientists and practitioners involved in the fascial system to develop a complete up to date nomenclature as to fascial anatomy and its components?
I don’t think so. The best pragmatic solution is to look at the neurophysiologists. They use and apply the old terminology of the neuroanatomists and compose those anatomical elements into new functional circuits. So, in the case of fascia, anatomy is the warp and architecture the complementing woof. This simply means that one can describe the fascia in its position in between two anatomical structures for example muscles, but that this is not enough. For understanding the connective tissue structure functionally, is not only necessary to describe where it is organized, even as important is the notion of how. Is it loose areolar connective tissue enabling mobility or strong, or collagenous or dense connective tissue transmitting forces? Connection, context, architecture is the item. But then you come to problems as an anatomist who learned (and teaches) that muscles and ligaments and bones are discrete elements. They are not ..........
To read more open the link below