` :I feel I have to clarify a couple of things. First I do not question the ``appropriateness`` of the content. I question its utility, and argument that the article reads much, much better without it. In the meanwhile, another, anonymous, user has re-inserted all the cruft because ``people don't know what a lacrimal fossa is``. I'll point out that I myself did not know what a lacrimal fossa was until a little while ago. I followed the wikilink (something anybody without severe arthritis can easily do), and I now know. This is not a paper encyclopedia but, most of all, it is not a collection of essays: the articles are not self-contained entities, and the explanation of everything is a click away. People have to get used to this; not linking lacrimal fossa is a crime. Putting a cranked, short explanation of it in the text of an article that has nothing to do with physiology is, well, pedantic, annoying cruft and confusing to both subjects. Then there is the matter of etymology. Yes, every scientific name is in Latin (which makes it quite silly to say anything ``comes from Latin``: it never left Latin to go anywhere else), and scientists have to pull something out of their arse every time they name a new species. However, people reading about an alleged simian species would hardly be interested in a pedantic, detailed decomposition of each word of the name; also, technically speaking,  Pseudopotto martini does not mean anything but this particular alleged species of tarsier. The rest is just how people got there.   `