|
David Marjanovic wrote about Heilmann and
clavicles:
> Maybe he did even know
about these bones -- AFAIK they were first identified as
> interclavicles (a bone between the clavicles,
lost in apparently all Dinosauromorpha), at a time
> when nobody knew
which bones can be expected in a dinosaur and which can't.
I find this interesting. I would like to know where
you read or heard that clavicles were identified as interclavicles in those
times. I happen to be writing an essay on the topic, and I would probably need a
reference I could cite.
And when did people start identifying theropod
clavicles as clavicles? And how did this change come about?
I wrote:
> > after Heilmann's
book was published (1996).
David wrote:
> That's Feduccia's book on the same issue
:-> . Heilmann's original in Danish (Fuglenes
> afstamning, IIRC) was published in 1925,
the English translation in 1926.
Well, wasn't I careless.
Best wishes,
Henri Rönkkö
|