-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
do we need a separate squamous bone? #122
Labels
Comments
Be good to have Terry's input here. MA has squamosal bone, EMAPA has "squamous part" |
Alternative: keep as one class. Make the primary label "squamous bone". Add taxon GCI for parthood relationships where the bone is part of another bone |
we're currently treating as the same class, we'll keep this way for now
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
We have UBERON:0001695 'squamous part of temporal bone' but not the separate class:
External def:
The squamosal bone is part of the dermatocranium in early tetrapods and becomes part of the mammalian occipital and temporal bones. [Bemis_WE, Functional_Anatomy_of_the_Vertebrates:An_Evolutionary_Perspective, Grande_L, Third_Edition(2001)_Orlando_Fla.:_Harcourt_College_Publishers, Walker_WF, p.246, see_Liem_KF][VHOG]
Taxon notes:
The squamosal bone, which is homologous with the squama, and forms the side of the cranium in many bony fish and tetrapods. Primitively, it is a flattened plate-like bone, but in many animals it is narrower in form, for example, where it forms the boundary between the two temporal fenestrae of diapsid reptiles. Editor notes: consider separate class for squamosal
This should be reviewed and a separate class considered.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: