Talk:Pisiform bone
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 October 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HNFarrell.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Updates to the 'other animal' section and the addition of a development section
[edit]I am planning on updating the section talking about the bone in other animals (mainly adding information on primates) and including a developmental section in which I can elaborate on the 'lost growth plate' of the bone. I think it is also important to add somewhere on this page that while it may be considered one in humans, the pisiform is not actually a sesamoid bone in other organisms - it is just reduced in us. HNFarrell (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Update: edits were made by transfering them from my sandbox User:HNFarrell/sandbox HNFarrell (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Triangular or Triquetral
[edit]The triangular bone is now more commonly called the triquetral. I think all mentions of triangular should be changed to triquetral. This will however leave all the Gray's images outdated, as they mention 'triangular'.
part of the vanished sixth finger?
[edit]This article s:Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_33/October_1888/Curiosities_of_Evolution says "...one of the most curious is the pisiform bone of the wrist, which careful researches in comparative anatomy show to be the carpal or wrist bone belonging to a long-vanished sixth finger. The oldest mammals discovered have never more than five fingers. It is necessary to go back to amphibian forms to find a sixth finger, yet all mammals possess the wrist-bone formerly belonging to it." Might be interesting to add this fact, with more sources, of course. --Siddhant (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Siddhant interesting. I can't find any recent evidence to support this statement but an article that is very close is here: [1] page 8 on the PDF, although I am paving a bit of trouble parseng it (keep in mind you are citing from 1888...!) but I have found some sources suggesting the size is different evolutionarily. I'll update the article in a moment. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)