Print

---

Thanks everyone,

I like the idea of "diaphysis" meaning "with metaphysis". Makes sense. I
will consider this when I go through the bones. I will have to rethink my
coding a bit with this in mind.... But I have to go through all the
longbones later to get MNE counts anyway, so no big deal if I have to
change a few things when I do so.

I'm glad I asked!

Allison

---
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4.
On Nov 19, 2014 3:36 PM, "Jonathan Lowrey" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I use both shaft and diaphysis as attributes in my databases. When I use
> shaft it refers to a diaphysis fragment without the metaphysis (thus fusion
> is unknown). If I use diaphysis it means that the metaphysis is present but
> fusion hasn't occurred. Thus, a distal humerus with a fused
> diaphysis/epiphysis is referred to as "distal complete"; a distal humerus
> where the diaphysis and metaphysis are present, but no epiphysis, is called
> a "distal diaphysis"; a shaft fragment that can be identified as being from
> the distal potion of  the bone is said to come from the distal shaft, a
> "distal shaft fragment". Perhaps something like this is what you have come
> across.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 19, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Allison Grunwald <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear zooarchs,
> >
> > When cataloguing and coding your assemblage, do you differentiate
> between "shaft" and "diaphysis"? I'm expanding upon an older database and I
> ran across an instance of "diaphysis" for the portion present of the
> longbone. So I was wondering if there was a legitimate difference as far as
> portion  interpretation goes (despite them meaning the same thing as far as
> I know!)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Allison
>