 |
 |
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.
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