Talk:Pisiform bone

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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

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

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 This will however leave all the Gray's images outdated, as they mention 'triangular'.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?

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)