[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: rigor

In a message dated 96-09-30 13:31:45 EDT, Stephen_Gatesy@Brown.edu (Stephen
Gatesy) writes:

> At the same time, accurate citations are important.  Although my memory is
> fading, I'm not so prolific to think I could forget pointing out something
> about sacral counts.  Did I ever really say this in print?  If so, where?
> If not, please stop saying I did.  If I did, please use a real citation so
> that people can go find out in what context it might have been said.
> Perhaps I spewed it out as an off the cuff answer to a question at a
> conference.  Are sacral and caudal counts being confused? 

One of the problems with my responses to e-mail is that I do not always have
the time to look up references, and my memory is more than occasionally
faulty. I do give it a better-than-average shot, however, as most list
subscribers know. If I credited you with this incorrectly, my apologies. Now
all I need to know is where I read this originally--because I know it's not
original with me--and whether or not I did misremember/confuse sacral and
caudal counts. However, I do know that when the avian ilia expanded backward,
some of the caudals were taken up into the sacrum, so a decreased caudal
count is somewhat accounted for by an increased sacral count, and the two
counts are, to this extent anyway, intimately related.