David Marjanovic wrote about Heilmann and clavicles:
> Maybe he did even know about these bones -- AFAIK they were first identified as
> interclavicles (a bone between the clavicles, lost in apparently all Dinosauromorpha), at a time
> when nobody knew which bones can be expected in a dinosaur and which can't.
I find this interesting. I would like to know where you read or heard that clavicles were identified as interclavicles in those times. I happen to be writing an essay on the topic, and I would probably need a reference I could cite.
And when did people start identifying theropod clavicles as clavicles? And how did this change come about?
> > after Heilmann's book was published (1996).
> That's Feduccia's book on the same issue :-> . Heilmann's original in Danish (Fuglenes
> afstamning, IIRC) was published in 1925, the English translation in 1926.
Well, wasn't I careless.