Katherine L. Anderson

> wildfire mode > I feel I am the empress of starting wildfires at the moment. Sorry... Thanks all for this!

Coming in late to this conversation, but this seems like it would vastly improve searchability. Paige made some great points about adapting this to lithostratgraphy, which in general is just...

It is a distinct, defined bone in the skull. No different than other bones of the skull already in the specimen parts table (E.g., basioccipital, basisphenoid, ectopterygoid, exoccipital, etc.). For...

@Jegelewicz @dustymc I'm waiting to reply on the other similar threads (see #7668 and #7671 ) based on this discussion. For consistency, shouldn't _all_ skull bones be included where _some_...

> This could probably be stored as a part attribute(?). I imagine delimiting meta-structure from component structures may prove difficult (and it creates a bit more data entry work), but...

I'm all for improving the system overall and continuing this conversation, but I don't want to delay loading parts because of it. So, how do I deal with this in...

> I vote to add epipterygoids and any other skull bones not in the table to the parts table. That way we know at least what terminology is being used,...

> I vote to go with precedent, just add the bone, and wait until we can try to get funding for ontology development. Thanks Mariel! I will reference this in...

Spelling in the code table is missing a P! epiterygoid --> epi**p**terygoid

Thanks for starting this thread, @Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS ! I feel as though this is redundant (although I'd be curious to know Dusty's pedantic distinction!)... if someone wants to add more information...