Afghan/Khyber Knife

[ariel]

I would like to correct anatomical error in the description of walrus tusk written in the book on identification of various osteological materials. The author calls the inner marbled ( oatmeal-like, granulated etc.) part of the tusk a " pulp". It is not a pulp. Pulp of any tooth is a soft living tissue located in the middle of the tooth and composed of arteries, veins, nerves and some supporting soft tissue. It is locates in the so-called " pulp cavity" that originates at the basis of the root and disappears completely well before the tip of the tooth. It provides nutrients to the cells lining the dentine that are responsible for tooth growth. When we have root canal procedure, the pulp is what is removed by our endodontists:-((( The jello-like consistency of the pulp makes it absolutely unsuitable for any practical use in the process of carving.


Walrus tusk is a modified canine tooth. Its outer layer is enamel, that is worn off at a very young age. Underneath is cementum, also thin and flaky material that is removed by the carver. The rest of the tusk consists of dentine and this part is used for carving purposes. The outer layer of the dentine is homogeneous (primary dentine) and the inner part ( secondary dentine or osteodentine) is exactly the one that is erroneously called " pulp" in the book.
You can look it in the CITES book
https://www.cites.org/sites/default/...vory-guide.pdf
and in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services book
https://www.fws.gov/lab/ivory_natural.php

Also, a pic of the cut across the tusk:C- cementum, PD- primary dentine; SD - secondary dentine. Right in the center we can see a dark irregular structure, the final remnant of the pulp.

Thus, when we discuss walrus ivory, let's use correct anatomical terminology.

[mahratt]

Thank you very much for the valuable addition taken from the CITES website.
In Russian (and the book is written in Russian for Russian-speaking specialists), the inner (oatmeal-like, granulated etc.) at the same time, the hard part of the walrus fang is called "pulpa".
If I decide to make an English version of my book on the definition of osteological materials, I will definitely describe the structure of the walrus fang, as is customary in the English scientific literature

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

.
In Russian (and the book is written in Russian for Russian-speaking specialists), the inner (oatmeal-like, granulated etc.) at the same time, the hard part of the walrus fang is called "pulpa".

You are trying to wiggle out of the obvious error on your part. It ain't gonna happen: in Russian, as in every other language pulp is the soft content of the inner tooth cavity ( blood vessels, nerves etc) and is a separate entity from dentin. It pertains to every species with teeth: humans, walruses, elephants, cats etc. Basic anatomy from my first year of medical school:-)
For your benefit I am attaching a slide from a Russian source with Latin names for different tooth components ( for the benefit of other Forumites). If you do not trust it, you can consult any Russian book on anatomy or dentistry or Google it in Russian.
Just admit your goof, say thank you and that's it. The more you try to dig yourself out , the deeper you get.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

You are trying to wiggle out of the obvious error on your part. It ain't gonna happen: in Russian, as in every other language pulp is the soft content of the inner tooth cavity ( blood vessels, nerves etc) and is a separate entity from dentin. It pertains to every species with teeth: humans, walruses, elephants, cats etc. Basic anatomy from my first year of medical school:-)
For your benefit I am attaching a slide from a Russian source with Latin names for different tooth components ( for the benefit of other Forumites). If you do not trust it, you can consult any Russian book on anatomy or dentistry or Google it in Russian.
Just admit your goof, say thank you and that's it. The more you try to dig yourself out , the deeper you get.

Dear friend, I see you try to be "have a finger in every pie" all the time, if it concerns my messages. It really flatters me
There are many specific linguistic circulation in the Russian language that you are not familiar with due to the specifics of your profession. This is normal. You can’t know everything. But this is not scary. We are all learning.
I did not say anything about the structure of the tooth. Therefore, you put a picture in the subject in vain I spoke of the fact that in Russian, among specialists, a certain part of walrus fang is called “pulpа” and this has nothing to do with ordinary tooth pulp. The same part of the tooth is also called "scadra". There is no such word in English at all.
So you don’t have to try to seem smarter than it really is You are already a smart enough person. Nevertheless, do not try to be an expert in all sciences. Otherwise, you will look stupid.

I propose to continue the discussion of the Khyber knife of Norman. Of course, if someone can say something new.

P.S. I must add that the manuscript of the book has a positive response from a leading specialist in Russia, who specializes in tusks of elephants and mammoths, as well as walrus fangs, an expert from the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation This review was published at the beginning of my "Guide to Osteological Materials".
But, probably, you know more than this respected specialist

[ariel]

Please teach me: post a scan from a professional Russian publication where walrus dentin is called “pulp”.
I shall be grateful for any new info about knowledge of elementary histology among academic Russian anatomists or dentists:-)))

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Please teach me: post a scan from a professional Russian publication where walrus dentin is called “pulp”.
I shall be grateful for any new info about knowledge of elementary histology among academic Russian anatomists or dentists:-)))

How did you write when you were asked a similar question in Russian forum, asking to scan just a couple of pages from the right book? If my memory serves me: "Is every hour of my time very expensive?" It seems you said that an hour of your time costs $ 500? Perhaps I should give a link to this message of yours so that everyone knows that I am not inventing, but telling the truth? What do you think?

Of course, my time is not so expensive, but I also appreciate my time. Nevertheless, I am not so arrogant and will answer you.

I did not write about academic publications (please quote me if I am wrong), but I told about special terms that are common among specialists who oversee collections of bone products (walrus fangs, elephant and mammoth tusks, camel leg bones, etc.) in museums and similar organizations, as well as among those people who now make bone products (bone carvers). And I wrote that you may not know about these specific terms
Of course, if you communicate with biologists who are specialists in the study of walruses, they will use other terms. However, I think there are no such people among the forum participants My book on the definition of osteological materials was not written for specialists in the study of walruses, but for museum workers who store products from animal bones and for collectors. As you requested, I attach a scan from the book in the subject, with a description the walrus fang. Especially for you, I highlighted the word "pulpa". Forum participants who speak Russian will confirm that my words correspond to what is written in this book.
I hope now that I have satisfied your curiosity, we can return to the discussion of the Khyber knife

[ariel]

Thank you.
I got it: the term “ pulp” is an internal lingo of the carvers and traders of walrus tusks , i.e. people having no knowledge of, and no interest in correct terminology. Among themselves they could have used “Shadra” or ”thingamajig” to the same effect. But no professional anatomist or dentist would even dream about confusing pulp with dentin, wouldn’t you agree?
In other words, you relied on the information obtained from popular sources and did not verify it by consulting proper professional ones. It’s a pity: your book was supposed to reflect the official view of a respectable museum of natural history and as such adhere to the universally accepted scientific terminology.

If you ever republish it, even in Russian, my advice would be to correct the goof. And go through the entire book with a fine-tooth comb: where there is one error, there must be more.

With best wishes.

BTW, you do not have to post my earlier fees: since the original exchange my honoraria went up:-)