Osseous grooves are not venous sinuses
A methodological and terminological critique arguing that posterior cranial fossa dry skulls reveal osseous impressions, not the dural venous sinuses themselves. The letter calls for more precise terminology, valid denominators, and a clearer separation between observation, anatomical inference, and untested clinical or hemodynamic hypothesis.
Bone can support anatomical inference, but it cannot by itself establish venous function.
The correspondence insists that groove presence, width, and bony projections are osteological variables. Sinus patency, dominance, stenosis, thrombosis, collateral drainage, and flow are different categories of claim and need vascular data, not dry skulls alone.
Three interpretive levels should not be merged
The page below condenses the main methodological logic of the letter.
Five linked criticisms organise the correspondence
Use the buttons to explore the major points raised in the letter.
What specifically needs repair in similar dry-skull studies
The letter is constructive: it identifies the exact reporting problems that would need clarification in future work.
Skulls entered
Confluence patterns logically belong first to whole skulls, not isolated sides.
Sides observed
Side-level counts remain valid for unilateral groove variables, but not necessarily for bilateral confluence categories.
Problematic absences
The reported absence category does not reconcile between text and table without cross-tabulation.
Known sex cases
The final sex-known subset should be stated directly for each analysis.
The paper defends anatomical precision
The letter is not simply semantic. By insisting on exact terminology and valid denominators, it protects how osteological evidence is later translated into surgical, radiological, and clinical reasoning.
Material level
Dry skulls provide osteology: grooves, impressions, bony ridges, foramina.
Inference level
Topographic correspondence with sinuses can be inferred cautiously.
Hypothesis level
Hemodynamic or disease-risk claims need multimodal vascular evidence.