“…Inevitably, confusion over the identity of the unmineralised aspidin spaces spilled into the wider debate concerning the primitiveness of cellular versus acellular bone. Within this context, aspidin has variously been interpreted as a primitive acellular type of bone (Denison, ; Halstead, ), a secondarily acellular bone (Stensiö, ; Ørvig, ), a primitive type of cellular bone (Obruchev, ; Halstead Tarlo, , 1964a, b; Halstead, ), a type of dentine (Urist, , 1964a, b; Denison, ) and an intermediate grade between dentine and bone (Halstead, ). Urist (, 1964a, b) argued that aspidin could not be a type of bone on the grounds that it did not undergo remodelling, yet tentative evidence of resorption was reported in the psammosteids in the form of scalloping of concentric aspidin lamellae (Gross, ; Halstead Tarlo, , 1964a, b).…”