The hypothesis of a direct phylogenetic link between (non avian) dinosaurs and birds, already proposed by Huxley in the nineteenth century, and strongly supported by Ostrom since the nineteen-seventies has been definitely vindicated, to most specialist's satisfaction, by recent paleontological discoveries in China and elsewhere. Historically, those developments took place within the framework of a spectacular methodological change in comparative/evolutionary biology (systematics included), namely the shift from process-oriented explanatory functional scenarios to patterns-oriented phylogenetic analyses. For our purposes, the change in paradigm may be summarised as such: emphasis shifted from considerations of bird origin that were conflated with the origin of bird flight to the simple question of the identity of the immediate sister-group of birds. Within this changing intellectual context, the first connections between issues in comparative bone histology, on the one hand, and phylogenelic problems of bird/dinosaur relationships, on the other hand, were put forward in the late sixties and early seventies. Early ideas were based on rather indirect but independent evidences from bone histology, suggesting some kind of early dinosaurian endothermy, which could have been inherited by early birds and later built upon by more recent ones. Hence, early ideas about bird/dinosaur close phylogenetic relationships met histological evidences on the basis of a putative common endothermic regime. Reciprocally, independent morphological evidence for close bird/dinosaur phylogenetic relationships have been sometimes used to strengthen the histological case for dinosaurian endothermy itself, a clearly circular argument Later studies, including the first histological examinations of Mesozoic birds, have suggested caution about the histological arguments of an advanced (fully endothermic) physiology among early birds and (by implication) among their immediate dinosaurian forbears. Assuming an ‘Ostromian’ phylogeny, we contend here that no known bone histological characters really prevent early birds and closely related non-avian dinosaurs to have already reached an essentially endothermic level of physiological integration. We discuss the significance of bone ‘growth rings’ in that context. Peculiarities of early bird growth patterns, as currently known, may express the pervasive influences of shifts in body size and ontogenic timing (heterochronies) on skeletal histology. Those changes were probably linked to the acme of the transition and/or to later specialisation in some early bird lineages.