the question is: is a skeleton that's missing pieces still "one skeleton"? And if so, at which point does it become not a skeleton? Because i'm reasonably sure you wouldn't call a severed foot a skeleton even though it is still arguably "one skeleton" that is just missing a lot of pieces.

[–] AzzyDev@beehaw.org 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

i think a skeleton is just multiple bones together that are attached. A pile of bones isn’t a skeleton, it’s a pile of bones

[–] knorke3@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

so by your definition a severed foot is, indeed, a skeleton. huh.

[–] AzzyDev@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If an anthropologist found a 2-million year old intact foot, I think they’d call it a skeleton, sure.

[–] knorke3@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

i somehow have a feeling that they'd call that a partial skeleton (aka. less than one)

[–] AzzyDev@beehaw.org 2 points 8 months ago

ehh, partial skeleton, skeleton, what’s the difference? a few missing bones never hurt anybody! /s