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.
actually, you’re forgetting about amputees and people born with fewer limbs. it’s likely less than 1.
Skeleton, not bones. Amputees still have.a skeleton, don’t they?
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.
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
so by your definition a severed foot is, indeed, a skeleton. huh.
If an anthropologist found a 2-million year old intact foot, I think they’d call it a skeleton, sure.
i somehow have a feeling that they’d call that a partial skeleton (aka. less than one)
ehh, partial skeleton, skeleton, what’s the difference? a few missing bones never hurt anybody! /s
I lost my skele back in 'nam
Dang commies!