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.
Skeleton, not bones. Amputees still have.a skeleton, don’t they?
I lost my skele back in 'nam
Dang commies!
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