Somebody ought to show chowder this post.
I’m a bit sketchy on the details of dressing a kill but I’m fairly certain you’d have to make a collosal hash of the job if there are vertebrae left over.
By the same standard, aren’t mammals technically reptiles, too?
It appears that birds aren’t technically reptiles either.
I still say that mammals are fish, dammit. Can you prove that you’re not a fish? No. All you have are cites from other self-hating fish.
Soon taxonomy will see the light, my fellow fish.
Aww, you Cladist-types think All vertebrates are fish! 
Since no one here has positively identified it*, I’ll claim it’s an Alien bone! :eek:
- OK, besides the likelihood of it being a large mammal (and Deer live in the area)
Man, you’d think it would be easier to find pictures of cow neck bones online. Aren’t cows one of the most eaten animals in America? Where the hell do their necks go afterward? Where are all the novelty cow neckbone paperweights?
Ahh, it’s probably a deer neck anyway. Of which there are also mysteriously few pictures on the internet… We may have unwittingly discovered the one thing to which absolutely no unsettling erotic websites are devoted: ungulate cervical vertebrae.
Speaking of unsettling erotic web images, thanks for that disturbing glimpse of sexually exploited Marshmallow peeps, twickster. I really need to learn not to browse through other people’s Photobucket albums…
No, at least not according to modern classification methods. The ancestors of mammals are the sister group (separate branch) relative to other fully terrestrial vertebrates (amniotes). The other group contains the traditional reptiles (turtles, snakes, lizards, tuatara, and crocodilians) plus birds; some moderan taxonomists now call this latter group (or a subgroup within it) the Reptilia.
Formerly the ancestors of both groups would have been classified as reptiles too; however according to cladisitic taxonomy they would simply be primitive amniotes.
Well, yes they are, according to modern taxonomists that recognize Reptilia as a named clade. That Wikipedia article is discussing the traditional Reptilia, which being paraphyletic has no validity in cladistic taxonomy.
Ah, but your remark implies that there are also modern taxonomists who don’t recognize Reptilia as a named clade. So according to those modern taxonomists, are birds technically reptiles? Are birds part of that paraphyletic group which they do not recognize? That would be a neat trick. Almost as neat as waking up as a fish, wouldn’t you say?
No, but if they don’t recognize Reptilia, then they don’t recognize “reptiles” as a group at all. So in their view, there is no such thing as a reptile. But they would recognize another clade, with a different name, that includes both traditional reptiles and birds.
I am not aware of any modern taxonomists that do not think that birds and traditional reptiles are within the same clade; the question is what to call it.
Seriously? If a taxonomist doesn’t recognize Animalia, then in their view there are no such things as animals?
More importantly, do you think that people will be fish in your lifetime?
ETA: If the “Animalia/animal” thing can’t be answered easily, then don’t worry about it; I wasn’t all that serious, and the knowledge will do me absolutely no good whatsoever in any case. I am curious about your opinion on the fish thing though.
I believe you know enough about classification that I am sure you are just being facetious. I was obviously talking about “reptiles” in the technical sense, that is, as a taxonomic category. Even if you don’t recognize such a taxonomic category, you can refer to the snakes, lizards, turtles, and crocodiles as “reptiles” in the popular sense. You can also refer to seaweeds or fungi as plants, even though they don’t belong to the moderan Plantae.
In the popular sense, or the cladistic sense?
Nadia frequently catches them in the garden. I release those that I am able to get away from her alive at the Mall.
In the same sense that birds are reptiles. Which would make birds fish too, I guess.
Maybe you weren’t being facetious. Most biologists today would recognize a clade called Animalia that includes the multicellular animals. Some would exclude the sponges, which traditionally have been called animals.
The Plantae as a clade probably would include the multicellular green plants, plus the green algae, including unicellular groups.
The Fungi also mostly belong to one clade.
The Kingdom “Protista” however is another paraphyletic group, made up of dozens of different clades of unicellular organisms, each of which deserve Kingdom rank if Animalia, Plantae, and Fungi are considered Kingdoms.
“Fish” is a popular term that has no taxonomic validity at all. It includes the Agnatha (lampreys and hagfish), Chondreichthyes (sharks and rays), and Osteichthyes (bony fish).
Now the lungfish are more closely related to the tetrapods (land vertebrates) than they are to the other bony fish. If you include the lungfish among the bony fish, then the tetrapods, including us are within this group. So we are Osteichthyes, but since “fish” doesn’t correspond to any clade we are not fish.
Birds are reptiles if you have a named clade Reptilia. Of course they are not reptiles in the popular sense.
No one has suggested a named clade equivalent to “fish.” Any clade that includes all “fish” in the popular sense also includes all vertebrates, so you might as well just call it Vertebrata.
Now wait a second here. There are “hagfish” and “bony fish,” but no “fish?” I call shenanigans. You can’t call something a “bony fish” and then turn around and say there are no fish. You and cladistics are just trying to cloud the issue. You’re going to look people in the eye and tell them straight out that the group defined specifically as “bony fish” contains no fish?
This kind of implies that taxonomy has more or less given up on making sense to anyone other than taxonomists.
So what are these killifish (egg laying toothed carps) I hang out with? 
Terrifel, I’m not sure if you are joking, going for a whoosh, or being intentionally obtuse. I don’t believe you actually don’t understand what I have been saying. There is no such thing as a “fish” in a technical taxonomic sense, that is a group that contains lampreys, sharks, and trout and nothing else. Of course there are “fish” in a popular sense. And it is possible to define clades among the, let us say, “fishlike vertebrates” by using modifiers, such as the jawless fish or the cartilaginous fish.
Taxonomy hasn’t made sense to anyone other than taxonomists since the days of Linnaeus. Once an evolutionary framework was imposed, whales were no longer “fish” and spiders were no longer in the same group as insects. You are just used to these technical, non-intuitive classifications. So this sort of thing is really not new. It just makes you uncomfortable because it differs from what you were first taught.
Twickster’s bone looks far too massive to be a deer bone
And too small for a mammoth. Cow Atlas is on the right, so unless some pieces were worn off the bone (entirely possible) it wouldn’t be cow. Elk or horse maybe? It is really hard to do any ID as the photos are blurry.