Undead Skeletons: Unliving or Homogenous

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Tusks are teeth not bone, so I would hope no one includes them in their calculations.

Wait, there are people who don't consider teeth to be bone?

[Tallor]

Originally Posted by simply Nathan

Wait, there are people who don't consider teeth to be bone?

Just looked that up. Teeth aren't technically bones, but they're still in the "skeleton" category in my book since they have similar bone-like properties. Follicle-based horns are also not bone, but they also stay on long after a creature dies, which is why I consider it "skeletal" but not technically bone. :P

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by simply Nathan

Wait, there are people who don't consider teeth to be bone?

They are different chemically. Enamel is more acid resistent for one thing.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Tallor

Just looked that up. Teeth aren't technically bones, but they're still in the "skeleton" category in my book since they have similar bone-like properties. Follicle-based horns are also not bone, but they also stay on long after a creature dies, which is why I consider it "skeletal" but not technically bone. :P

Well generally skeleton includes hydrostatic, exoskeleton, endoskeleton, and muscular hydrostat which is similar to the first.
But when talking about a bony skeleton I think it should only include bones, not keratinous horn, teeth, or cartilaginous structures.

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

They are different chemically. Enamel is more acid resistent for one thing.

You are literally the first person I've ever encountered to classify them as two separate things rather than one as a sub-category of the other.

[Bruno]

Teeth definitely aren't bone. They have a lot of calcium in them, like bone - but so does limestone, clamshells, eggshells, and cheese :P

They're derived evolutionarily from skin. First comes skin, then comes teeth-ish scales all over the skin to protect it. Then there's a fork in derivation - some of those scales become specialized for biting, and some fuse together to make skulls. Some animals only get the teeth, not the skulls (see also, sharks) - but after bony skulls comes the over-all bony skeleton.

They're not bones - but in mammals they errupt from within the bone and are tightly anchored to bone, and they're hard and white. So they're pretty "bone like" - but not bones.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by simply Nathan

You are literally the first person I've ever encountered to classify them as two separate things rather than one as a sub-category of the other.

I can't think of the last person I heard say they were the same thing. Funny how personal experiences can be so different.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

They are different chemically. Enamel is more acid resistent for one thing.

True...but not important. The undead always get to keep their teeth even if they are otherwise reduced to bones.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

True...but not important. The undead always get to keep their teeth even if they are otherwise reduced to bones.

This sub-topic started form calling tusks bones, which they aren't. What non-bone parts magically animated skeletons retain really isn't the issue for that particular point.
I imagine some settings may allow them to retain inorganic prosthetics and chitinous exoskeletons. Giant beetle skeletons and pirate zombies with peg legs. :)

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

True...but not important. The undead always get to keep their teeth even if they are otherwise reduced to bones.

If they had a set when they died... this is medieval dentistry after all!

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I imagine some settings may allow them to retain inorganic prosthetics and chitinous exoskeletons. Giant beetle skeletons and pirate zombies with peg legs. :)

And eye patches and tri-corn hats too! It's just magical that way.