• Brokkr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 days ago

    While there may be examples of what you are thinking of, I think the most common solution developed by evolution is invertebrates without an exoskeleton, meaning no skeletal structure at all.

    • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      The whole point of having bones is their rigidity. Animals that don’t require a rigid structure, simply have no bones, chitin, exoskeleton or shell.

      As others have pointed out, there are plenty of squishy terrestrial animals, but they don’t have flexible bones or any bones for that matter. Those that do have bones, also have cartilage, and there are many sea creatures that rely almost exclusively on it. However, I can’t think of a single terrestrial animal that would be composed of cartilage to that extent. I guess gravity opposes such ambitions, and weeds out anyone who tries to pull off a build like that.

      • ALostInquirer@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        Thanks to you & @Brokkr@lemmy.world for your replies. Not sure why but this curiosity was lingering in mind so I thought I’d put the question out there in case there might be some really unique example of such an organism.

        I guess it’d have to be a very unique environment to drive such an adaptation, which would be fascinating in itself.

        • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          Biology is full of strange exceptions. As soon as you think you’ve figured out a rule that applies to something, you’ll find some obscure creature that violates that rule just to piss you off.