> It's not an exact distinction, but isn't the
> verebrate/invertebrate "chasm" because of
>
> - the ease of procurement
> and
> - the relative toughness of the parts that are eaten.
>
> For example, it's not so hard to capture and eat bugs, but capture and
> eating a bison being more difficult?

If a person wants to draw those lines, I have no problem with that.  My
problem is with this notion Stephanie/Arjen seems to have that such lines of
distinction fall along the same line as that between vertebrates and
invertebrates.  It just ain't so.

Examples:  It's not so hard for a human or a cow to obtain and eat slugs or
caterpillars (both invertebrates), but it is difficult for them to obtain
and eat lobsters or gnats (also invertebrates).  Also, not all invertebrates
are soft-bodied; take a bite of a lobster or a rhinoceros beetle some time.
Why can't we just talk about these qualities of accessibility and leave the
spine out of it?

Carol