[Chalky] Unartistic graffiti? NO.

[Chalky] Existed in the past? YES! *applause*

[Rosie] Feathers? NO.

[Rosie] Bones? NO.

[Irouléguy] Skin? NO.
[G3] Paper? NO.

[Tuj] Unique? NO. *approving nods*

;)

[Tuj] < 10? NO. :-)

[G3] Could you rephrase? I'm not 100% certain I grasp the meaning of the question.

I possibly should have said "multiple and unique instances". For example, a solution which would require the answer YES would be "Impressionist paintings", or "skyscrapers", a solution which would require the answer NO would perhaps be "Tyres" or "Lenovo T62 Thinkpads". On reflection a crap question.

[G3] Egyptian squiggles? NO.

[G3] Per the "multiple and unique instances" question, it's a good question, but rather ambiguous. I think the thing under discussion falls somewhere in between your two examples.

Well, we seem to have got a whole heap of nowhere so far!

[Tuj] Manmade? Definitely YES. (Do you need a recap?)

[Chalky] In a museum? YES.
[Irouléguy] Same animal component? YES.

[Rosie] Something to put other objects into? NO.

[Irouléguy] Multiple species? Collectively YES, individually I DON'T KNOW.
[Chalky] Totem pole? NO.

[Kim] Fossils? NO.

..ahem - just trying to inject a touch of drama :-)

[Chalky] Animal fur/hair? YES. (Blood? NO. :-)

[Dujon] Garment / accoutrement? NO.

[Irouléguy] Quipu? YES! *wild cheers from the audience* You've tied all the clues together and untangled a rather knotty problem. Good job!

---

Well, I can't claim all the credit - I was in cahoots with the others.

For a change of pace, our next is ABSTRACT with ANIMAL and MINERAL connections.

[Quendalon] Nice one.

CdM] Begins with S? Sadly not.

Chalky] Begins with a vowel? On
Raak] Fictional? Dr. No
Kim] Observable in nature? *animated buzz in the audience* I'm very glad you asked me that...

I can see a case for answering either way, but I think 'yes' is less misleading

CdM] Is it visible or audible? Hmm...insofar as it is 'observable', you would have to say it's visible. Audible, no.
(Quendalon] Is the animal connection human? Yes

Kim] Is it a meteorological phenomenon? No

Quendalon] Brother Sun, Sister Moon? *applause* YES

Kim] Is it a constellation? You cannot be Sirius, man!

Dujon] Does this change from moment to moment even though retaining its description? *cries of 'oooh' and 'aaah' from the audience* In one sense, that's a very good description of it, but it doesn't get you any nearer.
Rosie - A collection of objects? No - this isn't a physical thing or things.

[Iroulé] How do you know that your reply to Duj won't get him any nearer ? ;-)

Chalky] An aura of some sort? No
Good point - I suspect it won't get him or anyone else any nearer, then.
Raak] Is it within the Solar System (understood as everything out to and including the Oort cloud)? Bearing in mind my answer to Rosie's question, yes.

Chalky] anything to do with Astrology? Fortunately, no.
ImNotJohn] Does it relate to the movement or path of some celestial object? *applause* YES - though 'relate' isn't perhaps the most appropriate verb.

Some assumptions should perhaps be re-examined.

Chalky] When Venus is in conjunction with Mars? No, no sexual connotations.

Quendalon] Named after a specific person? *some giggling in the audience* For a particular value of 'person', yes.
ImNotJohn - The ecliptic? No
Phil - An apogee? No

ImNotJohn] A transit of Venus? No
Chalky] The Clarke Orbit? Well, I never knew that - a fitting memorial. Thanks, Chalky - that led me into a very pleasant Google. What Wikipedia doesn't say is whether there are other inventions/phenomena named after SF writers - does anyone know of others?
It's not the answer, though.
Quendalon] Currently accepted as scientifically valid/viable/real/true? Correct/accurate/exact/accepted even by flat-earthers and creationists.

It has animal and mineral connections, but no vegetable connections, which suggests the earth is not directly involved.

Rosie] The Kirkwood Gaps? No
CdM] Is the animal connection the "named 'person'" from Quendalon's question? Not the main one.
CdM thinking aloud] It has animal and mineral connections, but no vegetable connections, which suggests the earth is not directly involved.
I don't agree - the answer could be 'the equator' or 'the stratosphere', neither of which I would think of as having vegetable connections. This is an abstract, after all - the animal and mineral connections are the physical things without which it wouldn't exist.

ImNotJohn] The Van Allen belts? No
Quendalon - Is the Earth the mineral connection? *applause* It's the main one, but not the only one.
Rosie - A feature of the surface of the earth? No

Back after the match.

Hooray, the "Whoops!" works :-)

Raak - The Trojan points? No
Phil - Gravity? No
Yes, the "Whoops" is a great invention.

To quote CdM, "Again I say, re-examine your assumptions." It's worth re-reading Quendalon's second question, ImNotJohn's first, and Dujon's

Phil - Celestial Co-ordinates? No
Rosie - Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses? No
Dujon - Is this a form of electro-magnetic effect? No

Kim] Is it the Kuiper belt? No
Raak] Does this involve man-made spacecraft? No - complete abstract, remember?

Going back to my first question - 'relates to the movement or path of a celestial object' (answered YESish) and assuming that your last answer excludes all man-made celestial objects.
Is the anwer the name or description of that path?

Raak] Is it the intersection of two or more things? You could at a pinch define it like that, but it wouldn't be very helpful.
Kim - Is it visible with the naked eye? Bearing in mind the earlier qualification of 'observable', yes.
Chalky - A light year - or ... a parsec? Inside the solar system? However, a modicum of *applause* for these having something in common with the answer.

INJ] Good question, but no (and your assumption is correct)

Raak] An Astronomical Unit? No
Rosie] The rising or setting of some astronomical body? *applause and some cheering* Related to, yes.
Quendalon - Kepler's laws of planetary motion? No
ImNotJohn - Is it related to navigation? No

silly guess - I know :-)

Chalky]The man in the moon? No - but it would have been a good one ;)
Raak] www - the world-wide wobble? No
Phil] Tidal patterns? No
Rosie - Atmospheric refraction? No

... a one-word answer will suffice ;-)

Quendalon - Dawn? *some applause* No, but getting warmer...
Chalky] OK - Is this 'man's' [the animal] perception of something that occurs in our universe [abstract] - meaning, does he need something [mineral] in order to 'see' or 'interpret' this thing [which is abstract]? ... a one-word answer will suffice ;-)

No >:)

ImNotJohn] The shadow? Noes
Raak - The Green Flash? *Before Googling* No *After Googling Well, there you go - I've never seen one of those.
Rosie - Twilight? *applause* For the same reason as Quendalon - both of those are necessarily contained in the answer.

(I know it's not right (named after a person?) but the audience reaction might be helpful...)

CdM - Daylight Savings Time? (I know it's not right (named after a person?) but the audience reaction might be helpful...)*the audience shrug their shoulders* No
Dujon - A full moon? *appreciative murmurs in the audience* This is sometimes contained in the answer
Software - St Elmo's Fire? A wonderful Eno song, but not the answer

A summary?

Shut up, dickybirds, I'm trying to get to sleep.

Kim] Is it Keith Moon? No, nor Freddy Mercury either ;-)
Rosie] The dawn chorus? Oh don't deceive me, oh never leave me, how could you treat such a poor maiden - no

A summary

You’re looking for an ABSTRACT with MINERAL and ANIMAL connections. The animal connection is human. It is named after a particular person (for a given value of ‘person’). It doesn’t have a physical manifestation, though it is (arguably) observable in nature, and in that sense visible with the naked eye. It is inside the solar system. The closest guesses so far are that it is related to astronomy, related to the movement or path of some celestial object, and related to the rising or setting of some astronomical body. You might want to think about the scope of the word ‘related’. ‘Dawn’, ‘twilight’ and ‘a full moon’ also received some applause. It is also scientifically valid/viable/real/true (though some of these are more applicable than others).

It does not begin with S, or with a vowel. It is not (leaving out guesses ruled out by the above): a meteorological phenomenon; a collection of objects; an aura; anything to do with astrology; the conjunction of Venus and Mars; the ecliptic; an apogee; a transit of Venus; the Clarke orbit; the Kirkwood Gaps; the Van Allen belts; a feature of the Earth’s surface; the Trojan points; gravity; celestial co-ordinates; Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses; a form of electro-magnetic effect; the Kuiper belt; the intersection of two or more things (well, you could describe it as that, but it wouldn’t be useful); a light-year or a parsec (though these have something in common with the answer); a name or description of the path of a celestial object; an Astronomical Unit; Kepler's laws of planetary motion; related to navigation; the man in the moon; the precession of the equinoxes; tidal patterns; atmospheric refraction; related to a shadow; the Green Flash; Daylight Savings Time; or St Elmo’s Fire.

It is much simpler than most of these. Much, much simpler. You will kick yourselves (you would probably also kick me, for sounding so smug…) Dujon’s definition of “something that changes from moment to moment even though retaining its description” is the closest so far, though my prediction that this wouldn’t be helpful hasn’t been proved wrong yet.

Well, no, not named after anything.

The moon's measured size is actually less for simple geometrical reasons.

Raak - The horizon? No
Raak - Is the "person" a mythical one? *cheers and applause*YES
Kim - Is it the Aurora Borealis? No
Rosie - Harvest moon? Another great song, but no

Sorry for the delay - Bank Holiday weekend, so I slept in.

Quendalon] Is the mythical figure Greco-Roman? No
Rosie] Would this effect be present if we had no atmosphere? Assuming that we were somehow still present, yes.
BTW what I asked about earlier is not a Harvest Moon, which is Something Completely Different and again involves geometry etc. Apologies - I'm not a scientist (which may, now I come to think of it, be relevant).
CdM] The tying down of the moons of Jupiter? Hush, child oblig