deleted by creator
Sloths?
Aaaaaaaaaktually…
… peacocks have cocks and bearded dragons have beards they just aren’t made of hair.
Peacocks do not have cocks. Bother male and female have cloacae(like 99% of birds)
Beard, by definition, must be hair.
Bearded dragons do not have a beard. They were named as such because thier throat turns black and puffs up. Giving the appearance of a beard.
They also, more importantly, are not dragons.
Peacocks have cocks. Peahens do not.
Also:
Spider (doesn’t actually spy)
cock (n.1) “male of the domestic fowl,” from Old English cocc “male bird,” Old French coc (12c., Modern French coq), Old Norse kokkr, all of echoic origin. Compare Albanian kokosh “cock,” Greek kikkos, Sanskrit kukkuta, Malay kukuk.
cock (n.3)
“penis,” 1610s, but certainly older and suggested in word-play from at least 15c.; also compare pillicock “penis,” attested from early 14c.
They’re called peacocks because they’re peafowl who are cocks. It’s a way older term than the slang usage.
Peacocks have cocks. Peahens do not.
Peacocks don’t have a pecker in their privates. Instead of a johnson, they have a cloaca. No willie.
The cloaca holds both the penis and the butthole on a male, and the vagina on a female. They still have penetrative sex. They’re not fish. It just doesn’t poke outside the body.
Can you back that up? I’ve spent the last 10 minutes searching up cloaca diagrams and pictures and articles and I can’t find any decent information about it. Only saying that they do a cloaca kiss and transfer sperm, but then I can’t find a cloaca diagram that labels any part as a penis.
I couldn’t find anything specific to peacocks either, but plenty of various other birds, including chickens which have the smallest little nub of a penis to ducks and their long, twisty corkscrew cock.
Thank you for the image, btw
Yeah, I’m not sure you could call whatever a chicken does “penetrative”, and I feel like the term “penis” has a specific meaning that wouldn’t include cloaca.
Donkey: does not open locks
What about a roadrunner? They do occasionally run on roads in real life, so they do live up to their name.
Ohh yeah that’s fair, In my head they’re dishonest about themselves because they’re unlike the cartoon. my child self must’ve been very offended by that if I still feel that that way. can’t say that i really remember though…
Hermit crab - I would not expect hermits to spend so much time and effort on acquiring bigger houses.
Bald Eagles have no hair. Ergo, bald? /S
With that logic, the common barn owl should be called the bald barn owl. The grey-crowned crane should be the bald grey-crowned crane. The harpy eagle should be the bald harpy eagle. Also, the great white shark should be the bald great white shark, mosquitos should be bald mosquitos, and amoebas should be called bald amoebas.
I wonder if you don’t know that "/s” denotes the end of a sarcastic comment. Maybe you didn’t see it. Or perhaps you regularly deal with people who hold this belief in earnest.
You thought my comment was serious? Whoa…
I feel like jellyfish does a pretty good job of living up to it’s name.
Since there isn’t really any agreed upon scientific definition what “a fish” is, it’s pretty much a perfect name
there isn’t really any agreed upon definition what “a fish” is,
are you sure?
There is no sensible phylogenetic definition of “fish” which includes both trout and sharks but not humans.
Are sharks fish? Sharks are fish. They live in water, and use their gills to filter oxygen from the water.
Seems pretty easy to me. Even lungfish have gills.
Axolotl are fish
Frogs are fish
Do frogs have gills? The tadpole stage of frogs might be fish, but adult frogs aren’t fish.
But, whether or not you want to consider axolotl and frogs fish, “gills” is a neat line that separates humans from trout and sharks.
Sure but what the OP was saying is that these common definitions of fish are paraphyletic. In order to make a monophyletic group including everything we call fish, we’d have to include humans, birds, lizards, etc. And going by the water-and-gills definition, this group would include things we tend not to call fish like crabs, amphibians, sea slugs, some insects… Not to mention that gills have evolved multiple times. And something like a frog being not a fish but it’s larvae being fish doesn’t make sense for cladistics.
separates humans from trout
I’m a little bit curious about why you specifically selected humans to be differentiated from fish
deleted by creator
They respire using gills.
See here for a list of “fish” which respire using gills: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gill#Amphibians
I don’t see humans on that list.
False gharials
they are gharials
king cobra - not a true cobra & snakes are largely self-organizing without monarchs
They’re probably anarchist
Ssssssssnake jazz
Checkmate
We’re more of an autonomous collective!
I like the philosophical implications of the word king in the context of king snakes. For snakes, it just means that their diet consists primarily of other snakes. This implies that to be a king is to be a predator who preys on his own subjects.
Secretarybird: refuses to schedule my meetings
I really like this one
Nevermind, I found one
I’m sorry… just… so sorry…
Hippopotamus - neither a horse nor a river.
Animal that does not live up to its name:
Red Panda. Not Red, not a panda
Animal that lives up to its name:
Sloth
Panda bears were actually named that after the red panda, so really it’s they who aren’t pandas
Red Panda. Not Red, not a panda
But pretty fucking amazing with that kicking bowls onto her head while riding a unicycle thing - while listening to the world’s most annoying song ever.
Bird that does not live up to its name: tit.
Estonian edition (I’m not a native speaker): viinamäetigu. Not related to any alcohol (viin), does not live on mountains (mäe), mostly found outside of vineyards (viinamäe). At least it is a snail (tigu).
Same name in German: Wein (wine) + Berg (mountain) = Weinberg (vinyard); Schnecke (snail) -> Weinbergschnecke.
Tit does live up to its name! It’s an archaic word for a small thing. https://www.etymonline.com/word/tit#etymonline_v_13361
Still used in the phrase titbit in the UK, which Americans censored to tidbit.
Hence also “tit for tat”!
