Stats
Joined:
Comments made: 70, 1.0 per day
Posts uploaded: 796, 11.1 per day
Posts favorited: 0, 0.0 per day
Forum threads: 0, 0.0 per day
Forum posts: 0, 0.0 per day
5 Upvotes / 0 Downvotes
Class: admin
User ID: 4
Comments made: 70, 1.0 per day
Posts uploaded: 796, 11.1 per day
Posts favorited: 0, 0.0 per day
Forum threads: 0, 0.0 per day
Forum posts: 0, 0.0 per day
5 Upvotes / 0 Downvotes
Class: admin
User ID: 4
Upload limit
About Me
Foxes — the finest thing planet Earth's got to offer.
•
There is no doubt that red foxes are the most successful of all the foxes – of all wild canidae in fact. So let's throw some alms to the underfoxes - the lesser known species. I'm doing my part; a swift, a gray, or an tibetan is just as much a fox as a red fox!
•
Why I'm inclusive of what I consider a "fox":
"Fox" is a pre-scientific word, hence (I think) what is considered a "fox" ought to be based on appearance and behavior rather than genetics. Here's what I would define as the traits of a "fox":
1. a small-to-medium wild canid
2. with a long bushy tail
3. that hunтs small prey, in a solitary manner
4. that does not live in packs
So just like how "evergreen", "fern", or "cactus" are pre-scientific terms that now encompass multiple genuses, "fox" too can encompass several genuses – and not just the genus Vulpes. If one wishes to refer to just foxes of genus Vulpes, there's always the word "vulpid".
If a non-Vulpes genus converged evolutionarily onto the four traits above, then I do consider it a fox - I would say it evolved into a fox. Yet if any doubt remains in your mind, consider this: gray foxes (genus Urocyon) are evolutionarily older than genus Vulpes - they were foxes before red foxes were even a thing. Hence from a non-inclusive viewpoint, that would make gray foxes the real thing, and red foxes the copycat newcomer. Which is silly.
•
There is no doubt that red foxes are the most successful of all the foxes – of all wild canidae in fact. So let's throw some alms to the underfoxes - the lesser known species. I'm doing my part; a swift, a gray, or an tibetan is just as much a fox as a red fox!
•
Why I'm inclusive of what I consider a "fox":
"Fox" is a pre-scientific word, hence (I think) what is considered a "fox" ought to be based on appearance and behavior rather than genetics. Here's what I would define as the traits of a "fox":
1. a small-to-medium wild canid
2. with a long bushy tail
3. that hunтs small prey, in a solitary manner
4. that does not live in packs
So just like how "evergreen", "fern", or "cactus" are pre-scientific terms that now encompass multiple genuses, "fox" too can encompass several genuses – and not just the genus Vulpes. If one wishes to refer to just foxes of genus Vulpes, there's always the word "vulpid".
If a non-Vulpes genus converged evolutionarily onto the four traits above, then I do consider it a fox - I would say it evolved into a fox. Yet if any doubt remains in your mind, consider this: gray foxes (genus Urocyon) are evolutionarily older than genus Vulpes - they were foxes before red foxes were even a thing. Hence from a non-inclusive viewpoint, that would make gray foxes the real thing, and red foxes the copycat newcomer. Which is silly.