FindAfox

Stats

Joined:
Comments made: 155, 1.1 per day
Posts uploaded: 931, 6.7 per day
Posts favorited: 2, 0.0 per day
Forum threads: 0, 0.0 per day
Forum posts: 0, 0.0 per day
14 Upvotes / 0 Downvotes
Class: admin
User ID: 4

Upload limit


About Me

Hello, I'm Vuccala (Vuca for short), he/him. Inexplicably my brain – in a single childhood event in September 2004 – became obsessed with foxes and I've been thinking about them every single day since then. The first fox I ever saw with my own eyes was arctic foxes at the zoo in 2005, then finally a wild red fox in 2018. And now I encounter about 2 wild red foxes every year. For the longest time red foxes were my only vulpine interest, but at this moment fennecs are my favorite type of fox, then arctic foxes, then a tie between gray foxes and red foxes, and then the rest. This is not a judgement of their worth, but merely a ranking of my personal affection (at the time I write this). My other strong interest is language/lexicography - find me on Wiktionary (as Vuccala). You may be interested in my page "Appendix:Glossary of fox terms". • "Foxes — the finest thing our planet's got to offer." Official slogan of Earth. I'd say foxes are worthy of worship, wouldn't you? As our ostensory of adoration, veneration, and the benedictions of every man. Shall we cast into the fires our old anthropoid idols, set the reckoning to 0 [i]anno Vulpium[/i], and begin our new age of Vulpolatry? (I volunteer to be the first Pope of the Fennecian denomination) • 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 [i]into[/i] a fox. Yet if any doubt remains in your mind, consider this: gray foxes (genus Urocyon) are evolutionarily older than genus Vulpes - [i]they[/i] were foxes before red foxes were even a thing. Hence from a non-inclusive viewpoint, that would make gray foxes [i]the real thing[/i], and red foxes the copycat newcomer. Which is silly.