|
Post by antichrist on Jul 28, 2009 20:32:21 GMT -5
There's three subspecies of coyote, and they've developed only in the last 300 years.
The Prairie/Western coyote, basically the same one that's always been around, although a hell of a lot smarter than they use to be.
The Urban coyote, a smaller smarter variety. Enjoys feasting on rats, cats, and small dogs. Lives in our cities and is often mistaken for a shepherd mix of some sort.
The Eastern coyote, which is a coyote that has crossed with the now extinct Eastern red wolf.
So I'm not sure where the ring species would come in, except maybe foxes. Are they still Canid?
Oh, and fun fact: 350 years ago, there were actually more wolves than coyotes in North America. We did the biggest favour to the coyotes by shooting out the wolves. As one special I watched said, the more we persecute the coyote, the stronger they come back.
Maybe coyotes are fundies?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jul 28, 2009 21:08:05 GMT -5
Vene, you already showed me that. Possibly somewhere in this thread. You made a point that it was a lot more accurate than "kind," at any rate.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 28, 2009 21:34:56 GMT -5
I did? Threads all blur into one at times. I don't know what I said to who about what.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jul 28, 2009 21:55:07 GMT -5
You can actually cross jackals with wolves, coyotes and dogs. Are you familiar with the Sulimov dogs?
Foxes branched off from the other canids you mentioned and can't produce fertile offspring with them.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jul 28, 2009 21:56:21 GMT -5
Current, that comic is hilarious. Even the finest POE can't outperform AIG. Do you want an imaginary karma point? And there was another--which ended up being quoted on the main page--trying to equate this imaginary process to the cause of school shootings. Yeah. OKAY. Yeah I submitted that one....and a similar one. ;D
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jul 28, 2009 23:57:08 GMT -5
On the weather prediction thing, it is our current belief that it is not possible to have enough data with enough granularity to predict weather patterns very far into the future. As far as science currently knows, without having essentially infinitely granular data, we'll keep running into that problem, because weather is a chaotic system. ("Chaotic" in this case is referring to what chaos theory studies, which is deterministic systems that give extremely different results given tiny variations in initial values.)
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jul 29, 2009 0:37:52 GMT -5
I did? Threads all blur into one at times. I don't know what I said to who about what. It may or may not have been in this thread, but you did do it.
|
|