...
no idea
To clear this up, both platypus and echidna are marsupials. In turn, all marsupials are mammals. So my card is both zoologically correct and highly entertaining.
From the Greetings Cards For Any Occasion challenge. See all 489 entries (closed)
( , Fri 17 Dec 2004, 16:12, archived)
no idea
To clear this up, both platypus and echidna are marsupials. In turn, all marsupials are mammals. So my card is both zoologically correct and highly entertaining.
From the Greetings Cards For Any Occasion challenge. See all 489 entries (closed)
( , Fri 17 Dec 2004, 16:12, archived)
I hope that asterisk is referring to the fact that a platypus is actually a marsupial...
Otherwise I shall be deeply hurt.
/reads bottom of card
You've done it now, you watermeloning cranberry.
( ,
Fri 17 Dec 2004, 16:17,
archived)
/reads bottom of card
You've done it now, you watermeloning cranberry.
www.b3ta.com/board/4067082
and blinky bill's definition is highly inaccurate. You all learned about Australia from rolf harris, you twunts.
( ,
Fri 17 Dec 2004, 16:23,
archived)
and blinky bill's definition is highly inaccurate. You all learned about Australia from rolf harris, you twunts.
Actually both the platypus and the echidna are mammals. They are members of the monotreme group of mammals. The platypus doesn't even have a pouch, although the echidna do.
( ,
Fri 17 Dec 2004, 16:23,
archived)
Erm...
As mentioned below, I like your pic...
But have you ever read a book?
( ,
Fri 17 Dec 2004, 16:25,
archived)
But have you ever read a book?
a book?
m-a-r-s-u-p-i-a-l-s-a-r-e-m-a-m-m-a-l-s-y-o-u-r-e-t-a-r-d
( ,
Fri 17 Dec 2004, 16:31,
archived)
"mar·su·pi·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m‰r-sp-l)
n.
Any of various nonplacental mammals of the order Marsupialia, including kangaroos, opossums, bandicoots, and wombats, found principally in Australia and the Americas."
Although I'm sure that all web content is wrong and you are right.
( ,
Fri 17 Dec 2004, 16:32,
archived)
n.
Any of various nonplacental mammals of the order Marsupialia, including kangaroos, opossums, bandicoots, and wombats, found principally in Australia and the Americas."
Although I'm sure that all web content is wrong and you are right.
Next you'll be telling us that chavs are human.
But please don't be offended by my 2:30am drunken abuse.
( ,
Fri 17 Dec 2004, 16:35,
archived)
but
..what about echidnas? Echidnas have feelings too you know. Heartless bastard..
( ,
Fri 17 Dec 2004, 16:18,
archived)
and monotremes
..I mean echidnas and platypi are monotremes AND marsupials that is..
I'll go back to sleep now
EDIT: pardon my manners - aside from the glaring and unforgivable zoological errors, that pic is rather woo :)
( ,
Fri 17 Dec 2004, 16:19,
archived)
I'll go back to sleep now
EDIT: pardon my manners - aside from the glaring and unforgivable zoological errors, that pic is rather woo :)
As are crocodiles (monotremes, that is).
But don't let that stop you all from having your fun - see if they care.
edit: yes, I should also mention that the picture was nice...
( ,
Fri 17 Dec 2004, 16:21,
archived)
edit: yes, I should also mention that the picture was nice...
it says echidna's now
..and the image mod-time looks like it's 1 minute in the past, or am I going mad.
_and_ I've just found out that platypi aren't marsupials, much to my chagrin
( ,
Fri 17 Dec 2004, 16:26,
archived)
_and_ I've just found out that platypi aren't marsupials, much to my chagrin
They are,
But there seem to be some very dubious definitions of marsupial on the interweb.
/keeps searching
( ,
Fri 17 Dec 2004, 16:28,
archived)
/keeps searching
Thankyou.
The platypi and echindas are much happier and can now rest.
*sighs contentedly*
( ,
Fri 17 Dec 2004, 16:32,
archived)
*sighs contentedly*
Sorry
Platipi and Echidnas are Monotremes. Not Marsupials. They're two distinct sub-classes.
Crocodiles are reptiles. Thus not monotremes. I will now sensitively refrain from using the word "retard", but know at least that I could.
( ,
Sat 18 Dec 2004, 18:28,
archived)
Crocodiles are reptiles. Thus not monotremes. I will now sensitively refrain from using the word "retard", but know at least that I could.
All depends who's taxonomy you decide to use...
...I mean really!
If the scientific community can't even decide on a basic number and naming of the kingdoms of all living things, who are we to argue over sub-species, eh?
It's a hairy thing with a beak, it lays eggs and it can't read, which is a bit of a shame as I am sure it would appriciate the effort if it could.
( ,
Mon 20 Dec 2004, 17:12,
archived)
If the scientific community can't even decide on a basic number and naming of the kingdoms of all living things, who are we to argue over sub-species, eh?
It's a hairy thing with a beak, it lays eggs and it can't read, which is a bit of a shame as I am sure it would appriciate the effort if it could.