Share your unusual herps. Attatched is a picture of a Budgett's frog I used to have.
>>1997290
Legless Lizards, they are so charming.
Can it be a pet?
>>1997334
I had one for a while because I disturbed it during the winter, they're louzy pets.
>>1997334
Is that a slow worm? I used to keep them as a kid had no idea they were critically endangered, I did my part tho, fattened them up. I saw one on my patio a couple days ago, it was slow as shit so I warmed it up with my hands and put it under my shed
L. Williamsi male
>>1997372
L. Williamsi female.
Old pic. The stuck shed is long gone now.
Here's a Brazilian Rainbow Boa in shed. Compared to ball pythons and corn snakes, I'd say they're at least a bit unusual.
>>1997376
And one not in shed.
>>1997374
they're qt.
>>1997399
Your crestie is cute, too. You should post your leachie in the thread, I don't think I've seen a recent picture of her.
>>1997400
I haven't taken pictures of her recently, I'll try to make some tonight if she's willing to come out.
>>1997325
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://blogs.cornell.edu/naturalistoutreach/files/2013/09/Herps-I-1ld0k49.pdf&ved=0CCoQFjADahUKEwie_eKJ1Y3JAhWG5yYKHTw9CIg&usg=AFQjCNH0SrByY18-Lute5wyX7WW0lPmtQQ&sig2=u2RiKxPc56EX1UwXEeYffQ
They're not the same thing.
Here is my Baja Rattlesnake
This one's not mine, but I saved it from the Reptile General and have been using it as a wallpaper for a year or so.
>>1997401
Sounds good. I'll have my fingers crossed that she's feeling photogenic today. Are you the only regular poster on the board that has one? I can't remember seeing anyone else post theirs.
and one of my pygmy rattlesnakes
>>1997406
there was some guy a year ago that hatched some R. leachianus eggs from a female that had never been mated.
they're observed to engage in parthenogenesis.
>>1997325
"Reptiles and Amphibians are the same thing"
-bugguy
>>1997409
reptiles are a class of amphibians.
>>1997412
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://blogs.cornell.edu/naturalistoutreach/files/2013/09/Herps-I-1ld0k49.pdf&ved=0CCoQFjADahUKEwie_eKJ1Y3JAhWG5yYKHTw9CIg&usg=AFQjCNH0SrByY18-Lute5wyX7WW0lPmtQQ&sig2=u2RiKxPc56EX1UwXEeYffQ
Still not the same thing.
>>1997412
Do you really need to derail every single thread you post in with stupid pedantic bullshit?
>>1997416
you don't understand taxonomy, it's ok.
both modern amphibians and reptiles share a common ancestor that was an amphibian.
pay more attention in highschool.
>>1997425
do you really need to post your uneducated opinions in every thread.
stop being incorrect and you won't get corrected, drooler.
>>1997426
It's ok you don't think things through.
Just because they have a common ancestor does not mean they are the exact same thing.
They would share similar traits but they would not be identical.
>>1997290
Did you get it on a budget?
>>1997325
Why don't we include birds and mammals in this thread then? Last I checked birds are reptiles and mammals are amphibians.
>>1997436
Thank you.
>>1997437
By that logic anything with a backbone is a very highly specialized fish. So I guess this is an aquarium thread now.
>>1997439
and that's true.
and since it's true, not all fish live in water.
this is a tunicate thread.
>>1997437
Provide a source for your definition because that's wrong.
>>1997441
No, no its not true. He was exaggerating to show how your logic is flawed.
>>1997445
Yeah cladistics states that you can group them together, not that they become the same thing. You've understood it incorrectly but it's ok to be wrong.
>>1997445
>sorry that you dropped out of highschool.
says the gardener
Every day I lurk on /an/. Every day bugguy gets told he is wrong, usually followed by proof. Yet he still insists that everybody but him is poor and stupid. What a fucking putz.
>>1997459
But still not the same thing
>>1997466
yes, that's how cladistics works.
you don't become something else, you merely adapt, you're still the same thing.
your entire argument stems from you not understanding how taxonomy works, even though these are the very basics.
don't argue about something you don't even understand and go back to fingerpainting with your toddler.
>>1997469
>you don't become something else, you merely adapt, you're still the same thing.
When you adapt you change to suit whatever conditions you're under. Change. C h a n g e.
You would share similar traits with the organisms that share your ancestor but since the organisms evolved (CHANGED) you would not be the same as the other organisms.
You're a special kind of stupid.
>>1997480
Which is why reptiles and amphibians are not the same thing. Which you said they were.
>>1997480
> you're under. Change. C h a n g e.
it's adaptation to suit your needs.
>you would not be the same as the other organisms.
you're the same thing, just different adaptations of the same thing.
humans are a land dwelling upright walking adaptation of fish.
you're using outdated taxonomy.
>>1997480
>>1997481
He's right, but he's completely autistic about it. Under a specific frame of work, and in context, reptiles can be considered amphibians.
He replies to posts without even analyzing the context or what is being discussed. he just wants to spout information left and right, even if everyone in the thread isn't even talking about anything related to what he's mouth shitting about.
>>1997459
>botanist
Euphemism of the year
>>1997485
>Under a specific frame of work
it's very basic taxonomy that everyone should know and understand.
if you want me to read your post try not posting garbage.
reptiles aren't a thing in taxonomy, it's an umbrella term for amphibians that branched off at some point, many are about as closely related to eachother as they are to mammals.
>>1997488
>many are about as closely related to eachother as they are to mammals
my_fucking_sides.png
I'd ask you for proof, bout you'd just use your usual
>hurr durr it's basic cladistics
"argument", so i won't even bother
>>1997491
>I'd ask you for proof
but you're too stupid to look for it yourself.
you can look up the 'reptilian' tree of evolution any time, but you don't, because you can't even form an opinion without choking on an emulsion of involutive garbage.
again: back to fingerpainting.
>>1997488
It wasn't me who was replying to you. I'm just tired of reading the same shit in every thread. I honestly don't know how you do it.
>>1997493
I don't know what your sources are, but they must be reall obscure, or you're just very bad at interpreting facts.
>back to smoking pot you fucking burden of society
>>1997493
just an hero already, it's inevitable at this point
>>1997491
reptiles and mammals are sister groups, so it makes sense saying that.
I'm pretty sure it only applies to ancient animals though.
>>1997325
>durrr i know some information and i post it in every thread
>everybody look at my autism
I bet you put tomatoes in the fruit salad
>>1997495
>I don't know what your sources are
because you wouldn't find them even if it was a multiple choice question.
I already stated multiple times, just look up on how cladistics work or look up very basic evolutionary trees that dumb it down to your level.
if me and nociception guy left this board the average IQ would drop so low you'd all get hypothermia.
>>1997497
they are, reptiles are just not more related to mammals than they are to each other
>>1997325
BOY IF YOU DONT
>>1997499
>Giving any relevant meaning to IQ
Literally autism.
>>1997499
>the average IQ would drop
>being this bad at statistics/math
bugguy pls
>>1997497
it would apply to turtles, since they split off so early.
>>1997504
that has not really been confirmes yet
>>1997500
Ah I misread that, I understood it as in "amphibians are as closely related to reptiles as they are to mammals"
If that's the case, then disregard the faggot.
>>1997502
it doesn't mean much unless you're far below average.
pattern recognition and intelligence are related.
>>1997504
>>1997504
BUT TURTLES ARE FUCKING DIAPSIDS YOU FUCKING RETARD! THEY BELONG TO THE EUREPTILIA CLADE! THIS IS FUCKING BASIC TAXONOMY YOU FUCKING TWAT IF YOU WANTED TO KNOW THIS YOU WOULD ALREADY FOUND THE SOURCES
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
FUCKING NORMIE I SWEAR
>>1997509
you what.
>>1997508
>it's what the evolutionary tree currently looks like.
>thinking there's only one version of that
oh boy
>>1997510
calm down, he won't understand this anyway
>>1997510
our ancestors are diapsids as well.
>>1997514
>citation needed
"basic ______" is not a source
>>1997513
I'm hardly able to read it.
>>1997511
that's how much sense you make
>>1997513
I WON'T
>>1997514
See the diagram? Alright, now, do you see a arrow going from the diapsid skull to a synapsid skull? No? THEN YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG
>>1997516
we know, you're retarded
>>1997515
>citation needed
you never checked the subclasses of diapsids?
we're synapsids.
>>1997516
>presented with proof
>b-but I can hardly read it, surely I c-can't be wrong
>>1997520
sure we are
>>1997521
Also if he starts whining, this is from a book on Herpetology. 2014 edition.
If anyone wants I can try and upload it to anon files or something.
>>1997521
I already replied to it.
turtles come from a line that split off so early they're closer to mammals than any reptile that branched off from that point except crocodiles.
they don't even have scales.
>>1997520
Why don't you just write to Kenneth Kardong and present him your findings? I'm sure he'll correct his book for the next edition.
>>1997522
>muh incorrect evolutionary tree.
sorry I prefer scientists over your opinions in a non appeal to authority sense.
>>1997524
>turtles don't have scales
smoke less pot, faglord
>>1997525
did you not check the wiki of diapsids.
>>1997527
>sorry I prefer scientists over your opinions in a non appeal to authority sense.
>kardong is not a scientist, i am
k.
>>1997528
those are scutes, not scales.
did you get your daily ban yet?
>>1997524
No, that's the old view on it when the hypothesis were that turtles were in the clade Parareptilia and were actual anapsids.
The current hypothesis that has more evidence pointing towards is what I already posted. They belong to Eureptilia. So you are wrong.
Read the tiny text in pic related. Otherwise you will think you are right.
>>1997531
>scutes, not scales
we know you never had a comparative anatomy or basic reptile anatomy class in your life. it really shows.
>>1997531
scutes ARE scales. Bony scales. Even crocodiles have scutes.
Also, they only have scutes on their carapace, the rest are "true" scales.
Just die please.
>>1997534
scales ARE scutes, scutes aren't scales.
>Even crocodiles have scutes.
because they split up early like turtles.
>the rest are "true" scales.
they're all scutes, turtles don't have scales.
they got scutes from their amphibian ancestors.
>>1997532
yours is the old view, this is from 2015.
>>1997537
why are you using this as proof? I thought those aren't real scientist for you. You make very little sense - even for a pathetic fag.
>>1997536
You have it backwards. Scutes are scales, scales are not scutes.
>>1997536
>because they split up early like turtles.
please let this be b8
I honestly thought you knew some stuff about this. Besides the autism.
>>1997537
Are you a evolutionary scientist who studies this kind of stuff? I would think so.
Also I'm calling it already, in future threads, if someone brings this thread up; he will be like
>I was just pretending to make you guise angry xD
Wouldn't be the first time
I fucking swear this fucking guy
>>1997538
I used your own diagram to illustrate a point so you'd understand.
ofcourse that's false hope.
one has 3 holes (with 2 holes that are placed closely together) the other has 2, it's delusional to say those aren't closer related in some way.
this is all derailing, my original point still stands, reptiles are amphibians, you don't need to mention them seperately.
>>1997542
You are implying that a order of reptiles closely related to birds have scutes because they branched off early like turtles (which is a false permise as i've already demonstrated, i'll upload that book just for you).
Do you know what a node in a evolutionary tree is? Maybe you don't.
>>1997545
I'm not implying anything, scutes might've evolved multiple times.
still stands is that scales are evolved scutes, and not visa versa.
this is besides the point which I already mentioned: reptiles are amphibians, you don't need to mention them seperately.
>>1997547
link me sources
>>1997549
go ahead and research the origins of scales.
this is offtopic garbage, get to the point or stop posting.
>>1997551
>get to the point or stop posting
follow your own advice
>>1997552
I got to the point and never tried to leave it.
here have my unusual herp since no one else is able to afford leachies on /an/
>>1997554
>herp
what taxonomic group is that?
poor animal
>>1997556
stop shitposting, actually contribute.
>>1997558
>stop shitposting, actually contribute
again, follow your own advice
>>1997547
>still stands is that scales are evolved scutes
this is still false.
go back and read your Wikipedia article again.
>>1997559
which I'm doing.
I'm the only one on /an/ with a leachie.
third ban today?
>>1997558
>actually contribute
>posts something relevant to the thread after derailing it in the first post
>>1997560
it is correct, since ancient amphibians had scutes.
>>1997561
>which I'm doing
after shitposting for a whole day
>>1997565
nice pyramiding you have there
>>1997566
all my posts are on topic.
>>1997565
Ancient fish had fins and dolphins have fins, and dolphins evolved from ancient fish.
that doesn't imply that dolphin fins evolved from fish fins.
>>1997561
anonfiles com/file/ 8f1e1a1b0f177a0a74a335fd99115932
>>1997567
it's a recue, I find them on the street during spring.
my own tortoise doesn't have any pyramiding.
>>1997568
Debating cladistics is off topic in an "unusual herp thread"
>>1997554
There was no point in posting your first post so you should've stopped. Now, had you posted that cute herp then you wouldn't come off as such an asshole.
>>1997572
>excuses
we believe everything you say, cockgobbler
>>1997568
>being this delusional
>>1997569
dolphins have flippers not fins.
dolphins are still technically fish, because all mammals are fish.
>>1997573
I didn't spark it.
>>1997574
it was to correct OP.
it's funny how /an/ sees me as a psychopath even though I'm more empathic than anyone about animals.
the difference is that you're dismissed as housewifes, I actually reach people.
>>1997577
>dolphins have flippers not fins.
>>1997581
>I actually reach people.
Here comes the new messiah, everybody
>>1997582
>uploads a picture of them saying they're flippers.
>>1997554
>no one else is able to afford leachies on /an/
>lives in such a shithole:>>1997583
>>1997585
they still have a fin, turdmuffin
>>1997583
you're going to have trouble finding a trait in me that isn't a basic northern european trait.
you hate me, you hate northern europeans, it's as simple as that.
>>1997588
if northern europeans were all buttloaders like you, they'd be extinct
>>1997590
>not the type of fin fish have.
it's still a fin
>>1997590
>besides, I can't chemically treat it due to my pets.
You don't have to pint your pets.
>>1997591
in the same context that would apply to planes, sure.
>>1997594
>planes evolved
NICE GOING
>>1997290
Nice frog, OP.
>>1997325
Go to the butcher and ask for fish while pointing at a stake.
>>1997599
>steak not stake
>fuck it's late.jpg
>>1997595
they did, otherwise you wouldn't be crossing the atlantic.
which would be a good thing.
>>1997601
>thinking plane designs evolve
This once again proves you have no idea, what you're shitposting. If planes really did evolve, designers and engineers could only use parts from previous planes. Are boeings made out of wood? I don't think so. They can go back to the drawing board, something evolution can't do.
>being this uneducated
>>1997603
>designers and engineers could only use parts from previous planes
all designs are based on an ultimatum that flies whether it's wood or not.
>being this uneducated.
seriously, why aren't you having fingerpaint fun with your kid yet?
>>1997607
>all designs are based on an ultimatum that flies whether it's wood or not.
>evolution has and endgoal
what the fuck is wrong with you?
>>1997607
>seriously, why aren't you having fingerpaint fun with your kid yet?
I have a higher degree than you
>>1997615
>in dunning kruger.
from a guy, who has never seen the inside of a university
you really should be a comedian
>>1997615
>muh high education
pics or it didn't happen
>>1997581
Op didn't need to be corrected. It isn't wrong to say both. You just felt like derailing. Sure you don't have to say them separately but it isn't wrong.
>>1997607
I'm starting to really not appreciate the denigrating way you refer to fingerpainting, bugguy. Haven't you ever heard of Chuck Close?
>>1997650
>but no the type of scales amphibians have.
amphibians don't have scales, they never had.
scales are evolved scutes not visa versa.
back to finger painting and chalk.
>>1997654
>scales are evolved scutes not visa versa.
they didn't evolve from scutes. So no.
>back to finger painting and chalk
as usual you're arguing with more than one person. I have no clue what you're yammering about and I don't intend to read the thread to find out.
>>1997657
>they didn't evolve from scutes
rofl.
you think they got those scales from the ancestors with scales that they didn't have?
>>1997658
>you think they got those scales from the ancestors with scales that they didn't have?
that's how evolution works.
New things show up.
it's amazing.
>>1997660
>New things show up.
from scutes.
I already figured, you didn't.
protip: it's because you lack an education.
>>1997662
>from scutes.
scutes develop below the skin, lizard scales develop above.
they're also made from entirely different organs with different genetic structures.
your view makes sense but isn't true. That happens a lot in evolution. Things usually aren't what they appear to be.
>>1997665
:they're also made from entirely different organs with different genetic structures.
because one is an adapted version of another.
you can do all the research you want on this, earlier member had scutes, it´s where scales come from.
it's what it appears to be.
it isn't so hard, scutes are easier to develope than scales.
>>1997561
Holy fuck it's feet are cute as hell.
>>1997669
>>1997677
he doesn't know what "homologous" means in biology.
he thinks it just means similar in structure, he doesn't recognize that it also means derived from different organs.
>>1997680
>derived from different organs.
>not derived from different organs
>>1997680
it doesn't mean much other than looking alike, which is a useless term seeing everything essentially looks alike.
>>1997695
that's the opposite of what it means.
>Homology (biology), any characteristic of biological organisms that is derived from a common ancestor.
>>1997703
it's an useless term, everything looks alike, always.
>>1997704
> I don't like this definition therefore it's useless.
>>1997731
it's not that I don't like it, it's that it applies to everything.
it loses it's value.
>>1997733
the definition has nothing to do with looks.
homologous traits often look completely different from each other.
bat wings are homologous to human hands.
They look nothing alike but are both inherited from the same common ancestor.
things that look alike but AREN'T inherited from a common ancestor are ANALOGOUS.
Apologies if this is over your head, I know you're a bit slow.
>>1997643
>if you're in the netherlands you've probably seen my lectures.
kill yourself
>>1997643
>lectures
They let a gardener teach? Holy shit, your universities must be real shit.
>>1997744
they're good considering half the public is you, no degrees, just a PhD in being a housemother.
sadly that's every lecture and argument for that matter.
>>1997742
>try to actually come with something legit like the structures in the mouth of flamingos and whales.
that's NOT HOMOLOGY.
THAT'S ANALOGY.
Honestly bugguy, I can't tell if you're trolling or actually mentally handicapped most of the time.
>>1997742
let's try it with a more approptiate picture for you
>>1997749
homology isn't a legit argument everything is essentially homology and it has nothing to do with the topic on hand.
can't tell whether you're trying to derail this thread or not.
>>1997747
>lying about your degree to anons on /an/
your life must be really bitter, you pathetic fag
>>1997753
>i don't understant this concept therefore it isn't legit
>nice arguing
>>1997756
how's your degree in foxology treating you, foxydani?
>>1997753
>basically we're all just bacteria
>buggay will defend this
>>1997753
>everything is essentially homology
except for all the things that are analogy.
and all the things that aren't related in form or function.
>>1997750
That analogy makes me sweat.
I'm not sure if it is comparing all three, or the bat wing with the butterfly wing, and then the butterfly wing with the bird wing.
If it is the first then it is obviously wrong.
>>1997757
it isn't a concept, it's a sad and terrible idea.
>>1997758
Too bad I'm not at home to take a photo of my functional biology master's
I doubt you even have a bachelor (based on what you're posting)
>>1997762
everything is essentially related.
whales and flamingos are still related in that they're both amphibians.
>>1997764
I guess a term and definition that has been used for over a century will go in disuse just because you think it is bad.
>>1997763
first row: homology as in forelimb
second row: analogy as a means for flying
>>1997769
many do and have.
it's nothing new.
>>1997768
yes, but the trait wasn't inherited from a common ancestor.
it's not a synapomorphy, it's analogous, not homologous. A product of convergence. It looks and functions exactly alive but wasn't inherited from a common ancestor. That's analogy.
just like scales and scutes.
they look and function alike but weren't inherited from a common ancestor.
>>1997772
bugaustim, the key sentence there is "because you think it's bad".
>>1997772
If it's just idiots like you, who contribute jack shit to science, then your the doubt is worth even less than the shit my turtle took 20mins ago
>>1997778
>but bat wing and bird wing are homologous
they're both tetrapod forelimbs, therefore they are homologous
I guess that's just too difficult for you
>>1997780
I was thinking like that as well, but everywhere I look it says they are analogous
hell will break loose now
fug
>>1997781
>the trait to make it even possible was
which one?
a heart?
lungs, skin, bones?
it doesn't matter, the two organs evolved completely independently.
>>1997780
they're also homologous to flippers and the entire lack of forelimbs.
the term means nothing anymore.
>>1997783
as a limb - homologous
as a wing - analogous (mammalian bat ancestors did not have wings)
>>1997783
they're homologous from the standpoint of osteology if we ignore the reduction of digits in birds.
the one uses skin as the aerodynamic surface while the other uses feathers though. In that regard they're analogous.
>>1997785
funny how you always avoid posting proof of your degree
>>1997785
>they're also homologous to flippers
yes
>and the entire lack of forelimbs
no.
>>1997788
>mammalian bat ancestors did not have wings
wings are adapted gliding equipment.
they had these.
>>1997791
you think a guy that can't identify toadflax and doesn't know what homology is has a degree?
don't be ridiculous.
>>1997796
Fuck off bugfag
>>1997796
>shrew-like animals had wings for gliding, never mind the fact they lived in burrows
are you retarded or do you just pretend to be?
>>1997797
you think a guy who can't even recognize basal amphibians has a degree?
don't be ridiculous.
>>1997799
how do you know they lived in burrows again, we have no fossil burrows of them.
>>1997797
but he has lectures!
>>1997802
>we don't have fossils of early mammals
ok, that's enough stupidity for today.
Everyone have fun arguing with this turdburglar :D
>>1997806
great excuse.
there's none, your argument is based on a whole bunch of N O T H I N G.
>>1997807
i guess megazostrodon and the like are made up
>Come to this thread to see reptiles and amphibians
>Maybe I can learn a thing or two for a future pet
>It's bugfaggot again
>>1997800
smoking pot and salvia is not a degree
>>1997813
there's no fossil evidence present that they made burrows.
again, it's a whole lot of nothing.
>>1997817
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-65923-2_15
>>1997824
cite whatever I have to read.
>>1997825
I wasn't talking to you.
Sometimes I just cite information that disagrees with you so others will know right off the bat not to take you seriously.
>>1997824
oh yeah paid evidence is going to show me extinct mammals burrowed
>even though their burrowers haven't been found.
>>1997825
YOU NEVER CITE WHAT YOU SAY
>>1997844
I don't need to, everything I say can be found on google easily.
>>1997850
Same can be said for what anyone else says. Why do you insist on being a jerk?
>>1997850
I'd love to see your citation for ancient fossorial mammals not existing.
all google turns up is lists of ancient fossorial mammals.
>>1997876
you'd find evidence for a claim I never made.
>>1997882
>there's no fossil evidence present that they made burrows.
signed, bugguy
>>1997554
I might get a pair at some point, I just feel like they're probably going to be hard to sell offline. All the things I breed right now are in the price range where I still might be able to sell offspring on Craigslist without too much hassle.
Pic related's out of my price range for sure, though.
>>1997893
I can tell you already that they're not going to sell for a decent price on craigslist.
buying a pair doesn't mean you get offspring, they're extremely picky when it comes to mates, hence why they're so expensive.
>>1997882
>you'd find evidence for a claim I never made.
oh shit, you thought "fossorial" meant "fossil," didn't you?
kek.
>>1997894
I'm aware. I looked into them before I decided on day geckos.
I check the pets section of craigslist every few weeks to look for deals on equipment, and I've seen a few leachies go in the 800 dollar range, but it takes months for them to sell.
With BRBs they sell fast enough at 100-150 a pop. Litters don't last long here. No clue about the L. Williamsi but considering the price range for juvies is similar, I'm mostly hoping I can sell them based off their pretty colors alone.
>>1997907
>I've seen a few leachies go in the 800 dollar range, but it takes months for them to sell.
and then you realize that's not even the price of a single healthy individual in america.
they're like 2k+ in murica.
>>1997910
Depends on the locality, but that is definitely the far low end of things. I'm agreeing with you. I decided it wasn't worth the time and hassle. Would rather have something I won't have to sit on for half a year (at best).
>>1997916
mines a mt.koghis troeger line.
they're great pets when they're not grumpy, mine didn't want to come out for pictures and now I'm probably going to have a scar on my thumb.
>>1997654
>amphibians don't have scales, they never have
By your logic they have, since amphibians are fish and fish have scales. Go fuck yourself.
>>1997930
Not all fish have scales.
>>1997931
>NEVER HAVE
>called out on own pedantic bullshit
>W-WELL SOME DONt
>>1997932
I'm not in your stupid argument. I'm just pointing out there are fish that don't have scales because I think scaleless fish are cool.
>>1997943
Not him, but I just saw a trip and figured it was bug guy, I didn't even read it properly.
>>1997946
You should post a qt scaleless fish to make up for it.
>>1997499
>if me and nociception guy left this board the average IQ would drop so low you'd all get hypothermia.
>>1997949
ok
>select all images with fish
it knows
>>1997971
he's sorta got a point.
I am the nociception guy he speaks of.
I was on /sci/ when those surveys were done. I'm probably the main reason they scored so high.
The only people that beat my scores were from /lit/. Some smart motherfuckers on that board. I don't know about bugguy's IQ though. He's either really smart pretending to be stupid or really stupid pretending to be smart.
>>1997454
>gardener is a bad thing
And what place, exactly, do you think you have having ANYTHING to do with any living thing?
>>1997946
You're being overpowered by rage, like a simple idiot. This is why I like bugguy, because I fucking hate people and he's so good at pissing you morons off.
>>1997989
when that survey was done /pol/ didn't exist.
neither did /mlp/ or /out/.
so the thing is pretty obviously bullshit.
>>1997971
>/out/ 137
Kek
>>1997993
Well you could tell it was bullshit by the fact that over half of 4chan are genius IQ.
>>1997993
When was it made?
>>1998003
I'm more interested in how it was made. Wait, scratch that. I'm not interested at all. It's just bullshit.
>>1997999
the test used scored high.
I have a real life score of 161 on Raven Progressive Matrices, which means if you have 1000 people in the room I'll be the smartest.
I scored 180 on the online test used, which is ridiculous. I've never scored anything close to 180 in real life, I sincerely doubt anyone on 4chan could. I wasn't the only one that got a 180 on that test. So of course it was bullshit.
>>1998003
I dunno, back before /pol/ existed.
I don't keep track of how long I've been here, that would be really depressing.
>>1998024
>I have a real life score of 161 on Raven Progressive Matrices, which means if you have 1000 people in the room I'll be the smartest.
>I scored 180 on the online test used, which is ridiculous. I've never scored anything close to 180 in real life, I sincerely doubt anyone on 4chan could. I wasn't the only one that got a 180 on that test.
I don't believe either of those scores for one second.
>>1998029
it's not important.
>>1998024
>which means if you have 1000 people in the room I'll be the smartest.
This faggot.
>>1997971
>/tv/ being higher than anyone
Fucking unacceptable
>>1998045
It's an overt reference to a semi-secret society.
you'd have to be a genius to know what I'm saying. There are no geniuses on /an/ though.
>>1998048
>you'd have to be a genius to know what I'm saying. There are no geniuses on /an/ though
By definition you have no idea what you're saying.
>>1998052
I know you're no genius, Ausfag.
>>1998055
Oh shit the burns.
??
>>1997376
These guys are so awesome in shed, here's one of my boy in shed at a few months old.
Glad to see bugguy is up to their usual shitposting, this thread is maybe 5% on topic, so we're doing good.
>>1997376
Nope, they're really common. Anything unusual about them.
>>1998024
I have been tested professionally and my IQ is 158. I took credited college-level courses starting at age 12 via Johns Hopkins University's CTY program. I also read 750 words per minute with 80% accuracy, a skill that led me to my current career. It's my autism superpower, I guess. There are almost certainly at least few other high IQ users here on /an/ besides us.
This doesn't really have shit to do with animals, though, we're getting a little off topic.
>>1998073
He looks a bit calmer than mine do. Mine get antsy as all fuck when I bother them in shed. I was struck at three times trying to take the picture above.
>>1998104
They're not "common". I wouldn't say they're rare, but certainly not common unless you live in Brazil or something.
