Giant Panda 22 Sep 2016 Given zoogiraffe\'s comprehensive coverage, I won\'t upload my exhibit photos. If anyone has any requests, though, let me know.
Given zoogiraffe\'s comprehensive coverage, I won\'t upload my exhibit photos. If anyone has any requests, though, let me know.
Chlidonias 22 Sep 2016 I'm going to go with the "2 subspecies"? (I don't know off-hand if any of the facts are correct or not).
I'm going to go with the "2 subspecies"? (I don't know off-hand if any of the facts are correct or not).
Giant Panda 22 Sep 2016 Chlidonias said: I'm going to go with the "2 subspecies"? (I don't know off-hand if any of the facts are correct or not). Click to expand... Yep (and nor do I).
Chlidonias said: I'm going to go with the "2 subspecies"? (I don't know off-hand if any of the facts are correct or not). Click to expand... Yep (and nor do I).
Kakapo 23 Sep 2016 Never a different taxonomic opinion (and in this case, one that has been accepted by scientific community during many years) can be an "error".
Never a different taxonomic opinion (and in this case, one that has been accepted by scientific community during many years) can be an "error".
Giant Panda 23 Sep 2016 Absolutely! Just as it would be erroneous to place them in the order Pachydemata. The taxonomy is outdated by the overwhelming weight of expert opinion and, importantly, was when the sign was commissioned.
Absolutely! Just as it would be erroneous to place them in the order Pachydemata. The taxonomy is outdated by the overwhelming weight of expert opinion and, importantly, was when the sign was commissioned.
