(05-24-2013, 05:39 PM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]red pandas > giant pandas
Red panda not really a panda bear. Not even really a bear...
(05-25-2013, 08:03 AM)debbie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-24-2013, 05:39 PM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]red pandas > giant pandas
Red panda not really a panda bear. Not even really a bear...
That's true, but they still be the awesomest.
(05-25-2013, 08:03 AM)debbie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-24-2013, 05:39 PM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]red pandas > giant pandas
Red panda not really a panda bear. Not even really a bear...
If I recall, Pandas aren't bears either :o
They are. That dispute has been cleared up, they are more closely related, genetically, to bears than racoons. Hence the change in the taxonomy of giant pandas. Thus, giant pandas are true bears.
And interestingly, there's no such animal group as fish. Fish simply don't exist, because they're all too unrelated to be in the same group. True story.
(05-27-2013, 12:46 PM)debbie Wrote: [ -> ]They are. That dispute has been cleared up, they are more closely related, genetically, to bears than racoons. Hence the change in the taxonomy of giant pandas. Thus, giant pandas are true bears.
Really? That's interesting.
You guys are ridiculous. Everyone knows pandas are a type of shrimp.
^
THEY'RE CRUSTACEANS! OMG!!!
To optimize resource-consumption, cannibalism should be encouraged and/or enforced. Go-go-go!
Another thread I've never posted in! How many of these are there lurking around?
Only if we agree to eat all the obese people.