>looks like a cobra>has a hood like a cobra>rears up like a cobra>”but the king cobra isn’t a real cobra…because it just isn’t okay”My argument here is that the genus that king cobra belongs to should be redesignated as belonging to the true cobras. Cobras belonging to the Naja genus being the only true cobras is random and nonsensical.
who are you quoting? did you forget to take your haldol again?
>>5127245does that also mean that "true" penguins are extinct?
>>5127245That isn’t a king cobra
You gonna start classifying a butterfly as a dead leaf next?
>>5127245"true antelopes" is retarded as well
>>5127245The king cobra doesn't really look like the others when you see it up close.It looks very much like the mambas it's actually related to. Just compare their heads.
>>5127245>looks like a cobra>has a hood like a cobra>rears up like a cobraProbably because that’s a picture of a true cobra, not a king cobra
>>5127625post pics to demonstrate
>>5127245Taxonimists love doing this shit to annoy everyone. Like the berry thing they do where every berry you'd care to name aren't true berries™, only some random thing no one has ever eaten or made jam out of. We've been calling these things berries for centuries, come up with a new name for that shit you just found in the jungle somewhere.
>>5128880which one is the true berry? the huckleberry?
>>5129022needs some specific list of features that almost no berries have so they can say acckchuallyyy that's not a berry! science bitch!, as is their way.
>>5127245https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzsNlDRvPIw
>>5128880Yeah the "tomatoes are actually fruits" thing makes me confused.
>>5127245"it kind of looks x, therefor it is x" is a retarded way to classify animals. By your logic dolphins are fish, hummingbirds are insects and cats are just gay dogs
>>5128880"In botany, a berry is a fleshy fruit produced from a single flower containing one ovary.[1] Berries so defined include grapes, currants, and tomatoes, as well as cucumbers, eggplants (aubergines), persimmons and bananas, but exclude certain fruits that meet the culinary definition of berries, such as strawberries and raspberries. "
>>5129712It can be confusing, because "fruit" is both a botanical and a culinary term. Botanically a fruit is just the seed bearing part, that forms from a flower. In the kitchen fruit/vegetable is classified because of how they taste and are used, pretty much disregarding any botanical concerns. Therefor a tomatoe is a fruit AND a vegetable. Same goes for cucumbers, zuchinis, egg plants, pumpkins and a shit ton of other things. Saying they are "actually fruits" is kind of misleading and bullshit
>>5129723>Therefor a tomatoe is a fruit AND a vegetable.Schroediger's Plant.
>>5128880Only Avocados and bananas and peppers are berries, the rest are all drupes or some shit lol
>>5129712>ActuallyFruits can be vegetables, it's literally just a culinary term and depending on how you decide, all fruits are vegetables anyway, but the usual distinction is "savory/not sweet" plant shit that's edible
Making some pizza with berries:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oHqZbOjl48
>>5128880They're not doing it to "annoy everyone", people just started naming organisms before we started to scientifically classify them, and the names they were given are too grounded in everyday language to be changed for scientific accuracy
>>5130437Except the colloquial definition is correct as it is the prior one. The faggot made up term should be applied to the gay shit you just listed above.
>>5127245Living crocodiles aren't real crocodiles either:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsxgSlHt82k
>>5130677what's the tl;dw on this video?
>>5130706>bunch of extinct reptiles similar to crocodiles found>believed to be distant relatives of true crocs and to have convergently evolved their crocodile-ness>name them pseudosuchia (fake crocs)>turns out they are the ancestors of true crocs after all>this means true crocs are now placed within pseudosuchia
>>5130442How dare they create a set of characteristics to define the term in a formal setting instead of just going “you know a berry when you see it”
>>5129721Perhaps God wanted dolphins to be fish tranny? I'm going to call a spade a spade.
>>5130733If the set of characteristics doesn't encompass the things people already use the term for then the set of characteristics is bad for that term and they should just come up with a different term to describe the set of characteristics to avoid confusion. Its like some speccy cunt coming up with a set of characteristics for "car" and coming up with "vehicle with petrol engine" and then some speccy faggot is like "ERM SCIENTIFICALLY THATS NOT A CAR BECAUSE IT HAS A DIESEL ENGINE" but then happily label a speedboat a car. Maybe your set of characteristics is bad if it includes things it shouldn’t and doesn't include things it should. Maybe you should just call them "petrol vehicles" instead of trying to retrofit the term "car" onto them.
>>5130733They are reusing and therefore redefining common words. They do, in fact, do this to annoy everyone. The easy sciences are full of midwits with ego issues and they 100% want to create excuses to correct people. >THATS NOT A REAL FISH YOU’D KNOW IF YOU…Arts majors are basically this but they live in an alternate reality entirely and think they have a moral imperative to do so. Which can’t be real beyond the word of God because there is nothing that isn’t material or God. God doesn’t allow the fantastical to exist. We have measured the depths of the earth and the breadth of the sky and thus broke the covenant of wonder. t. physicist
>>5131102I think anybodys most basic definition of a car would at least mention the wheels
>>5131108If you would want to be super autistically pedantic, such a thing as "real fish" doesnt even exist. The cladistics of sea creatures are really complex
>>5131108>They are reusing and therefore redefining common wordsThey aren’t though. They are using the term independently of its common use and giving it a specific definition to use in a scientific setting>They do, in fact, do this to annoy everyone. The easy sciences are full of midwits with ego issues and they 100% want to create excuses to correct peopleThey don’t, but I can see why a retard like you would think this
>>5131102>If the set of characteristics doesn't encompass the things people already use the term for then the set of characteristics is bad for that term and they should just come up with a different term to describe the set of characteristics to avoid confusionThat doesn’t work though. There is no set of characteristics that applies to both raspberries and blueberries but not to apples. Almost all fruit would be berries and almost all elapids would be cobras by that logic
>>5127245"Cobra" shouldn't be a taxonomical term, it should simply refer to any hooded elapid snake like how "fox" refers to any small canid rather than a specific clade.
>>5131636Behold, a cobra
>>5127245pic related is called mountain chicken. animal names are weird sometimes
>>5131693Now look up mountain oyster
>>5131636?? All true foxes belong to the genus Vulpes except for the closely related bat-eated fox.
>>5131735But "fox" in general is just a term for that kind of phenotype. There are many foxes outside of the vulpes genus. Fox is not a closed clade. Just a neat example of emergent evolution
>>5131536Well yeah it was an example of a stupid set of characteristics that misdefine a term. >>5131577How does it not work?>There is no set of characteristics that applies to both raspberries and blueberries but not to apples.Then use a different term, as I said. Just like how vegetable isn't a scientific term. Berry doesn't need to be a scientific term if everything we actually consider to be berries wouldn't be berries but things we don't consider berries (eg watermelon / banana) are considered berries scientifically. Just call them something else You don't need to use the same term. There are infinite possible words.
>>5128880>>5129712Wait until you hear about which nuts aren't botanically nuts.
>>5131937>How does it not work?Because there is no set of characteristics that encompasses everything commonly referred to as berries while excluding fruits that aren’t commonly referred to as berries>if everything we actually consider to be berries wouldn't be berriesBut many berries are botanically berries, like blueberries for example
>>5131577>almost all elapids would be cobras by that logicWikipedia lists "American Cobra" as an alternate name for the Eastern Coral Snake, so at some point in the past someone may have been using this strain of knowledge.Or maybe they were just trying to hype up the coral snake.
>>5131983He's saying that the overlap is the problem. We use the term berry to describe shape, taste, and eating experience, and that pre-dates the scientific term. Taxonomists should have not used the word berry at all and instead developed a different term for their own purposes. This conflation is lazy at best or full on hubris at worst.
>>5132026>We use the term berry to describe shape, taste, and eating experienceNo we don’t. Fruits of wildly different shapes, sizes, tastes and textures are referred to as berries. A juniper berry shares almost nothing in common with a strawberry
>>5131636That would make false water cobras into real water cobras, even though real water cobras already exist
>>5132088We use berry as a word for bite sized fruits
>>5127245Just look at this cute idiot.You just know his tiny snake brain can barely hold a single thought.>hiss hissStupid cute snake.
>>5132091Then why don’t we call cherries and grapes berries?
>because it just isn’t okayBecause it's genetically related to Mambas more. Happens to look more like Cobra.
>>5132091You confusing the culinary term (and even then you're not being accurate) with the botanical term.
>>5132096I am not. I was describing how the culinary term is commonly used. It is used for tiny fruits, ignoring if its botanically a berry or not. Thats kind of what this whole discussion is about
>>5132094Cherryberry sounds silly and grapes are actual berries.
>>5132096You're not understanding the problem here. The word berry was already in use for specific things even if they don't have the same guts under the microscope. Instead of stealing the word berry and applying it to things no one called berries before, they should have invented a new word to encapsulate the new common thread.
>>5132092cobras are smart tho
>>5132088>Fruits of wildly different shapes, sizes, tastes and textures are referred to as berriesTrue, like dingleberries
>>5131725>>5131693look up geoduck
>>5132092Baby cobras are the cutest. I would tickle them if they weren't venomous.
>>5129057Meh.>>5129022Myrtles, bananas, tomatoes, eggplants, chilies, currants, gooseberries, kiwifruit, coffee ("single-seeded true berry"), avocado (ditto) and more are all berries. Blueberries and cranberries are epigynous berries (AKA false berries) because the flower petal is part of the fruit itself (because it forms from the inferior ovary IE the one under the petals rather than on top of them). Most botanists would say "eh, close enough; not a TRUE berry, though".Citrus, melons and pomegranates are modified berries (hesperidiums, pepos and balaustas, respectively) and most botanists would consider them a sub category of berries. The botanical rule of thumb here is if it develops from a single flower with one ovary on the top side, has a fleshy middle layer, and contains seed/s on the inside, it’s a berry. If it has a hard pit (like a peach or cherry) with the seed inside it, it's a drupe. If it's made of fused tiny bulbs (like a raspberry), it's an aggregate fruit (except mulberries, which are an accessory fruit, like strawberries, apples/pears, figs and pineapples).
>>5131574they are literally reusing a term that already had an established definition and yes it is specifically to hold that knowledge over people and accuse them of using incorrect terms for ignorant moronsparticipation in the easy sciences used to be a parallel culture or a kind of caste
>>5127245the only True Penguin is the Great Auk
