> And this is bad, how? No reason to go slamming FurryMuck.
I must have blinked and missed the part where I slammed anything in that sentence... Perhaps "smiley insufficiency" (or some related syndriome) is at work.
> > Not exactly a huge deviation fron Canon, what with puma and cougar
> > being the same thing (unless I'm losing track of my NA kitties
> > again).
> Sure. They are the same thing and leopards, at least the ones in South
> America, are damned similar.
AFAIK there aren't any leopards in S. America. Maybe you're thinking of jaguars, which are a different species, significantly larger, yadda.
Puma and leopard, though, are even less related, being in different feline sub-families. (Or in informal terms, leopard are 'small' "big cats", and puma are large "small cats", i.e more closely related to housecats, (<ObGlorantha>a)lynx, etc.)
> One pouncing cat of about 250 lbs is very much like another pouncing
> cat of about 250 lbs.
... except to another pouncing cat of about 250 lbs, among others.
> Now tigers or lions, that *would* be different.
Actually leopards and (and jaguars) are much more closely related to either than to puma. (In Glorantha, who knows? GL/4-world taxonomy may bear little in the way of resemblance to the RW sort.)
> Not sure if I'm seeing your complaint, sorry.
Not sure I am either. I thought I was pedanting, not complaining.
C,
A.
Powered by hypermail