Gray foxes are not from the Vulpes genus, which we call 'true' foxes, and are illustrated in the post. Theyre from the genus Urocyon! Which actually evolutionary predates Vulpes. Gray foxes not being part of Vulpes does not mean they are not foxes in the scientific sense, but in the sense of it being an animal which behaves, looks like a fox, so we still call them foxes.
Also think about the crab-eating fox (cerdocyon), bat-eared fox (otocyon) and all south American foxes (lycalopex). Theyre not true foxes as theyre not vulpes, but theyre still what we call foxes! :3
Theyre from the genus Urocyon! Which actually evolutionary predates Vulpes. Gray foxes not being part of Vulpes does not mean they are not foxes in the scientific sense, but in the sense of it being an animal which behaves, looks like a fox, so we still call them foxes.
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but animals like this just evolved from other ancestors, but have similar traits correct? That’s why we still consider them foxes?
Indeed, they evolved in similar environments, meant to fulfill a specific role in said environment. Here's a quote from my friend Vuca that sums it up pretty good.
A taxonomic exclusionist might consider only members of genus Vulpes to truly be foxes, but such is not my own view, thus here is why I am inclusive of what I deem a "fox":
"Fox" is a pre-scientific appellation. Hence I think what is considered a "fox" ought to be based on appearance and behavior (lay pre-scientific traits) rather than genetic taxonomy. And here are what I would define as the traits of a "fox":
Thank you for the reply! This makes a lot of sense. I find it interesting because I never really thought about how the same classification of animal could have different ancestry.
Tibetan foxes must be one of the oldest animal species on Earth. What else would explain why they look so done with existence the moment they are born?
Well TIL
My local Fox is not a Fox? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_fox
Gray foxes are not from the Vulpes genus, which we call 'true' foxes, and are illustrated in the post. Theyre from the genus Urocyon! Which actually evolutionary predates Vulpes. Gray foxes not being part of Vulpes does not mean they are not foxes in the scientific sense, but in the sense of it being an animal which behaves, looks like a fox, so we still call them foxes.
Also think about the crab-eating fox (cerdocyon), bat-eared fox (otocyon) and all south American foxes (lycalopex). Theyre not true foxes as theyre not vulpes, but theyre still what we call foxes! :3
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caninae
https://findafox.net/post/view/1704
https://findafox.net/post/view/2906
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but animals like this just evolved from other ancestors, but have similar traits correct? That’s why we still consider them foxes?
Indeed, they evolved in similar environments, meant to fulfill a specific role in said environment. Here's a quote from my friend Vuca that sums it up pretty good.
From: https://findafox.net/user/vuca
Or, in layman's terms:
Thank you for the reply! This makes a lot of sense. I find it interesting because I never really thought about how the same classification of animal could have different ancestry.
Tibetan foxes must be one of the oldest animal species on Earth. What else would explain why they look so done with existence the moment they are born?
I don't know how to say "Aw, hell nah." in Tibetan, but that fox sounds just like it.
I'm guessing red fox is in Australia because rich fucks from UK wanted to hunt them for fun, right?
Not just foxes, but rabbits too
My favorite fox: But why the square head?
tanuki plz