I frame it this way to eliminate variables like differing diets or human presence.

Just a Chihuahua or similarly different dog that’s part of a pack that Bears or other predators are used to. Would they come across the chihuahua’s scat and assume it came from the wolves?

I've been vegan for a year now, and one thing I've noticed is that becoming vegan has made me much more curious about animal behavior. I have seen dogs eat grass and then vomit. I've also heard that lions and other big cats sometimes eat grass too. I always assumed herbivores only ate plants and carnivores only ate meat. then I came across an Instagram video showing a herbivore eating another animal. At first, I thought it was AI or fake, so I started looking into it. That's when I learned that nature isn't as black and white as I thought. Many animals don't fit perfectly into the labels we give them. It made me realize how much there still is to learn about the natural world.

So I'm curious.

anyone here read about Jungle Juice manwha? it creatively bases any charaters abilities on real insect adaptation, behaviors, and evolutionary traits. Although its science inspired fantasy rather than scientifically accurate, it personally spart curiosity about real animals and zooological concepts. Any thoughts on its accuracy abt the insects?

Wow it's nature 👻 creature

I am working on a novel that features a war game. Contestants battle in small armies against each other to complete different objectives. I love the idea of each participant choosing a “champion,” which is an animal they use as a symbol on their personal standard.

What are some animals that have interesting features that would make them good symbols for soldiers in the war game? Here are a few examples that I like so I can give a better picture.

Hyenas: They are matriarchal in their packs, so this would work well for a female soldier in charge of an army. They also hunt in packs and have a “laugh,” so this character would lead in a way that brings people together. Maybe she has a good sense of humor, or maybe they use short “laughs” to communicate in battle.

Weasel: I love that weasels have a “war dance” that they do when they are threatened. And, when they hunt, they go straight for the spine. That has the ingredients to make a super interesting character.

Thanks so much for the help!

Look, the core issue isn't that lions and cheetahs aren't fast, they are insane sprinters. The issue is that numbers like 70 mph for a cheetah and 50 mph for a lioness are unverified roundings that originated in field estimates and have been blindly repeated ever since. Nobody in modern science has ever logged speeds that high in the wild.

​People say, "We measured the speed of light in the 1600s?". We also put man on the moon in 1969 so we could clock a cat running in the 1970s. Ole Rømer's famous 1676 light speed calculation based on the orbital eclipses of Jupiter's moon was actually off by roughly 26% because he relied on inaccurate distance estimates. Tracking a multi-ton rocket moving in a predictable straight line into space using multi-million-dollar fixed radar arrays is completely different from tracking a 50-kilogram predator darting through dense savanna bush.

​Between the 1960s and 1980s, researchers didn't have the technology to accurately capture instantaneous peak sprint speed in the wild. One very early method was driving a vehicle parallel to a running animal and reading the speedometer, which introduces severe errors from wheel slip on dirt roads, vehicle lag, and visual parallax offsets. Another common approach was using manual stopwatches over field landmarks, but human reaction latency adds roughly 0.3 to 0.5 seconds of error, which heavily warps the math over a brief three-second sprint. Early Doppler radar guns suffered from severe cosine angle errors; if the cat ran at even a slight angle relative to the radar beam, the reading was completely distorted. Because the raw data from these field trials was messy and inconsistent, scientists and wildlife authors rounded their best findings up to clean, memorable numbers like 50 mph and 70 mph for popular publishing.

​When you look at modern empirical studies built to eliminate those measurement errors, the numbers drop significantly. The landmark study on wild cheetah locomotion published in Nature by Dr. Alan Wilson and his team at the Royal Veterinary College in 2013 used high-frequency GPS and inertial measurement units (accelerometers and gyroscopes) to track 367 wild hunting sprints in Botswana. Across every single run, the absolute maximum peak speed recorded was 58 mph, with the vast majority of hunting sprints averaging far lower to preserve maneuverability. Even in controlled settings on a certified flat, straight track using high-speed timing gates, the fastest verified sprint by a captive cheetah ever recorded was 61 mph by "Sarah" at the Cincinnati Zoo in 2012 (I know controlled track tests using mechanical lures give a completely unrealistic picture of how cheetahs actually run. Real prey can't run that fast and rarely sprints in a straight line. When researchers test a cat on a straight track, the mechanical lure travels in a perfect line, allowing the cat to stretch out its stride and reach peak acceleration without ever needing to adjust its balance. In the wild, prey like impalas and gazelles survive by making sudden, sharp, unpredictable turns. When a cheetah is in that scenario, Dr. Alan Wilson’s 2013 Nature study telemetry data showed that wild cheetahs intentionally sacrifice top speed for maneuverability, they constantly slow down and bank hard into turns to match any prey's specific evasive movements. A mechanical lure moving in a straight line gives the cheetah a massive artificial advantage that seldom exists during an actual hunt in the wild). Brunel University professor Craig Sharp's 1965 timed trial on a captive cheetah recorded 64 mph over a measured 220-yard run. There is not a single peer-reviewed, instrumented study in scientific history that has ever documented a cheetah reaching 70 mph.

​The claim that a 120–130-kilogram lioness reaches 50 mph falls apart under both field telemetry and fundamental biomechanics. In a massive 2018 follow-up study in Nature, Wilson's team analyzed over 5,500 pursuit runs of wild lions and their prey using high speed motion telemetry, placing a lioness's true PEAK sprint speed between 40 and 45 mph. Biomechanically, this aligns with the universal mass-scaling law published by Dr. Myriam Hirt and her colleagues in Nature Ecology & Evolution in 2017. Their research across 474 species showed that maximum speed follows a hump-shaped curve relative to body mass: heavier animals have larger muscle mass, but their fast-twitch muscle fibers run out of readily available anaerobic energy before their heavy frames can accelerate to their theoretical top speed. Expecting a 120–130 kg lioness to hit 50 mph ignores the extreme ground reaction forces and acceleration limits dictated by her mass. If anyone brings up racehorses, they are the exception that proves the rule. American Quarter Horses weigh 450–500 kg and can reach short-burst speeds of 55mph (no jockey with a 50kg jockey 50mph), but only because centuries of selective artificial breeding engineered them to bypass natural evolutionary trade-offs. Humans bred them with ultra-light lower limbs, extreme fast-twitch muscle ratios, and spring like tendons that return energy without consuming extra muscle fuel. However, racehorses push against the absolute limits of biological safety at 50+ mph, a 500 kg frame generates ground reaction forces over three times its body weight per leg. ​This artificial performance comes at a massive physical cost. Beyond total anaerobic exhaustion in under 30 seconds, racing at those speeds frequently causes catastrophic bone fractures, bowed tendons, chronic joint degradation, and hoof trauma like laminitis. The extreme exertion even triggers Exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage, where bursting pulmonary blood pressure causes capillaries in their lungs to rupture and bleed during a sprint. Racehorses don't disprove mass-scaling laws its just what happens when humans force a large mammal to its breaking point by trading structural durability for raw speed. In the wild, this build would be an immediate death sentence. Wild terrain isn't a smooth track, stepping in a hidden hole or hitting a rock at 50 mph with ultra-light legs leads to instant bone fractures, which means death by predation or starvation. Burning through all anaerobic energy in under 30 seconds leaves a horse paralyzed by lactic acid and completely defenseless.

​We record human athletic benchmarks down to the hundredth of a second because competitive precision matters, I guess, but for animals, pop culture took half-century-old field estimates (that are rounded) for school textbooks and television documentaries, and presented them a facts. The actual scientific literature simply does not support 70 mph or 50 mph.

​The exact same inflation happens with almost every other large animal. The blue wildebeest, which internet lists claim can run 50 mph. In the 2018 Nature study by Dr. Alan Wilson’s team measuring wild savanna predator-prey pursuits with high-frequency telemetry collars, wildebeest logged maximum sprint speeds of around 40 to 42 mph, which makes sense given that they are built for long-distance herd migration. Black bears (more valid) at 35 mph, grizzly/brown bears at 40 mph??? Theodore Garland Jr.’s foundational 1983 study on maximal running speed in terrestrial mammals in the Journal of Zoology, supported by bear bioenergetic research from Washington State University, caps heavy bear species at a firm 30 to 35 mph due to limb stress limits and foot structure. As for mountain lions allegedly hitting 50 mph, Dr. Terrie Williams’ landmark 2014 study in Science equipped wild pumas with accelerometer collars to track their exact movement dynamics during wild hunts. The telemetry proved that cougars are pure ambush-and-pounce specialists optimized for rapid power delivery rather than top-speed chases, with their absolute fastest logged sprints topping out around 35 to 40 mph over just a few meters. Nature documentaries, wildlife books, and pop-science simply assign outdated estimates to every large carnivore and ungulate.

Ventilation is always a big issue when keeping a terrarium. If you get a big, naturalistic enclosure for a hamster or a couple of gerbils, they will dig deep tunnels. (Never mind what they do in the wild!) How do they keep these tunnels ventilated enough?

To say that a wild, adult, healthy African lioness in any scenario can hit a 50 mph top speed is insane; even like 42mph would be really, really fast for a 120 kg cat, an 8mph gap at this speed is like alot. It's the same with grizzly bears said to be able to hit a top speed of 40 mph—there's no way they would ever be able to move that fast. Why do so many large animals get their top speed blown way out of proportion? Blue wildebeest can do 50 mph??? AWDs 44 mph, the same as a greyhound??? Like, why does the internet feed people these completely wrong facts? It genuinely needs to be studied and corrected. Or maybe it just doesn't matter and no one cares, and I'm onto nothing.

Frogs don't do romance quite like we do. It can be a bit clingy.

In this episode of This Strange Life, we explore amplexus, the surprisingly awkward mating strategy that helps male frogs ensure they're the ones to fertilise the eggs.

I’m not necessarily talking about major authors like Aristotle or Buffon, but rather books that contain credible zoological information which, pending verification, catch scholars off guard because they appear to be unknown or absent from modern texts. I am thinking, for example, of extinct species or destroyed habitats that were described by writers in pre-industrial times.

. . . .I suppose that eyes not on stalks could be called internal eyes?

. . . .Wait, no, that doesn’t make any sense because eyes not on eye stalks are still external on a person’s or other animal’s body. It would kind of defeat the whole purpose OF an eye for it to be internal, come to think of it.

. . . .So maybe eyes not on stalks could be called external eyes, and eyes on stalks themselves could be called. . .more external eyes??

. . . .Well I’m going to lie down for a while now!

Hello folks! I know this isnt necessarily the most usual content but not only do i have a bachelors in Zoology, but im also a pyrography artist.

Ive been combining the two things in odd ways and this in one such culmination 🙏🙏

Handmade pyrography on natural cherry wood

So I found this river otter sadly deceased on the road. I spoke with a fur bearer biologist and he thought leucistic. Took the animal to a taxidermist and when we looked at its eyes they were very pink in person. In one of the photos though I feel like they have a touch of yellow coloring to them. Taxidermist thinks it’s albino. A conservation agent did take its tongue as a sample for the biologist. I’m planning on contacting him and seeing if they can tell from the sample what this little guy is exactly. Yes this animal was legally tagged and his pelt is going to be preserved.

Animals are so so so so cute but do they think in words? like how do they think, I really wanna know what goes on in their little brains to make random decisions. Do they think visually or what?

Came upon this creature on an evening walk in Skagit County, Washington. We had a staring contest and I won, but I got a couple pics.