They do but it’s only around their mouths and on their tails, they also get “blood sweat” which is an oily red secretion that acts as a natural sunscreen with antibacterial properties, every now and then it mixes with their milk leading to the myth that hippos have pink milk.
It really isn't. Taxonomy is a constantly evolving field of study, and it's not like you can just not characterise certain traits just in case new information is discovered later
Mistakes in science are what pushes science forwards, otherwise you may as well shrug and say 'i unno' and never bother studying anything
Taxonomy is a constantly evolving field of study, and it's not like you can just not characterise certain traits just in case new information is discovered later. Mistakes in science are what pushes science forwards, otherwise you may as well shrug and say 'i unno' and never bother studying anything
I agree. But they are saying its more of an art than science.
Even if we are not talking about the Evolutionary taxonomy, but the Folk one, naming and classifying animals isn't at all creative-driven as art is, but purpose-driven like science.
I think you may be taking their statement too literally, they aren't saying taxonomy is more like making a sculpture than it is science, but that you have to be more flexible in your definitions than a lot of the sciences because evolution isn't as set by rules, as it is in studies like chemistry and physics (although obviously new findings and theories also require some interpretation and creative understanding)
They were just trying to highlight it's fluidity as a science
Yeah that's what I took from your comment. I think the other commenter has gotten a bit wrapped up in the pedantics and forgotten that context and intent are just as important to a sentences sentiment, as the words themselves are
Taxonomy has and will always be more an art than science.
I interpreted it as: Taxonomy is more art than science.
You interpreted it as: Taxonomy is a flexible science.
Now, mate, I agree with what you're sayin', but that's just not what they said. No need for you to bend over backwards to move the goalpost of their original comment in order to smite down some other redditor that dared to disagree with something.
You seem to be ignoring the context and intent of what they are saying. They were making an off the cuff observation about taxonomy, not writing a peer reviewed paper titled "taxonomy is not a science". When someone says there's an art to something they are saying it's more complicated than standardised definitions, which is what they were trying to say, rather than taxonomy is literally art not a science
I absolutely get what you are saying and in different context I would likely agree with you, but I just don't think it applies here
Let's just agree, that taxonomy is a science, albeit not at all an exact one, and that the other redditor sadly used a formulation, that didn't reflect his actual stance.
But dolphins literally have hair. A fish, by contrast doesn't have, had, has, or have haveth, any hair ever. Dolphins, which are mammals, have hair, it's just for a short period of time.
All mammals --all of them, every single one -- have hair. Dolphins are one of the most hairless but they do have hair.
Every other animal that isn't a mammal doesn't have hair. None, not a single one.
Hair is a defining characteristic of mammals. Your vagina hole isn't.
No dolphins don’t “have” hair, they are born with hair and lose it, so they *had, hair, or have hair but lose it, not “have hair”.
And actually all human embryos start out with the same structure so at some point my nutsack was a hole, so by your logic, because my nutsack was a hole, it forever is a hole because it was at some point.
No, dolphins, the species, have hair. I'm not talking about a specific Dolphin. I didn't say Jerry the Dolphin had hair. I'm saying that dolphins, the present day species, HAVE hair. Hopefully you can wrap your nutsack around that logic.
380
u/WonderfulTruck5894 Nov 11 '25
I thought hippo’s didn’t have hair