[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | | Home]

Unusual reptile/amphibian general

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 325
Thread images: 65

File: 20130804_133021.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
20130804_133021.jpg
1MB, 3264x2448px
Share your unusual herps. Attatched is a picture of a Budgett's frog I used to have.
>>
File: sheltopusik-1-500.jpg (106KB, 418x287px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
sheltopusik-1-500.jpg
106KB, 418x287px
>>1997290
Legless Lizards, they are so charming.

Can it be a pet?
>>
>>1997334
I had one for a while because I disturbed it during the winter, they're louzy pets.
>>
>>1997334
Is that a slow worm? I used to keep them as a kid had no idea they were critically endangered, I did my part tho, fattened them up. I saw one on my patio a couple days ago, it was slow as shit so I warmed it up with my hands and put it under my shed
>>
L. Williamsi male
>>
>>1997372
L. Williamsi female.
>>
Old pic. The stuck shed is long gone now.
>>
File: ghost.jpg (254KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ghost.jpg
254KB, 1280x720px
Here's a Brazilian Rainbow Boa in shed. Compared to ball pythons and corn snakes, I'd say they're at least a bit unusual.
>>
>>1997376
And one not in shed.
>>
File: cresty.jpg (339KB, 2880x1915px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
cresty.jpg
339KB, 2880x1915px
>>1997374
they're qt.
>>
File: DSC00042.jpg (1MB, 3680x2070px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
DSC00042.jpg
1MB, 3680x2070px
>>1997399
Your crestie is cute, too. You should post your leachie in the thread, I don't think I've seen a recent picture of her.
>>
>>1997400
I haven't taken pictures of her recently, I'll try to make some tonight if she's willing to come out.
>>
>>1997325
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://blogs.cornell.edu/naturalistoutreach/files/2013/09/Herps-I-1ld0k49.pdf&ved=0CCoQFjADahUKEwie_eKJ1Y3JAhWG5yYKHTw9CIg&usg=AFQjCNH0SrByY18-Lute5wyX7WW0lPmtQQ&sig2=u2RiKxPc56EX1UwXEeYffQ

They're not the same thing.
>>
File: IMAG0097.jpg (652KB, 1520x2688px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMAG0097.jpg
652KB, 1520x2688px
Here is my Baja Rattlesnake
>>
This one's not mine, but I saved it from the Reptile General and have been using it as a wallpaper for a year or so.

>>1997401
Sounds good. I'll have my fingers crossed that she's feeling photogenic today. Are you the only regular poster on the board that has one? I can't remember seeing anyone else post theirs.
>>
File: 20130907_114528.jpg (3MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
20130907_114528.jpg
3MB, 4128x2322px
and one of my pygmy rattlesnakes
>>
>>1997406
there was some guy a year ago that hatched some R. leachianus eggs from a female that had never been mated.

they're observed to engage in parthenogenesis.
>>
>>1997325
"Reptiles and Amphibians are the same thing"
-bugguy
>>
>>1997404
>>1997407
cool sneks
>>
>>1997409
reptiles are a class of amphibians.
>>
>>1997412
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://blogs.cornell.edu/naturalistoutreach/files/2013/09/Herps-I-1ld0k49.pdf&ved=0CCoQFjADahUKEwie_eKJ1Y3JAhWG5yYKHTw9CIg&usg=AFQjCNH0SrByY18-Lute5wyX7WW0lPmtQQ&sig2=u2RiKxPc56EX1UwXEeYffQ
Still not the same thing.
>>
>>1997412
Do you really need to derail every single thread you post in with stupid pedantic bullshit?
>>
>>1997416
you don't understand taxonomy, it's ok.

both modern amphibians and reptiles share a common ancestor that was an amphibian.

pay more attention in highschool.
>>
>>1997425
do you really need to post your uneducated opinions in every thread.

stop being incorrect and you won't get corrected, drooler.
>>
>>1997426
It's ok you don't think things through.
Just because they have a common ancestor does not mean they are the exact same thing.
They would share similar traits but they would not be identical.
>>
>>1997290
Did you get it on a budget?
>>
>>1997325
Why don't we include birds and mammals in this thread then? Last I checked birds are reptiles and mammals are amphibians.
>>
>>1997432
>Just because they have a common ancestor does not mean they are the exact same thing.
yes, that is what it means in modern taxonomy.

if it's related, it's different adaptations of the same thing.
>>1997436
do you see me saying you can't?
>>
>>1997436
Thank you.
>>
>>1997437
By that logic anything with a backbone is a very highly specialized fish. So I guess this is an aquarium thread now.
>>
>>1997439
and that's true.

and since it's true, not all fish live in water.

this is a tunicate thread.
>>
>>1997437
Provide a source for your definition because that's wrong.
>>
>>1997441
No, no its not true. He was exaggerating to show how your logic is flawed.
>>
>>1997442
it's just cladistics, google it.
>>1997443
it's how modern taxonomy works, sorry that you dropped out of highschool.
>>
>>1997445
Yeah cladistics states that you can group them together, not that they become the same thing. You've understood it incorrectly but it's ok to be wrong.
>>
File: bugguy.jpg (48KB, 522x429px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
bugguy.jpg
48KB, 522x429px
>>1997445
>sorry that you dropped out of highschool.
says the gardener
>>
Every day I lurk on /an/. Every day bugguy gets told he is wrong, usually followed by proof. Yet he still insists that everybody but him is poor and stupid. What a fucking putz.
>>
>>1997449
if they're grouped together they're different adaptations of the same thing.
>>1997454
botanist.

shouldn't you be tucking the kids in bed though, housemother?
>>
>>1997459
But still not the same thing
>>
>>1997466
yes, that's how cladistics works.

you don't become something else, you merely adapt, you're still the same thing.

your entire argument stems from you not understanding how taxonomy works, even though these are the very basics.

don't argue about something you don't even understand and go back to fingerpainting with your toddler.
>>
>>1997469
>you don't become something else, you merely adapt, you're still the same thing.

When you adapt you change to suit whatever conditions you're under. Change. C h a n g e.
You would share similar traits with the organisms that share your ancestor but since the organisms evolved (CHANGED) you would not be the same as the other organisms.

You're a special kind of stupid.
>>
>>1997480
Which is why reptiles and amphibians are not the same thing. Which you said they were.
>>
>>1997480
> you're under. Change. C h a n g e.
it's adaptation to suit your needs.
>you would not be the same as the other organisms.
you're the same thing, just different adaptations of the same thing.

humans are a land dwelling upright walking adaptation of fish.

you're using outdated taxonomy.
>>
>>1997480
>>1997481

He's right, but he's completely autistic about it. Under a specific frame of work, and in context, reptiles can be considered amphibians.

He replies to posts without even analyzing the context or what is being discussed. he just wants to spout information left and right, even if everyone in the thread isn't even talking about anything related to what he's mouth shitting about.
>>
File: 1445323660309.jpg (21KB, 500x329px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1445323660309.jpg
21KB, 500x329px
>>1997459
>botanist

Euphemism of the year
>>
>>1997485
>Under a specific frame of work
it's very basic taxonomy that everyone should know and understand.

if you want me to read your post try not posting garbage.

reptiles aren't a thing in taxonomy, it's an umbrella term for amphibians that branched off at some point, many are about as closely related to eachother as they are to mammals.
>>
>>1997488
>many are about as closely related to eachother as they are to mammals
my_fucking_sides.png
I'd ask you for proof, bout you'd just use your usual
>hurr durr it's basic cladistics
"argument", so i won't even bother
>>
>>1997491
>I'd ask you for proof
but you're too stupid to look for it yourself.

you can look up the 'reptilian' tree of evolution any time, but you don't, because you can't even form an opinion without choking on an emulsion of involutive garbage.

again: back to fingerpainting.
>>
>>1997488
It wasn't me who was replying to you. I'm just tired of reading the same shit in every thread. I honestly don't know how you do it.
>>
>>1997493
I don't know what your sources are, but they must be reall obscure, or you're just very bad at interpreting facts.

>back to smoking pot you fucking burden of society
>>
>>1997493
just an hero already, it's inevitable at this point
>>
>>1997491
reptiles and mammals are sister groups, so it makes sense saying that.

I'm pretty sure it only applies to ancient animals though.
>>
>>1997325
>durrr i know some information and i post it in every thread
>everybody look at my autism

I bet you put tomatoes in the fruit salad
>>
>>1997495
>I don't know what your sources are
because you wouldn't find them even if it was a multiple choice question.

I already stated multiple times, just look up on how cladistics work or look up very basic evolutionary trees that dumb it down to your level.

if me and nociception guy left this board the average IQ would drop so low you'd all get hypothermia.
>>
>>1997497
they are, reptiles are just not more related to mammals than they are to each other
>>
File: 02b.gif (208KB, 323x221px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
02b.gif
208KB, 323x221px
>>1997325
BOY IF YOU DONT
>>
File: 1421278862902.jpg (98KB, 689x569px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1421278862902.jpg
98KB, 689x569px
>>1997499
>Giving any relevant meaning to IQ

Literally autism.
>>
>>1997499
>the average IQ would drop
>being this bad at statistics/math
bugguy pls
>>
>>1997497
it would apply to turtles, since they split off so early.
>>
>>1997504
that has not really been confirmes yet
>>
>>1997500
Ah I misread that, I understood it as in "amphibians are as closely related to reptiles as they are to mammals"

If that's the case, then disregard the faggot.
>>
>>1997502
it doesn't mean much unless you're far below average.

pattern recognition and intelligence are related.
>>
>>1997505
it's what the evolutionary tree currently looks like.
>>1997506
turtles are closer to ancient mammals than they are to other reptiles.
>>
>>1997504
>>
File: di-fucking-apsid.png (67KB, 419x605px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
di-fucking-apsid.png
67KB, 419x605px
>>1997504
BUT TURTLES ARE FUCKING DIAPSIDS YOU FUCKING RETARD! THEY BELONG TO THE EUREPTILIA CLADE! THIS IS FUCKING BASIC TAXONOMY YOU FUCKING TWAT IF YOU WANTED TO KNOW THIS YOU WOULD ALREADY FOUND THE SOURCES

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
FUCKING NORMIE I SWEAR
>>
>>1997509
you what.
>>
>>1997508
>it's what the evolutionary tree currently looks like.

>thinking there's only one version of that
oh boy
>>
>>1997510
calm down, he won't understand this anyway
>>
>>1997510
our ancestors are diapsids as well.
>>
>>1997514
>citation needed

"basic ______" is not a source
>>
>>1997513
I'm hardly able to read it.
>>
>>1997511
that's how much sense you make
>>
>>1997513
I WON'T

>>1997514
See the diagram? Alright, now, do you see a arrow going from the diapsid skull to a synapsid skull? No? THEN YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG
>>
>>1997516
we know, you're retarded
>>
>>1997515
>citation needed
you never checked the subclasses of diapsids?

we're synapsids.
>>
>>1997516
>presented with proof
>b-but I can hardly read it, surely I c-can't be wrong
>>
File: autism.jpg (36KB, 413x444px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
autism.jpg
36KB, 413x444px
>>1997520
sure we are
>>
>>1997521
Also if he starts whining, this is from a book on Herpetology. 2014 edition.

If anyone wants I can try and upload it to anon files or something.
>>
>>1997521
I already replied to it.

turtles come from a line that split off so early they're closer to mammals than any reptile that branched off from that point except crocodiles.

they don't even have scales.
>>
>>1997520
Why don't you just write to Kenneth Kardong and present him your findings? I'm sure he'll correct his book for the next edition.
>>
>>1997522
>muh incorrect evolutionary tree.

sorry I prefer scientists over your opinions in a non appeal to authority sense.
>>
File: autism2.jpg (99KB, 745x462px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
autism2.jpg
99KB, 745x462px
>>1997524
>turtles don't have scales

smoke less pot, faglord
>>
>>1997525
did you not check the wiki of diapsids.
>>
File: autism3.jpg (51KB, 412x430px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
autism3.jpg
51KB, 412x430px
>>1997527
>sorry I prefer scientists over your opinions in a non appeal to authority sense.

>kardong is not a scientist, i am
k.
>>
>>1997528
those are scutes, not scales.

did you get your daily ban yet?
>>
File: diebuggay.png (61KB, 407x548px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
diebuggay.png
61KB, 407x548px
>>1997524
No, that's the old view on it when the hypothesis were that turtles were in the clade Parareptilia and were actual anapsids.

The current hypothesis that has more evidence pointing towards is what I already posted. They belong to Eureptilia. So you are wrong.

Read the tiny text in pic related. Otherwise you will think you are right.
>>
>>1997531
>scutes, not scales
we know you never had a comparative anatomy or basic reptile anatomy class in your life. it really shows.
>>
>>1997531
scutes ARE scales. Bony scales. Even crocodiles have scutes.

Also, they only have scutes on their carapace, the rest are "true" scales.

Just die please.
>>
>>1997534
scales ARE scutes, scutes aren't scales.
>Even crocodiles have scutes.
because they split up early like turtles.
>the rest are "true" scales.
they're all scutes, turtles don't have scales.

they got scutes from their amphibian ancestors.
>>
File: dicks1.jpg (43KB, 419x443px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
dicks1.jpg
43KB, 419x443px
>>1997532
yours is the old view, this is from 2015.
>>
>>1997537
why are you using this as proof? I thought those aren't real scientist for you. You make very little sense - even for a pathetic fag.
>>
>>1997536
You have it backwards. Scutes are scales, scales are not scutes.
>>
>>1997536
>because they split up early like turtles.

please let this be b8

I honestly thought you knew some stuff about this. Besides the autism.

>>1997537
Are you a evolutionary scientist who studies this kind of stuff? I would think so.


Also I'm calling it already, in future threads, if someone brings this thread up; he will be like
>I was just pretending to make you guise angry xD

Wouldn't be the first time

I fucking swear this fucking guy
>>
>>1997538
I used your own diagram to illustrate a point so you'd understand.

ofcourse that's false hope.

one has 3 holes (with 2 holes that are placed closely together) the other has 2, it's delusional to say those aren't closer related in some way.

this is all derailing, my original point still stands, reptiles are amphibians, you don't need to mention them seperately.
>>
>>1997539
scales evolved from scutes, scutes didn't evolve from scales.
>>1997540
is your entire argument ad hominem or just partially.
>>
>>1997542
You are implying that a order of reptiles closely related to birds have scutes because they branched off early like turtles (which is a false permise as i've already demonstrated, i'll upload that book just for you).

Do you know what a node in a evolutionary tree is? Maybe you don't.
>>
>>1997545
I'm not implying anything, scutes might've evolved multiple times.

still stands is that scales are evolved scutes, and not visa versa.

this is besides the point which I already mentioned: reptiles are amphibians, you don't need to mention them seperately.
>>
File: scute.png (6KB, 337x153px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
scute.png
6KB, 337x153px
>>1997547
link me sources
>>
>>1997549
go ahead and research the origins of scales.

this is offtopic garbage, get to the point or stop posting.
>>
>>1997551
>get to the point or stop posting
follow your own advice
>>
>>1997552
I got to the point and never tried to leave it.

here have my unusual herp since no one else is able to afford leachies on /an/
>>
>>1997554
>herp
what taxonomic group is that?
>>
poor animal
>>
>>1997556
stop shitposting, actually contribute.
>>
>>1997558
>stop shitposting, actually contribute
again, follow your own advice
>>
>>1997547
>still stands is that scales are evolved scutes
this is still false.

go back and read your Wikipedia article again.
>>
>>1997559
which I'm doing.

I'm the only one on /an/ with a leachie.

third ban today?
>>
File: 1443997804840.jpg (342KB, 536x640px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1443997804840.jpg
342KB, 536x640px
>>1997558
>actually contribute
>posts something relevant to the thread after derailing it in the first post
>>
>>1997560
it is correct, since ancient amphibians had scutes.
>>
>>1997561
>which I'm doing
after shitposting for a whole day
>>
>>1997565
nice pyramiding you have there
>>
>>1997566
all my posts are on topic.
>>
>>1997565
Ancient fish had fins and dolphins have fins, and dolphins evolved from ancient fish.

that doesn't imply that dolphin fins evolved from fish fins.
>>
>>1997561
anonfiles com/file/ 8f1e1a1b0f177a0a74a335fd99115932
>>
>>1997567
it's a recue, I find them on the street during spring.

my own tortoise doesn't have any pyramiding.
>>
>>1997568
Debating cladistics is off topic in an "unusual herp thread"
>>
>>1997554
There was no point in posting your first post so you should've stopped. Now, had you posted that cute herp then you wouldn't come off as such an asshole.
>>
>>1997572
>excuses
we believe everything you say, cockgobbler
>>
File: 1444046301018.jpg (47KB, 700x465px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1444046301018.jpg
47KB, 700x465px
>>1997568
>being this delusional
>>
>>1997569
dolphins have flippers not fins.

dolphins are still technically fish, because all mammals are fish.
>>1997573
I didn't spark it.
>>
>>1997574
it was to correct OP.

it's funny how /an/ sees me as a psychopath even though I'm more empathic than anyone about animals.

the difference is that you're dismissed as housewifes, I actually reach people.
>>
File: autism reloaded.jpg (80KB, 1134x646px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
autism reloaded.jpg
80KB, 1134x646px
>>1997577
>dolphins have flippers not fins.
>>
File: bugguy.jpg (157KB, 1141x745px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
bugguy.jpg
157KB, 1141x745px
>>1997581
>I actually reach people.

Here comes the new messiah, everybody
>>
>>1997582
>uploads a picture of them saying they're flippers.
>>
File: 1310483412100.jpg (34KB, 413x395px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1310483412100.jpg
34KB, 413x395px
>>1997554
>no one else is able to afford leachies on /an/
>lives in such a shithole:>>1997583
>>
>>1997585
they still have a fin, turdmuffin
>>
>>1997583
you're going to have trouble finding a trait in me that isn't a basic northern european trait.

you hate me, you hate northern europeans, it's as simple as that.
>>
>>1997588
if northern europeans were all buttloaders like you, they'd be extinct
>>
>>1997586
already fixed that.

besides, I can't chemically treat it due to my pets.
>>1997587
not the type of fin fish have.
>>
>>1997590
>not the type of fin fish have.
it's still a fin
>>
>>1997590
>besides, I can't chemically treat it due to my pets.
You don't have to pint your pets.
>>
>>1997591
in the same context that would apply to planes, sure.
>>
>>1997594
>planes evolved

NICE GOING
>>
>>1997290
Nice frog, OP.
>>
>>1997325
Go to the butcher and ask for fish while pointing at a stake.
>>
>>1997599
>steak not stake
>fuck it's late.jpg
>>
>>1997595
they did, otherwise you wouldn't be crossing the atlantic.

which would be a good thing.
>>
>>1997601
>thinking plane designs evolve

This once again proves you have no idea, what you're shitposting. If planes really did evolve, designers and engineers could only use parts from previous planes. Are boeings made out of wood? I don't think so. They can go back to the drawing board, something evolution can't do.
>being this uneducated
>>
>>1997603
>designers and engineers could only use parts from previous planes
all designs are based on an ultimatum that flies whether it's wood or not.

>being this uneducated.

seriously, why aren't you having fingerpaint fun with your kid yet?
>>
>>1997607
>all designs are based on an ultimatum that flies whether it's wood or not.
>evolution has and endgoal
what the fuck is wrong with you?
>>
>>1997607
>seriously, why aren't you having fingerpaint fun with your kid yet?
I have a higher degree than you
>>
>>1997608
that's for human planes, not evolution, all flight in evolution is based on gliding.
>>1997609
in dunning kruger.
>>
File: 1422577745698.jpg (7KB, 217x217px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1422577745698.jpg
7KB, 217x217px
>>1997615
>in dunning kruger.
from a guy, who has never seen the inside of a university
you really should be a comedian
>>
>>1997615
>muh high education

pics or it didn't happen
>>
>>1997581
Op didn't need to be corrected. It isn't wrong to say both. You just felt like derailing. Sure you don't have to say them separately but it isn't wrong.
>>
File: ccthumbin.jpg (49KB, 542x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ccthumbin.jpg
49KB, 542x800px
>>1997607
I'm starting to really not appreciate the denigrating way you refer to fingerpainting, bugguy. Haven't you ever heard of Chuck Close?
>>
>>1997618
if you're in the netherlands you've probably seen my lectures.
>>1997627
you aren't him.
>>
>>1997590
>not the type of fin fish have.
yes, that's the point.
lizards have scales, but no the type of scales amphibians have.

>>1997643
>you've probably seen my lectures.
Oh shit that's hilarious.
>>
>>1997650
>but no the type of scales amphibians have.
amphibians don't have scales, they never had.

scales are evolved scutes not visa versa.

back to finger painting and chalk.
>>
>>1997654
>scales are evolved scutes not visa versa.
they didn't evolve from scutes. So no.
>back to finger painting and chalk
as usual you're arguing with more than one person. I have no clue what you're yammering about and I don't intend to read the thread to find out.
>>
>>1997657
>they didn't evolve from scutes
rofl.

you think they got those scales from the ancestors with scales that they didn't have?
>>
>>1997658
>you think they got those scales from the ancestors with scales that they didn't have?
that's how evolution works.
New things show up.
it's amazing.
>>
>>1997660
>New things show up.
from scutes.
I already figured, you didn't.

protip: it's because you lack an education.
>>
>>1997662
>from scutes.
scutes develop below the skin, lizard scales develop above.

they're also made from entirely different organs with different genetic structures.

your view makes sense but isn't true. That happens a lot in evolution. Things usually aren't what they appear to be.
>>
>>1997665
:they're also made from entirely different organs with different genetic structures.
because one is an adapted version of another.

you can do all the research you want on this, earlier member had scutes, it´s where scales come from.

it's what it appears to be.

it isn't so hard, scutes are easier to develope than scales.
>>
>>1997561
Holy fuck it's feet are cute as hell.
>>
File: scaled.png (120KB, 410x551px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
scaled.png
120KB, 410x551px
>>1997669
>>
>>1997677
he doesn't know what "homologous" means in biology.

he thinks it just means similar in structure, he doesn't recognize that it also means derived from different organs.
>>
>>1997680
>derived from different organs.
>not derived from different organs
>>
>>1997680
it doesn't mean much other than looking alike, which is a useless term seeing everything essentially looks alike.
>>
>>1997695
that's the opposite of what it means.

>Homology (biology), any characteristic of biological organisms that is derived from a common ancestor.
>>
>>1997703
it's an useless term, everything looks alike, always.
>>
>>1997704
> I don't like this definition therefore it's useless.
>>
>>1997731
it's not that I don't like it, it's that it applies to everything.

it loses it's value.
>>
>>1997733
the definition has nothing to do with looks.
homologous traits often look completely different from each other.
bat wings are homologous to human hands.
They look nothing alike but are both inherited from the same common ancestor.

things that look alike but AREN'T inherited from a common ancestor are ANALOGOUS.

Apologies if this is over your head, I know you're a bit slow.
>>
>>1997643
>if you're in the netherlands you've probably seen my lectures.

kill yourself
>>
>>1997643
>lectures

They let a gardener teach? Holy shit, your universities must be real shit.
>>
>>1997744
they're good considering half the public is you, no degrees, just a PhD in being a housemother.

sadly that's every lecture and argument for that matter.
>>
>>1997742
>try to actually come with something legit like the structures in the mouth of flamingos and whales.
that's NOT HOMOLOGY.
THAT'S ANALOGY.

Honestly bugguy, I can't tell if you're trolling or actually mentally handicapped most of the time.
>>
File: homana.jpg (36KB, 450x338px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
homana.jpg
36KB, 450x338px
>>1997742
let's try it with a more approptiate picture for you
>>
>>1997749
homology isn't a legit argument everything is essentially homology and it has nothing to do with the topic on hand.

can't tell whether you're trying to derail this thread or not.
>>
>>1997747
>lying about your degree to anons on /an/

your life must be really bitter, you pathetic fag
>>
>>1997753
>i don't understant this concept therefore it isn't legit
>nice arguing
>>
>>1997756
how's your degree in foxology treating you, foxydani?
>>
>>1997753
>basically we're all just bacteria
>buggay will defend this
>>
>>1997753
>everything is essentially homology
except for all the things that are analogy.
and all the things that aren't related in form or function.
>>
>>1997750
That analogy makes me sweat.
I'm not sure if it is comparing all three, or the bat wing with the butterfly wing, and then the butterfly wing with the bird wing.

If it is the first then it is obviously wrong.
>>
>>1997757
it isn't a concept, it's a sad and terrible idea.
>>
>>1997758
Too bad I'm not at home to take a photo of my functional biology master's

I doubt you even have a bachelor (based on what you're posting)
>>
>>1997762
everything is essentially related.

whales and flamingos are still related in that they're both amphibians.
>>
File: 1412548303839.jpg (47KB, 613x533px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1412548303839.jpg
47KB, 613x533px
>>1997764
I guess a term and definition that has been used for over a century will go in disuse just because you think it is bad.
>>
>>1997763
first row: homology as in forelimb
second row: analogy as a means for flying
>>
>>1997768
>>1997768
>whales and flamingos are still related in that they're both amphibians
bacteria*
>>
>>1997769
many do and have.

it's nothing new.
>>
>>1997770
Yes, but bat wing and bird wing are homologous and both are in the analogy segment.

It might confuse some people

>>1997771
proto-RNA strands
>>
>>1997768
yes, but the trait wasn't inherited from a common ancestor.

it's not a synapomorphy, it's analogous, not homologous. A product of convergence. It looks and functions exactly alive but wasn't inherited from a common ancestor. That's analogy.

just like scales and scutes.
they look and function alike but weren't inherited from a common ancestor.
>>
>>1997772
bugaustim, the key sentence there is "because you think it's bad".
>>
>>1997771
i took an earlier example.
>>1997773
> but bat wing and bird wing are homologous
they aren't.
>>
>>1997772
If it's just idiots like you, who contribute jack shit to science, then your the doubt is worth even less than the shit my turtle took 20mins ago
>>
>>1997778
>but bat wing and bird wing are homologous
they're both tetrapod forelimbs, therefore they are homologous
I guess that's just too difficult for you
>>
>>1997780
I was thinking like that as well, but everywhere I look it says they are analogous

hell will break loose now
fug
>>
>>1997781
>the trait to make it even possible was
which one?
a heart?
lungs, skin, bones?

it doesn't matter, the two organs evolved completely independently.
>>
>>1997780
they're also homologous to flippers and the entire lack of forelimbs.


the term means nothing anymore.
>>
>>1997783
as a limb - homologous
as a wing - analogous (mammalian bat ancestors did not have wings)
>>
>>1997783
they're homologous from the standpoint of osteology if we ignore the reduction of digits in birds.

the one uses skin as the aerodynamic surface while the other uses feathers though. In that regard they're analogous.
>>
>>1997785
funny how you always avoid posting proof of your degree
>>
>>1997788
>>1997790
Yeh I reached that conclusion just now by reading, but thanks. The image presented shows the wing, but I immediately thought of structure instead of functionality.

>>1997789
nope
>>
>>1997785
>they're also homologous to flippers
yes
>and the entire lack of forelimbs
no.
>>
>>1997788
>mammalian bat ancestors did not have wings
wings are adapted gliding equipment.

they had these.
>>
>>1997791
you think a guy that can't identify toadflax and doesn't know what homology is has a degree?

don't be ridiculous.
>>
>>1997796
Fuck off bugfag
>>
>>1997796
>shrew-like animals had wings for gliding, never mind the fact they lived in burrows
are you retarded or do you just pretend to be?
>>
>>1997797
you think a guy who can't even recognize basal amphibians has a degree?

don't be ridiculous.
>>
>>1997799
how do you know they lived in burrows again, we have no fossil burrows of them.
>>
>>1997797
but he has lectures!
>>
>>1997802
>we don't have fossils of early mammals
ok, that's enough stupidity for today.

Everyone have fun arguing with this turdburglar :D
>>
>>1997806
great excuse.

there's none, your argument is based on a whole bunch of N O T H I N G.
>>
>>1997807
i guess megazostrodon and the like are made up
>>
File: 1404552487657.jpg (43KB, 640x480px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1404552487657.jpg
43KB, 640x480px
>Come to this thread to see reptiles and amphibians
>Maybe I can learn a thing or two for a future pet
>It's bugfaggot again
>>
>>1997800
smoking pot and salvia is not a degree
>>
>>1997813
there's no fossil evidence present that they made burrows.

again, it's a whole lot of nothing.
>>
>>1997817
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-65923-2_15
>>
>>1997824
cite whatever I have to read.
>>
>>1997825
I wasn't talking to you.

Sometimes I just cite information that disagrees with you so others will know right off the bat not to take you seriously.
>>
>>1997824
oh yeah paid evidence is going to show me extinct mammals burrowed

>even though their burrowers haven't been found.
>>
>>1997825
YOU NEVER CITE WHAT YOU SAY
>>
>>1997844
I don't need to, everything I say can be found on google easily.
>>
>>1997850
Same can be said for what anyone else says. Why do you insist on being a jerk?
>>
>>1997850
I'd love to see your citation for ancient fossorial mammals not existing.

all google turns up is lists of ancient fossorial mammals.
>>
>>1997876
you'd find evidence for a claim I never made.
>>
>>1997882
>there's no fossil evidence present that they made burrows.
signed, bugguy
>>
>>1997554
I might get a pair at some point, I just feel like they're probably going to be hard to sell offline. All the things I breed right now are in the price range where I still might be able to sell offspring on Craigslist without too much hassle.

Pic related's out of my price range for sure, though.
>>
>>1997893
I can tell you already that they're not going to sell for a decent price on craigslist.

buying a pair doesn't mean you get offspring, they're extremely picky when it comes to mates, hence why they're so expensive.
>>
>>1997882
>you'd find evidence for a claim I never made.
oh shit, you thought "fossorial" meant "fossil," didn't you?

kek.
>>
>>1997894
I'm aware. I looked into them before I decided on day geckos.

I check the pets section of craigslist every few weeks to look for deals on equipment, and I've seen a few leachies go in the 800 dollar range, but it takes months for them to sell.

With BRBs they sell fast enough at 100-150 a pop. Litters don't last long here. No clue about the L. Williamsi but considering the price range for juvies is similar, I'm mostly hoping I can sell them based off their pretty colors alone.
>>
>>1997907
>I've seen a few leachies go in the 800 dollar range, but it takes months for them to sell.
and then you realize that's not even the price of a single healthy individual in america.

they're like 2k+ in murica.
>>
>>1997910
Depends on the locality, but that is definitely the far low end of things. I'm agreeing with you. I decided it wasn't worth the time and hassle. Would rather have something I won't have to sit on for half a year (at best).
>>
>>1997916
mines a mt.koghis troeger line.

they're great pets when they're not grumpy, mine didn't want to come out for pictures and now I'm probably going to have a scar on my thumb.
>>
>>1997654
>amphibians don't have scales, they never have
By your logic they have, since amphibians are fish and fish have scales. Go fuck yourself.
>>
>>1997930
Not all fish have scales.
>>
>>1997931
>NEVER HAVE
>called out on own pedantic bullshit
>W-WELL SOME DONt
>>
File: Catfish-2.jpg (37KB, 556x414px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Catfish-2.jpg
37KB, 556x414px
>>1997932
I'm not in your stupid argument. I'm just pointing out there are fish that don't have scales because I think scaleless fish are cool.
>>
>>1997943
Not him, but I just saw a trip and figured it was bug guy, I didn't even read it properly.
>>
>>1997946
You should post a qt scaleless fish to make up for it.
>>
File: IQ.png (1MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IQ.png
1MB, 2000x2000px
>>1997499
>if me and nociception guy left this board the average IQ would drop so low you'd all get hypothermia.
>>
File: image.jpg (57KB, 800x533px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
57KB, 800x533px
>>1997949
ok
>select all images with fish
it knows
>>
>>1997971
he's sorta got a point.
I am the nociception guy he speaks of.
I was on /sci/ when those surveys were done. I'm probably the main reason they scored so high.

The only people that beat my scores were from /lit/. Some smart motherfuckers on that board. I don't know about bugguy's IQ though. He's either really smart pretending to be stupid or really stupid pretending to be smart.
>>
>>1997454
>gardener is a bad thing
And what place, exactly, do you think you have having ANYTHING to do with any living thing?
>>
>>1997946
You're being overpowered by rage, like a simple idiot. This is why I like bugguy, because I fucking hate people and he's so good at pissing you morons off.
>>
>>1997989
when that survey was done /pol/ didn't exist.
neither did /mlp/ or /out/.

so the thing is pretty obviously bullshit.
>>
>>1997971
>/out/ 137
Kek
>>
>>1997993
Well you could tell it was bullshit by the fact that over half of 4chan are genius IQ.
>>
>>1997993
When was it made?
>>
>>1998003
I'm more interested in how it was made. Wait, scratch that. I'm not interested at all. It's just bullshit.
>>
>>1997999
the test used scored high.
I have a real life score of 161 on Raven Progressive Matrices, which means if you have 1000 people in the room I'll be the smartest.

I scored 180 on the online test used, which is ridiculous. I've never scored anything close to 180 in real life, I sincerely doubt anyone on 4chan could. I wasn't the only one that got a 180 on that test. So of course it was bullshit.
>>1998003
I dunno, back before /pol/ existed.
I don't keep track of how long I've been here, that would be really depressing.
>>
>>1998024
>I have a real life score of 161 on Raven Progressive Matrices, which means if you have 1000 people in the room I'll be the smartest.
>I scored 180 on the online test used, which is ridiculous. I've never scored anything close to 180 in real life, I sincerely doubt anyone on 4chan could. I wasn't the only one that got a 180 on that test.
I don't believe either of those scores for one second.
>>
>>1998029
it's not important.
>>
>>1998024

>which means if you have 1000 people in the room I'll be the smartest.

This faggot.
>>
>>1997971
>/tv/ being higher than anyone
Fucking unacceptable
>>
>>1998045
It's an overt reference to a semi-secret society.

you'd have to be a genius to know what I'm saying. There are no geniuses on /an/ though.
>>
>>1998048

>you'd have to be a genius to know what I'm saying. There are no geniuses on /an/ though

By definition you have no idea what you're saying.
>>
>>1998052
I know you're no genius, Ausfag.
>>
>>1998055

Oh shit the burns.

??
>>
File: IMG_3258.jpg (1MB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_3258.jpg
1MB, 1600x1200px
>>1997376
These guys are so awesome in shed, here's one of my boy in shed at a few months old.

Glad to see bugguy is up to their usual shitposting, this thread is maybe 5% on topic, so we're doing good.
>>
>>1997376
Nope, they're really common. Anything unusual about them.
>>
>>1998024
I have been tested professionally and my IQ is 158. I took credited college-level courses starting at age 12 via Johns Hopkins University's CTY program. I also read 750 words per minute with 80% accuracy, a skill that led me to my current career. It's my autism superpower, I guess. There are almost certainly at least few other high IQ users here on /an/ besides us.

This doesn't really have shit to do with animals, though, we're getting a little off topic.

>>1998073
He looks a bit calmer than mine do. Mine get antsy as all fuck when I bother them in shed. I was struck at three times trying to take the picture above.

>>1998104
They're not "common". I wouldn't say they're rare, but certainly not common unless you live in Brazil or something.
>>
>>1997817
you can see some getting excavated in the first part of "your inner fish"
i guess they made that up
>>
>>1998114
>There are almost certainly at least few other high IQ users here on /an/ besides us.
vosh I have no doubt. A couple other anons. Userbase varies.

your claims don't surprise me. You have always struck me as pretty dang bright.
>>
>>1998114
those claims don't mean much if you're anon
>>
>>1997987
>liking buggay
what a cocksucker
>>
>>1997850
since you're making half the shit up, and misinterpreting tha other half, it would be nice to see a source every now and then
>>
File: IMG_0519.jpg (837KB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_0519.jpg
837KB, 2448x3264px
>>1998114
The key word here is "looks." All I did was lift his hide and take one photo. Usually, he gets really huffy and postures if I'm so egotistical as to touch him during this rough time.

My female on the other hand...no huffing, no hissing, but she is up and posturing as soon as she feels the slightest touch, whereas the male will wait until you're actually rubbing him. If I drop some moss on top of the male, he'll shut up and go back to pouting. The female will pop her head back up and continue daring me to touch her.

None of them have actually struck at me when I've bothered them, though, so I guess a little calmer than your's? But they sure do put on a show in their own ways.

I don't have any photos of the girl in shed as this is her first with me, so have one of the male laying on his side uncomfortably in shed. The BRBs are the only ones that do this.
>>
File: filledwithhate.jpg (226KB, 1213x921px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
filledwithhate.jpg
226KB, 1213x921px
>>1997930
modern fish have scales.

that means nothing for primitive fish.
>>
>>1998155
>primitive fish
that's not a taxonomic category
>>
>>1998154
Interesting, mine is about 2 now, and does nothing like that. When I lift the bark or whatever she's hiding under she gets rather inquisitive, but not in an agressive manner.
Do they become more bitchy later?
>>
>>1998155
Guess what, primitive fish did too.
Some of the early amphibians also had belly scales, and possibly even full body scales.
>>
File: IMG_2572.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_2572.jpg
2MB, 3264x2448px
>>1998159
Nope, normally they're bitey/defensive as babies and outgrow it at around 1-2 years of age. The male is only 15 months old, and the female is 4 months old.

That said, this past shed cycle I didn't get a single hiss or posture from him, so I think he's finally reached the stage where he's become more tolerant of in-shed touching. Outside of shed he rarely huffs.

Here's the female, who is by far the touchier of the two, even with how the male was when the male was young.
>>
>>1998157
no shit.
>Guess what, primitive fish did too.
there's no evidence for that.

>Some of the early amphibians also had belly scales
they had scutes.
>>
>>1998179
also most living fossil fish that we have today lack scales.
>>
File: gGA.png (43KB, 425x281px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
gGA.png
43KB, 425x281px
>>1998179
no

>>1997677
>Scales are called plates, SCUTES, shields, laminae, lamellae scansors, or tubercules, depending upon taxonomic group, size and shape of scales, and location of scales on the body.

>>1997571
just download the fucking book already
>>
>>1998183
lampreys aren't even fish

What type of scales are fou fucknuggets arguing about anyways? You do realise there are more types, right?
>>
>>1998184
>just download the fucking book already
404
>>
>>1998184
yes, early amphibians had scutes, they didn't have scales, scales developed from scutes and came way later in the evolutionary tree.


turtles don't have scales because early amphibians didn't have scales.
>>1998186
>are any jawless fish of the order Petromyzontiformes.
>>
>>1998189
>avoiding the actual question
classic buggay "tactics"
>>
>people still think arguing with bugguy is any better than arguing with a goat

>top banter
>>
>>1998189
>b-b-but early amphibians got those scales from their fish ancestors!

the type of scale found in the fish that are 'thought' to have given rise to amphibians has never been found on amphibians.

it's a load of shit.
>>
>>1998189
do you even read? We don't know how proto amniotes went from smooth skin to scales, we don't have fossil record of it. We can only imagine; and scutes are scales, again, learn to read.

>>1998187
you need to place the dot, and remove the spacing from after the "/"
>>
>>1998195
>We don't know how proto amniotes went from smooth skin to scales

it's pretty obvious seeing they didn't have scales and nothing that split off early has scales.

> and scutes are scales, again
scales are scutes, not visa versa.

scutes were present millions and millions of years before the first land animals with scales.
>>
>>1998196
>scales are scutes, not visa versa.
"scale" is the umbrella term, so you're wrong like usually
>>
>>1998197
it isn't.

you don't know what a scale even is, stay out of the discussion.
>>
>>1998195
>you need to place the dot, and remove the spacing from after the "/"

oh, thanks, I overlooked the space after /
I already have this one. Do you happen to have the last edition from Pough's Hepretology?
>>
>>1998198
since you like quoting wikipedia:

"The scales of all reptiles have an epidermal component (what one sees on the surface), but many lizards have osteoderms underlying the epidermal scale, as do crocodilians and turtles. Such scales are more properly termed scutes."
>>
>>1998198
>you don't know what a scale even is, stay out of the discussion.

you forgot to follow your own advice again...
>>
>>1998200
the only other books I have as pdf are Integrate principles of Zoology 14th edition from Cleveland P. Hickman; Essential animal behavior from graham Scott and Biology of amphibians (really old one).
>>
>>1998201
since you think wiki is written properly
>Reptiles are a group (Reptilia) of tetrapod animals comprising today's turtles, crocodilians, snakes, lizards, tuatara, and their extinct relatives.

bacteria are now reptiles.
>>
>>1998204
Yesterday you were reffering to wiki all the time, now that it proves you wrong you turn away from it

MY_FUCKING_SIDES.jpg
>>
>>1998204
if you would turn down your autism, you'd also find this part on the page about reptiles:
>Because some reptiles are more closely related to birds than they are to other reptiles (crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards), many modern scientists prefer to make Reptilia a monophyletic grouping and so also include the birds, which today contain over 10,000 species.
>>
>>1998207
he has double standards. When he says something, it's always right, when someone says something, it's always wrong. He can't go behind that
>>
File: autism continues.jpg (117KB, 822x545px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
autism continues.jpg
117KB, 822x545px
>>1998204
>>1998208
>>
>>1998207
I check whether it's written properly first by looking at the actual cites.
>>1998208
I think I mentioned this earlier.

reptiles that split off early like turtles and crocodiles are closer related to ancient mammals than they are to other reptiles as well.
>>
>>1998211
you continue to say turtles branched off early from the hypothesis that they are still anapsids. i've already told you, they belong to the Eureptilia clade. So no, they aren't close to mammals.

>crocodiles are closer related to ancient mammals

Bugguy....please, don't embarrass yourself.
>>
>>1998211
then tell us, what sources do you use?
reminder: google is not a source
>>
>>1998214
>So no, they aren't close to mammals.
they're not directly related, but mammals split off early as well.

the ancestors of turtles and alligators would be closer to those mammals because they split off so early as well than they would be to modern reptiles.
>>1998215
>google is not a source
full retard.
>>
>>1998214
this guy is right

turtles have a secondary anapsid skull, which was originally diapsid
Is it really that hard to undersand, that an animal that is encased in armour would have a more compact skull?
>>
>>1998216
>google is not a source
>full retard.
Yes, many papers cite "google" as a source. Avoiding the question again, faggot?
>>
>>1998216
>archosaurs are closer to mammals than to lepidosaurs
this is even embarassing to read
>>
>>1998218
you don't cite google, you find evidence to cite with it.

>>1998217
you're replying to yourself as always.

this is all derailing, my original point still stands, reptiles are just another class of amphibians.
>>
>>1998220
>you're replying to yourself as always.

>bugguy thinks only one person disagrees with him
nice
>>
>>1998220
>you don't cite google, you find evidence to cite with it.
Still avoiding the question I see.
>>
File: Naamloos.jpg (42KB, 594x357px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Naamloos.jpg
42KB, 594x357px
>>1998219
I looked for the simplest tree so you wouldn't get a brain freeze.
>>
>>1998220
>you're replying to yourself as always.
>this is all derailing, my original point still stands, reptiles are just another class of amphibians.
>I don't have evidence against this, so I'll just accuse him of samefagging

you are a special one
(special as in special needs)
>>
>>1998222
still derailing the thread I see.
>>
>>1998226
It's pretty obvious you have nothing to back up your claims. Pathetic like always. :D
>>
>>1998227
everyone in this thread essentially backed my point up, there wouldn't even be an argument if reptiles weren't amphibians, they'd have nothing to do with eachother but they do.

: D
>>
File: ph21.gif (24KB, 377x300px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ph21.gif
24KB, 377x300px
>>1998223
I looked for the simplest tree so you wouldn't get a brain freeze.
>>
>>1998228
>everyone in this thread essentially backed my point up
holy shit, how is it even possible for a human beign to be this delusional?
>>
>>1998229
you mean the most politically incorrect tree.

there's only about 2 modern scientists that classify mammal ancestors are reptiles.
>>
>>1998231
But you are everything your ancestors were, so mammals are reptiles, and amphibians, and fish, and of course
>bacteria
>>
>>1998231
>politically incorrect phylogeny

this gets better by the hour :')
>>
>>1998233
>so mammals are reptiles
if their ancestors were reptiles, yes.

but there's only 2 scientists that think they are and all others see them as reptilliomorphic amphibians.
>>
>>1998236
>reptilliomorphic amphibian
mammal-like reptiles is the term you're looking for
>>
>>1998239
it's an old outdated term.
>>
>>1998240
Sure it is, you special little homosexual snowflake
>>
>>1998223
What part of "turtles are Eureptilia, not Parareptilia" you don't understand you massive fuck twat.
>>
you guys let a single tripfag derail your thread. /an/ really is the second biggest joke on 4chan.
>>
>>1998236
What the fuck who is this imposter im the real bugguy
>>
>>1997568
beautiful shell
>>
>>1998223
Wait, you think the physical distance between two branches of a cladogram denotes degree of relatedness?

that's hilarious.
>>
>>1998392
no otherwise they would be of equal distance.

turtles split off from early reptiliomorphs like mammals, they'd be closer to those mammals than they are to modern reptiles.
>>
>>1998220
> my original point
A is the same as B
> what I'm now claiming is my original point
A is another type of B
>>
>>1998410
except molecular and fossil evidence says otherwise
But whatever, I guess that's just too complex for you to understand.
>>
>>1998389
Are you an egyptologist or do you just like pyramides in general?
>>
>>1997290
bump for interest in unusual herps
>>
File: olm.jpg (36KB, 416x300px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
olm.jpg
36KB, 416x300px
>>
File: 1339416458.jpg (69KB, 700x443px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1339416458.jpg
69KB, 700x443px
>>1999293
the black variety is pretty neat too
Thread posts: 325
Thread images: 65


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.