FA+
Shop
8220
Views
Views
585
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Traditional) / Fantasy
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1196 x 1250
File Size 2.5 MB
Report this content
More from 0laffson
Listed in Folders
I have finally decided to officially add a canine-like species to my setting! I had been toying with the idea for a long while, but I couldn't find a design that satisfied me. I didn't want them to be a typical anthro wolf or dog, so I tried to make something different.
This unholy abomination is the final result: an odd mix between a striped hyena and a maned wolf.
They are on average a bit over 2 meters tall, making them the second tallest species after the Sa'jiir, the great lizards. Their neck is pretty long and covered in long fur. A large mane, often braided, runs from the top of the head down to the tail. I still have to think about their fur colour and patterns, but in the end there will likely be a lot of variation among individuals.
I have yet find a name for their species, and I also need think about the type of cultures and societies they would have.
At first this drawing was supposed to be just a plain reference, and the human was there just as a comparison. In the end I couldn't resist giving them some fun expressions and adding text bubbles... poor guy, he just wanted some "cultural exchange" but was denied! :P
Feedback and suggestions concerning this new species are most welcome!
This unholy abomination is the final result: an odd mix between a striped hyena and a maned wolf.
They are on average a bit over 2 meters tall, making them the second tallest species after the Sa'jiir, the great lizards. Their neck is pretty long and covered in long fur. A large mane, often braided, runs from the top of the head down to the tail. I still have to think about their fur colour and patterns, but in the end there will likely be a lot of variation among individuals.
I have yet find a name for their species, and I also need think about the type of cultures and societies they would have.
At first this drawing was supposed to be just a plain reference, and the human was there just as a comparison. In the end I couldn't resist giving them some fun expressions and adding text bubbles... poor guy, he just wanted some "cultural exchange" but was denied! :P
Feedback and suggestions concerning this new species are most welcome!
Category Artwork (Traditional) / Fantasy
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1196 x 1250px
File Size 2.5 MB
...I'd offer someone a little less...dirty-looking...for "cultural exchange" things. Then again, I'm likely far more choosy than this lot 😆
Interesting interpretation on a race of anthro-canids, though. I wonder what they'll be called. Probably something Lupine-derived...
Excellent work though, as always!
Interesting interpretation on a race of anthro-canids, though. I wonder what they'll be called. Probably something Lupine-derived...
Excellent work though, as always!
:chuckles. Seen something like that at a clothing optional hot spring. Big guy came on a bit strong and scared off the smaller guy who was a bit curious. He grumbled a bit, tried to hit on me, told him I was flattered but not interested. Did complement him on having one hell of a physique.
Unholy perhaps, but I ain't complaining. This guy looks great, and the fact you went to the effort of creating something new instead of settling with regular old canines is cool. As per usual, his flare is really good too, love the finery he's wearing on his body, and the ear decorations, not to mention the tail.
Hehe that would have him panting non stop - trying to cool down. I've done saunas and even a native american sweat lodge - tribal sauna. Very hot, chants are used to time the session in the lodge. You go out, cool off, drink water and repeat - 4 times then jump in a stream or lake if available.
hehe my old Doggo would scare people with just her size and looks https://www.furaffinity.net/view/31787572/ - about 43 kg in weight - big girl
Hahahaha I do love how you add such character and personality to even a simple sketch concept!
Looks to me this mutt is quite the HORN dog ey? ;)
But yeah as the one who describes wolves as basic bitches I must say I this looks fantastic!
I really love the mix of maned wolf and striped hyena!
I look forward to pester you in the future to draw some bandits of these fellow =P
Looks to me this mutt is quite the HORN dog ey? ;)
But yeah as the one who describes wolves as basic bitches I must say I this looks fantastic!
I really love the mix of maned wolf and striped hyena!
I look forward to pester you in the future to draw some bandits of these fellow =P
I like 'em! :) I also wouldn't chicken out on a cultural exchange :D I imagine a first meeting between one of these guys and a feline (the anthro ones) would be hilarious ;) Oh, and would a particularly ugly one gain the nickname "Parked cart chaser"? :>
Oh, and the name should have something to do with sausages (or various other 'words' people have claimed their dog says) :>
Oh, and the name should have something to do with sausages (or various other 'words' people have claimed their dog says) :>
Being a maned wolf - he is not technically canid, but a species with very similar characteristics. Not even sure if penile structure would have a 'knot'. Certainly his hyena side would preclude that.
Is his culture paternal or maternal in nature.
So definately I would love to chat about mant things with him :)
Is his culture paternal or maternal in nature.
So definately I would love to chat about mant things with him :)
Great, dogs! 😍
I would assume that the most important thing in their culture is hierarchy, loyalty and the bonds of friendship. The clothing that this character is wearing makes me think that his culture could be based a bit on that of nomadic Huns or russian corsairs. The dynamics of the packs could be represented, or in the evolutionary history of that race could have evolved, as the most basic form of hierarchical organization of that society (something like the contubernium of the Romans (made up of 8 soldiers), the minimum military unit of the army, on which several hierarchical layers were formed until forming a famous Roman Legion). In this culture it could be that nomadic life, in a geography of steppes or plains, revolves around that minimum unit of hierarchy... something like when males reach maturity (age 13 in human years?) they are assigned to a pack of 8 members and that unit will be maintained for life and the members will live together and have bonds of brotherhood. The form of the army of that society could be based on "hordes" (like those of the Huns), with several hierarchical layers of "packs" led by a great leader of tribal kingdom.
As I mentioned, it would make sense that some kind of mount (such as horses) had a central role in their culture, but it would not be bad if they simply walked on foot and that its ability to keep running for many hours without stopping, even for days perhaps, is a unique racial characteristic, like wolves that can maintain a rhythm for hours chasing a prey that they have injured until it finally succumbs.
Also in the "packs" of 8 members it could be established that their culture is patriarchal, so that would be something reserved only for males. And in the Roman army there was something a bit like that homosexual relations were encouraged between members of these groups since it was believed that in this way the members were more involved and intertwined with each other, making stronger bonds of unity and brotherhood, and that they made them fight more effectively and fiercely to try to protect their beloved brothers. It would be perfect for homosexual relationships in this culture to be seen as something completely naturalized in this culture and even be surprised that another culture sees homosexuality as something "atypical".
Finally, here I comment a little about what the composition of a Roman Legion was like to give an idea of what the hierarchy on which this culture could base its way of life could be. Of course changing names.
1 Contubernium was made up of 8 men who were assigned a tent and all slept together. 10 Contubernium formed 1 Centuria (which included a signifer, a tesserarius (in charge of the economic administration of so many men), an optio (lieutenant) and a centurion who was the leader of all). 6 Centuries make up 1 cohort... and 10 cohorts make up a Roman Legion. The Legatus Legionis was the supreme commander of all and had a place at the Roman Senate.
In this culture of canines, what would become the centurion could be a tribal leader, leaders of a specific tribe, and the optio could be the prince son of the centurion; and what would be the Legatus Legionis could be a figure similar to a Kang of the Huns... a supreme leader who does not always exists but appears in times of war.
I would assume that the most important thing in their culture is hierarchy, loyalty and the bonds of friendship. The clothing that this character is wearing makes me think that his culture could be based a bit on that of nomadic Huns or russian corsairs. The dynamics of the packs could be represented, or in the evolutionary history of that race could have evolved, as the most basic form of hierarchical organization of that society (something like the contubernium of the Romans (made up of 8 soldiers), the minimum military unit of the army, on which several hierarchical layers were formed until forming a famous Roman Legion). In this culture it could be that nomadic life, in a geography of steppes or plains, revolves around that minimum unit of hierarchy... something like when males reach maturity (age 13 in human years?) they are assigned to a pack of 8 members and that unit will be maintained for life and the members will live together and have bonds of brotherhood. The form of the army of that society could be based on "hordes" (like those of the Huns), with several hierarchical layers of "packs" led by a great leader of tribal kingdom.
As I mentioned, it would make sense that some kind of mount (such as horses) had a central role in their culture, but it would not be bad if they simply walked on foot and that its ability to keep running for many hours without stopping, even for days perhaps, is a unique racial characteristic, like wolves that can maintain a rhythm for hours chasing a prey that they have injured until it finally succumbs.
Also in the "packs" of 8 members it could be established that their culture is patriarchal, so that would be something reserved only for males. And in the Roman army there was something a bit like that homosexual relations were encouraged between members of these groups since it was believed that in this way the members were more involved and intertwined with each other, making stronger bonds of unity and brotherhood, and that they made them fight more effectively and fiercely to try to protect their beloved brothers. It would be perfect for homosexual relationships in this culture to be seen as something completely naturalized in this culture and even be surprised that another culture sees homosexuality as something "atypical".
Finally, here I comment a little about what the composition of a Roman Legion was like to give an idea of what the hierarchy on which this culture could base its way of life could be. Of course changing names.
1 Contubernium was made up of 8 men who were assigned a tent and all slept together. 10 Contubernium formed 1 Centuria (which included a signifer, a tesserarius (in charge of the economic administration of so many men), an optio (lieutenant) and a centurion who was the leader of all). 6 Centuries make up 1 cohort... and 10 cohorts make up a Roman Legion. The Legatus Legionis was the supreme commander of all and had a place at the Roman Senate.
In this culture of canines, what would become the centurion could be a tribal leader, leaders of a specific tribe, and the optio could be the prince son of the centurion; and what would be the Legatus Legionis could be a figure similar to a Kang of the Huns... a supreme leader who does not always exists but appears in times of war.
It's not that big deal, I think, a tribe in average/primedium could have a minimum of 200 individuals (counting mature men, women, infants and the elderly); normally, tribes would go about their business by sending out groups of these 8-man units (to hunt, explore, escort, and solve other problems), but only in times of need, when it is necessary to muster the full force of the tribe, is when all able-bodied men would form the army of that tribe. (10 "packs" that would form an army of just 80 to 100 warriors led by the leader of that tribe). So, it is logical that normally the tribes of each region form alliances or at least maintain diplomatic relations, then only when a conflict arises that involves or requires the participation of several tribes is that the strength of each allied tribe would unite and only then would such a large army be maintained. If you want you can ignore the stage or layer of the cohort, so when a really big threat or conflict happens that threatens many or all the tribes of a region is when the army of 10, 20 or more tribes would unite (then they would form a council of tribal leaders (a leader for each tribe participating, in charge of 80 to 100 men each one) and that council of leaders would choose a war leader who would lead them all only during that moment of conflict, commanding an army of, following the example, 1000, 2000 or more men... depending on how many tribes are participating). It's not a big deal.
Both wolves and hyenas have a very strict hierarchy. It shouldn't be strange that the evolution of those ways of living is an organization like that.
Something that I had not told you before is that, if you really want to merge wolves with hyenas, then you could take or be inspired by the hyenas in that the females of that hierarchical structure are the dominant ones and the males are subject to them. You can then make that in that culture the females are seen as more important or valuable than the men, as treasures, and for that reason it is only the females who take leadership positions, but since the men are disposable, they are destined for war and the hunt while the women remain safe managing all the goods/assets. In other words, the men would be used as weapons and defense, but the females lead. This would reinforce a caste division and a cultural segregation between men and women, encouraging homosexual relationships (both in the female caste and in the male caste) to be even more naturalized or accepted and heterosexual relationships to be something almost ritualized, something more like a duty to the tribe than something for personal enjoyment, with which there would be nothing like heterosexual marriages or unions.
Both wolves and hyenas have a very strict hierarchy. It shouldn't be strange that the evolution of those ways of living is an organization like that.
Something that I had not told you before is that, if you really want to merge wolves with hyenas, then you could take or be inspired by the hyenas in that the females of that hierarchical structure are the dominant ones and the males are subject to them. You can then make that in that culture the females are seen as more important or valuable than the men, as treasures, and for that reason it is only the females who take leadership positions, but since the men are disposable, they are destined for war and the hunt while the women remain safe managing all the goods/assets. In other words, the men would be used as weapons and defense, but the females lead. This would reinforce a caste division and a cultural segregation between men and women, encouraging homosexual relationships (both in the female caste and in the male caste) to be even more naturalized or accepted and heterosexual relationships to be something almost ritualized, something more like a duty to the tribe than something for personal enjoyment, with which there would be nothing like heterosexual marriages or unions.
While I love the design, the character is technical not a canid or at least not a pure canid.
The maned wolf is part of the Canini subfamily, it is part of the Cerdocyonina tribe, a tribe that is “fox like” in appearance and behavior while being closer related to the Canina (which includes the Canis Lupus / Gray Wolf).
The Hyena on the other hand is part of the feliforma.
The maned wolf is part of the Canini subfamily, it is part of the Cerdocyonina tribe, a tribe that is “fox like” in appearance and behavior while being closer related to the Canina (which includes the Canis Lupus / Gray Wolf).
The Hyena on the other hand is part of the feliforma.
I've seen some hot humans spook others during cultural events - old acquaintance of mine here: https://www.furaffinity.net/view/36602840/ I'd join him and his dance troupe during some social dances at the cultural events. Most of the attendees were intimidated or shy around him.
Three things
1) Canines are omnivorous and can eat a wide variety of things.
2) This species is based on hyenas and wolves. Hyenas are actually far more closely related to cats (which might be generally thought of as obligate carnivores) than dogs, so the rules of biology are already broken, and I don't think we can justifiably say 'ah, these canines must eat a primarily meat-based diet because they are based off of real-world animals' because we're already breaking some significant biological rules here.
3) Let's say they were obligate carnivores. Why would that mean 'population will be reduced at twice as fast as humans?' Maybe they could only support smaller societies, but two sub points here.
a) They're not using up all of the land on the planet for animal husbandry, which is how they would get most of their nutrition, as this is in essentially Ye Olden Times, far before much of the world was colonized, so why would we assume that food production would be so low for them that they would suffer die-offs?
b) A 'limiting factor' on the population doesn't have much to do with how fast populations are 'reduced' (citing your original comment). That's more to do with lifespan and sudden disappearances of resources.
Your original comment was talking about how fast their population diminishes given a stable environment (because if we're comparing a stable human environment with an unstable canine environment, then we can't say anything about the populations' relative base states, which means it's exactly the same as saying 'a population of cats in a volcano will die faster than a population of wolves in a forest') relative to humans, and you claimed that they would die twice as fast. Their population would be reduced twice as fast.
As in, given 100 humans and 100 canine creatures, all other possible factors being the same (access to resources, disease rate, war, etc), at the end of some amount of time, 25 humans would have died and 50 canine creatures would have died -- more or less. This MUST be more related to lifespan than food. All the canines would have to do is reproduce faster than humans to make up for the difference.
Just really not understanding what you're actually trying to say.
They will require more resources to live? Sure, but that doesn't mean they'll die faster. Let's say they lived on Earth. Earth can support, say, 10 billion humans at most. Okay, a creature of the kind Olaffson has created living here? Maybe Earth can only support 3 billion of those guys. That doesn't mean their population is at an equilibrium due to faster death/birth cycles, which is what you're talking about. Body mass isn't strictly proportional to the rate at which a population dies. There are some general trends, but, as I pointed out, some very massive creatures live a very long time (blue whales are another example), and some relatively small creatures also have very long lifespans (turtles are a good example here). On the flipside, hamsters, fruit flies, and squirrels are all small, but they die very quickly, and there are plenty of fairly large creatures (giraffes) that don't live nearly as long as humans.
So, to reiterate, the body mass of a creature isn't strictly related to its lifespan. The relative rate of reduction (from one population to another, where one population is reduced at a rate of 1 unit per unit time) with all other factors being equal is strictly related to the lifespan of the two populations. Give a creature everything it needs to thrive and it'll live its full lifespan, after all. We have no reason to assume that these creatures are starving to death or otherwise experiencing nonstandard environmental factors (for a multitude of reasons, three of which I mentioned above), so I just don't see how you can say that their population will be reduced faster than a human population.
Let me know what parts of this don't make sense. Hopefully it's easy enough to follow.
1) Canines are omnivorous and can eat a wide variety of things.
2) This species is based on hyenas and wolves. Hyenas are actually far more closely related to cats (which might be generally thought of as obligate carnivores) than dogs, so the rules of biology are already broken, and I don't think we can justifiably say 'ah, these canines must eat a primarily meat-based diet because they are based off of real-world animals' because we're already breaking some significant biological rules here.
3) Let's say they were obligate carnivores. Why would that mean 'population will be reduced at twice as fast as humans?' Maybe they could only support smaller societies, but two sub points here.
a) They're not using up all of the land on the planet for animal husbandry, which is how they would get most of their nutrition, as this is in essentially Ye Olden Times, far before much of the world was colonized, so why would we assume that food production would be so low for them that they would suffer die-offs?
b) A 'limiting factor' on the population doesn't have much to do with how fast populations are 'reduced' (citing your original comment). That's more to do with lifespan and sudden disappearances of resources.
Your original comment was talking about how fast their population diminishes given a stable environment (because if we're comparing a stable human environment with an unstable canine environment, then we can't say anything about the populations' relative base states, which means it's exactly the same as saying 'a population of cats in a volcano will die faster than a population of wolves in a forest') relative to humans, and you claimed that they would die twice as fast. Their population would be reduced twice as fast.
As in, given 100 humans and 100 canine creatures, all other possible factors being the same (access to resources, disease rate, war, etc), at the end of some amount of time, 25 humans would have died and 50 canine creatures would have died -- more or less. This MUST be more related to lifespan than food. All the canines would have to do is reproduce faster than humans to make up for the difference.
Just really not understanding what you're actually trying to say.
They will require more resources to live? Sure, but that doesn't mean they'll die faster. Let's say they lived on Earth. Earth can support, say, 10 billion humans at most. Okay, a creature of the kind Olaffson has created living here? Maybe Earth can only support 3 billion of those guys. That doesn't mean their population is at an equilibrium due to faster death/birth cycles, which is what you're talking about. Body mass isn't strictly proportional to the rate at which a population dies. There are some general trends, but, as I pointed out, some very massive creatures live a very long time (blue whales are another example), and some relatively small creatures also have very long lifespans (turtles are a good example here). On the flipside, hamsters, fruit flies, and squirrels are all small, but they die very quickly, and there are plenty of fairly large creatures (giraffes) that don't live nearly as long as humans.
So, to reiterate, the body mass of a creature isn't strictly related to its lifespan. The relative rate of reduction (from one population to another, where one population is reduced at a rate of 1 unit per unit time) with all other factors being equal is strictly related to the lifespan of the two populations. Give a creature everything it needs to thrive and it'll live its full lifespan, after all. We have no reason to assume that these creatures are starving to death or otherwise experiencing nonstandard environmental factors (for a multitude of reasons, three of which I mentioned above), so I just don't see how you can say that their population will be reduced faster than a human population.
Let me know what parts of this don't make sense. Hopefully it's easy enough to follow.
>1) Canines are omnivorous
No. They are carnivores.
>Why would that mean 'population will be reduced at twice as fast as humans?'
Because body mass is twice(at least) bigger than human's one. So, required food amount for each individuum also will be twice bigger. So, same territory can feed 100 humans or 50 canines(even if they are omnivorous. If they are carnivores, 10% efficiency of biomass/energy conversion per stage in food chain allows only 5 of them). So, canines has no chance to survive in long interspecies conflict with 1:1 loss ratio. That's how natural selection works.
No. They are carnivores.
>Why would that mean 'population will be reduced at twice as fast as humans?'
Because body mass is twice(at least) bigger than human's one. So, required food amount for each individuum also will be twice bigger. So, same territory can feed 100 humans or 50 canines(even if they are omnivorous. If they are carnivores, 10% efficiency of biomass/energy conversion per stage in food chain allows only 5 of them). So, canines has no chance to survive in long interspecies conflict with 1:1 loss ratio. That's how natural selection works.
No, canines are omnivorous. You can look this up. While canines have a natural inclination toward a carnivorous diet, they're not obligate carnivores, and that distinction is extremely important, as it means that they can extract nutrition from non-meat sources.
Also, no, that's not how natural selection works LOL! Natural selection is based on selective pressures. You've entirely misidentified what selective pressures are at play here because you, on a fundamental level, do not understand the relationship between nutrition, creature size, and lifespan.
Yes, the required food for each individual will be greater. That doesn't naturally mean that humans will outcompete, kill off, or cause the death of the larger species. If your logic were accurate, then ecosystems with more than one creature that ate the same or similar food to another creature would invariably kill off the other creature if and only if (because this is what you're saying) that other creature is larger. Which is laughable.
I believe you read one paragraph about natural selection in high school biology and decided to point out a supposed logical flaw in the OP's world so that you could feel good about yourself for being So Smart and Cool and Amazing.
Look, if you want to find a flaw in the design, search for something that actually makes sense. Right now you're just embarrassing yourself. You can't even get simple factual information about canine diets correct (and, even if you could, it wouldn't matter, as it's totally irrelevant to the supposed point you're making). Also, for future reference, using the nonstandard word 'individuum' in place of the standard 'individual' doesn't make you sound smarter or like you know more about the subject.
Ugh, this is kind of a 'sharks are smooth' situation. I already know that your argument is malicious in nature and you only really care about asserting yourself as Better than the creator of this species/world in some completely arbitrary way, and I guess that doesn't matter in the slightest, so shame me for bothering to reply to something that everyone can see is just really stupid. Why should I argue if nobody is going to agree with you to begin with? Waste of my time and a win for you, eh?
Also, no, that's not how natural selection works LOL! Natural selection is based on selective pressures. You've entirely misidentified what selective pressures are at play here because you, on a fundamental level, do not understand the relationship between nutrition, creature size, and lifespan.
Yes, the required food for each individual will be greater. That doesn't naturally mean that humans will outcompete, kill off, or cause the death of the larger species. If your logic were accurate, then ecosystems with more than one creature that ate the same or similar food to another creature would invariably kill off the other creature if and only if (because this is what you're saying) that other creature is larger. Which is laughable.
I believe you read one paragraph about natural selection in high school biology and decided to point out a supposed logical flaw in the OP's world so that you could feel good about yourself for being So Smart and Cool and Amazing.
Look, if you want to find a flaw in the design, search for something that actually makes sense. Right now you're just embarrassing yourself. You can't even get simple factual information about canine diets correct (and, even if you could, it wouldn't matter, as it's totally irrelevant to the supposed point you're making). Also, for future reference, using the nonstandard word 'individuum' in place of the standard 'individual' doesn't make you sound smarter or like you know more about the subject.
Ugh, this is kind of a 'sharks are smooth' situation. I already know that your argument is malicious in nature and you only really care about asserting yourself as Better than the creator of this species/world in some completely arbitrary way, and I guess that doesn't matter in the slightest, so shame me for bothering to reply to something that everyone can see is just really stupid. Why should I argue if nobody is going to agree with you to begin with? Waste of my time and a win for you, eh?
>While canines have a natural inclination toward a carnivorous diet, they're not obligate carnivores
Not this vegan shit again, please. Canines can extract nutrition from non-meat sources, but they can't use those sources only. Humans too.
>That doesn't naturally mean that humans will outcompete, kill off, or cause the death of the larger species.
That means. Because:
1. Larger body is more vulnerably target. Just because larger surface.
2. Larger body is preferred target because it contains more food.
3. Smaller population is more vulnerable to casualities. Losing 20 of 200 is not so dangerous for tribe as losing 20 of 100.
>If your logic were accurate, then ecosystems with more than one creature that ate the same or similar food to another creature would invariably kill off the other creature if and only if (because this is what you're saying) that other creature is larger. Which is laughable.
Are you doped? In my world almost all megafauna was sucessfully eliminated. Neanderthals too(btw, with their mostly-meat diet they are good model species here).
> You can't even get simple factual information about canine diets correct
Don't read Juliet Gellatley. Talk with normal vet.
Not this vegan shit again, please. Canines can extract nutrition from non-meat sources, but they can't use those sources only. Humans too.
>That doesn't naturally mean that humans will outcompete, kill off, or cause the death of the larger species.
That means. Because:
1. Larger body is more vulnerably target. Just because larger surface.
2. Larger body is preferred target because it contains more food.
3. Smaller population is more vulnerable to casualities. Losing 20 of 200 is not so dangerous for tribe as losing 20 of 100.
>If your logic were accurate, then ecosystems with more than one creature that ate the same or similar food to another creature would invariably kill off the other creature if and only if (because this is what you're saying) that other creature is larger. Which is laughable.
Are you doped? In my world almost all megafauna was sucessfully eliminated. Neanderthals too(btw, with their mostly-meat diet they are good model species here).
> You can't even get simple factual information about canine diets correct
Don't read Juliet Gellatley. Talk with normal vet.
... LOL, THAT'S YOUR REBUTTAL? AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHHAHA -- I don't even need to respond to this, as nothing you said is relevant or adds anything of value! BWAAHAHHAHAHAA shut up with your pseudoscience XD
"In my fictional world, this fictional thing happened because I liked it! Therefore... ur WRONG!!!!!!11"
NBASAHagn AHJAHAHA HJJAJAHJ AAAAAHAHAHA
"Don't read [someone I've never heard of]! Talk with a vet!"
BAHHHAHAHA Oh my GOD do you KNOW what's in dog food NBBBHATH AAAAAHAHAHAA BAAHETH oh my GOD have you READ a biology textbook AHAHAHAHAH
I can't take you seriously!!!! Good one!!! Anyway, back to more pressing concerns.
PS: Here's a quote from Wikipedia that has credible sources attached with it since you're... ... stupid lol
"Dog food is food specifically formulated and intended for consumption by dogs and other related canines. Dogs are considered to be omnivores with a carnivorous bias. They have the sharp, pointed teeth and shorter gastrointestinal tracts of carnivores, better suited for the consumption of meat than of vegetable substances, yet also have ten genes that are responsible for starch and glucose digestion, as well as the ability to produce amylase, an enzyme that functions to break down carbohydrates into simple sugars – something that obligate carnivores like cats lack."
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11837
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar.....es/PMC5061917/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar.....es/PMC6516957/
You absolute uneducated buffoonish moron XD
"In my fictional world, this fictional thing happened because I liked it! Therefore... ur WRONG!!!!!!11"
NBASAHagn AHJAHAHA HJJAJAHJ AAAAAHAHAHA
"Don't read [someone I've never heard of]! Talk with a vet!"
BAHHHAHAHA Oh my GOD do you KNOW what's in dog food NBBBHATH AAAAAHAHAHAA BAAHETH oh my GOD have you READ a biology textbook AHAHAHAHAH
I can't take you seriously!!!! Good one!!! Anyway, back to more pressing concerns.
PS: Here's a quote from Wikipedia that has credible sources attached with it since you're... ... stupid lol
"Dog food is food specifically formulated and intended for consumption by dogs and other related canines. Dogs are considered to be omnivores with a carnivorous bias. They have the sharp, pointed teeth and shorter gastrointestinal tracts of carnivores, better suited for the consumption of meat than of vegetable substances, yet also have ten genes that are responsible for starch and glucose digestion, as well as the ability to produce amylase, an enzyme that functions to break down carbohydrates into simple sugars – something that obligate carnivores like cats lack."
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11837
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar.....es/PMC5061917/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar.....es/PMC6516957/
You absolute uneducated buffoonish moron XD
More, more stupid butthurt!
>They have the sharp, pointed teeth and shorter gastrointestinal tracts of carnivores, better suited for the consumption of meat than of vegetable substances
Thanks. Rest of your bullshit is not necessary.
We already had a large bipedal omnivore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus Oh, they they are already extinct. What a pity!
>They have the sharp, pointed teeth and shorter gastrointestinal tracts of carnivores, better suited for the consumption of meat than of vegetable substances
Thanks. Rest of your bullshit is not necessary.
We already had a large bipedal omnivore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus Oh, they they are already extinct. What a pity!
Lol, poor guy. Unfortunately boyo at your size (at least compared to humans) you may have to be a bit open to alternative ways of "cultural exchange." Whether they be male or female.
I know I'm commenting on these posts in reverse order. Sorry about that. But the doggos expression here are amazing.
I know I'm commenting on these posts in reverse order. Sorry about that. But the doggos expression here are amazing.
Comments