this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
695 points (94.3% liked)

Memes

45131 readers
1429 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Octoria are scientifically impossible, the grazing territory requirements alone for a sustainable breeding colony would be immense. Any reports of them in the wild are either misidentified pairs of quadferrets copulating, or hoaxes perpetuating the psuedoscience.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

quadferrets copulating

That's where you're messing up. Those are pentacoyotes, not quadferrets. The contact side between two polygonimals mating is actually obscured, so the actual number of sides in a copulation configuration is the sum of the sides of all involved polygonimals - 2. Therefore the octorca could not be two mating quadferrets, but could be two pentacoyotes, or a chain of duodugongs.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Youre quite right, rookie mistake by me. You would think a Polyphylogenonomist would know better.

However, wouldnt it be more accurate to say that the actual number of sides in any given copulation configuration containing n polygonimals would be n*(sides per polygonimal)-(n-1)? Assuming we exclude tricopulations of hexbears where any given individual may be contacting two other individuals' sides at the same time in a tessalation layout? I must admit im not certain though, my field is polyphylogenomics, not polyphylogenomatics. Im sure there are some edge cases Ive missed, pardon the pun.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

My bad, I was thinking in terms of simple intraspecies pairing like they taught us as undergrads. Once you get into polypolys and tessellations the math is frankly beyond me. Well spotted though.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wtf are you guys talking about

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, googling offers nothing, but I'm probably just being goofed on

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Try the Polygoogle. The regular non-euclidian google has a history of censorship when it comes to polygonal phylogeny

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I didn't even think to recommend Poogle. Thank you!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Polygonal phylogeny