briefly going past some skippies today, way over otherside the paddock

little one stood up, seem to point in the direction of an approaching larger roo

skippies point all the time, their faces, eyes, ears, noses, even mouths, they point their arms and paws to walk, when they fight they point their limbs etc

so what’s the possibility little skippy is pointing toward the approaching roo, the bigger one in the inset as circled came over

transition said:

briefly going past some skippies today, way over otherside the paddock

little one stood up, seem to point in the direction of an approaching larger roo

skippies point all the time, their faces, eyes, ears, noses, even mouths, they point their arms and paws to walk, when they fight they point their limbs etc

so what’s the possibility little skippy is pointing toward the approaching roo, the bigger one in the inset as circled came over

Possibly a welcoming signal to the larger roo?

anthropomorphising. most likely.

Bogsnorkler said:

anthropomorphising. most likely.

in the most basic sense (say of limbs here, of the example, for the moment), pointing need only be reaching out toward

Animal behaviour, good stuff.

Animals do most of what humans do.

mollwollfumble said:

Animal behaviour, good stuff.

Animals do most of what humans do.

Humans are animals.

but some of them are potatoes

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Animal behaviour, good stuff.

Animals do most of what humans do.

Humans are animals.

There is a not-so-familiar but extremely common logic fault here.

(All) humans are animals does not imply that (all) animals are humans.

And saying “animals do most of what humans to” Is logically equivalent to “non-human animals do most of what humans do” + “humans do what humans do”. So saying “non-human animals do most of what humans do” is unnecessarily exclusive.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Animal behaviour, good stuff.

Animals do most of what humans do.

Humans are animals.

There is a not-so-familiar but extremely common logic fault here.

(All) humans are animals does not imply that (all) animals are humans.

And saying “animals do most of what humans to” Is logically equivalent to “non-human animals do most of what humans do” + “humans do what humans do”. So saying “non-human animals do most of what humans do” is unnecessarily exclusive.

So WTF did you say it then?