This is the best interaction between two of my favorite writers I’ve ever seen @neil-gaiman and @linmanuel
Ah yes. But why a BEAVER?
That’s not a beaver, that’s a giant vole. You can tell by the tiny nose.
This is a beaver.
Oh hive mind of Tumblr. So much wisdom.
As a rodent biologist, I couldn’t resist putting in my two cents. I have no idea how old this thread is, but here goes. So, it’s hard to see in the original tweet if the rodent of interest is a vole or a muskrat. Now, I think we’ve all adequately described why it isn’t a beaver (though I didn’t see mention of the pronounced lids over a beaver’s eyes, or the high positioning of the eyes on the head, or the almost invisible ears, all of which I find more reliable than the big naked nose).
Sometimes even biologists have a hard time identifying one rodent from another with just a picture to go on. My final verdict for the rodent of interest, though, is muskrat, solely (and I mean solely) because of the size of the water reed in its hand. Now, it could be a really tiny reed (though it’s heavy enough for one end to sink) and if it’s a really tiny reed that could very well be a vole…but I’m going with muskrat. Tough call.
Muskrat faces (not to be confused with the coypu/nutria) look A LOT like vole faces, to the point that I find
myself hard pressed to identify a key factor other than size to
differentiate the two faces. Muskrats do have more of a lid over their
eyes, but when their eyes are wide open the lid is not
visible. So when you do a Google image search of a vole, you’ll sometimes come across a muskrat, and vice versa.
The most consistent way to get correct photos is by using the animal’s scientific name in your Google or Flickr search. Not fool-proof, but better than using the common name.
I just want to point out that a joke on Twitter has caused a tumblr post beginning “As a rodent biologist…” that then goes on to unleash wisdom.
my favorite part of capitalism is the slippery slope of knock off cereal branding devolving from catchy, colorful names to literal descriptions of what’s inside the box
when youre describing your product as ‘spheres’ youve reached critical mass
No, this is great. Product labels focused more on explaining what the product is than on branding are good. I sure wouldn’t have guessed that some small circular cereal would contain lots of oats if they weren’t called “Fruity Oat Rounds” unless I specifically went around looking for oat-rich cereals.
Also, store brands are great. They’re typically cheaper than name-brand goods without a significant corresponding drop in quality. Maybe they hire fewer branding consultants and run fewer ad campaigns and that’s why they’re cheaper? IDK.
It would all be worth it just for the global running joke of I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter! knock-offs.
Still waiting for someone to put out “Butter With Chinese Characteristics.“
Memories of Butter sounds like an indie film with white people attending the funeral of a childhood friend and rekindling the child like innocence they once had
