>>149977311
look at this banded palm civet. i promise i am not crazy. i am not crazy!
>look up killdeer
>it's a goddamn bird
i hate birds named after contrived onomatopoeia of their calls.
...also, bird skeletons are only weak when the birds are tiny. anything that size has fragile bones. by weight and volume, when scaled up, bird bones are actually stronger than mammalian bones. porous, air-sac-containing bones are characteristic of theropods (which birds are) and sauropods, meaning they were found in literally the largest dinosaurs. our solid bones are actually not that great structurally - basically a "gets the job done, not as much pressure to optimize for strength without the bizarre way many saurischians breathe with their skeleton, basically just scaled up bones from a tiny shrew-like creature" sort of thing.
oh, yea, birds breathe with their skeletons, BTW. so did t-rex and the big sauropods.
>eugenics program
clearly not working.
>they are "slightly" more robust than they seem
haven't we seen one get it's leg trivially ripped in half?
i'm now imagining the horny researcher guy whose name i don't remember corresponding by letter with some other distant scholar in a place without yinglets who is in complete denial that yinglets could possibly exist as he describes them. or thinks if they do exist, they must be in rapid and catastrophic population decline from... the way that they are. maybe initially writing off the "yinglet" as some sort of folk creature with bizarrely specific anatomical details (like that one strange and clearly mythological description of the common "dog") until they get a taxidermied specimen or two.
