Indeed, they evolved in similar environments, meant to fulfill a specific role in said environment. Here’s a quote from my friend Vuca that sums it up pretty good.
A taxonomic exclusionist might consider only members of genus Vulpes to truly be foxes, but such is not my own view, thus here is why I am inclusive of what I deem a “fox”:
“Fox” is a pre-scientific appellation. Hence I think what is considered a “fox” ought to be based on appearance and behavior (lay pre-scientific traits) rather than genetic taxonomy. And here are what I would define as the traits of a “fox”:
Thank you for the reply! This makes a lot of sense. I find it interesting because I never really thought about how the same classification of animal could have different ancestry.
Indeed, they evolved in similar environments, meant to fulfill a specific role in said environment. Here’s a quote from my friend Vuca that sums it up pretty good.
From: https://findafox.net/user/vuca
Or, in layman’s terms:
Thank you for the reply! This makes a lot of sense. I find it interesting because I never really thought about how the same classification of animal could have different ancestry.