think of it in terms of searching. people looking for the “species swap” tag would appreciate these weirdass fugly star wars style creatures, while people filtering out the tag would not. it’s an interpretation of how a different species might be able to function somewhat like cartoon ponies do. realistic ponies look like this:
@redweasel
And yet this species, the one shown in the image, is called PONIES by the creator of said species and is a direct analog for G4’s ponies. They’re a different interpretation of how ponies could work in a more realistic setting.
show-style ponys have stylized hooves. these creatures have multiple toes, and not hooves. they also have a split lip, which neither ponies nor show-style ponies have.
@redweasel
The thing is, this is Jayrockin’s version of ponies. They are, for all intents and purposes, ponies. Otherwise, we’d have to separate ponies with show-style hooves and ponies with realistic hooves into separate species too.
@redweasel
I was talking about biological traits. You know, what defines a species. YOU replied to me with a superficial trait that has nothing to do with species, the very thing we’re disagreeing about. I’m not the one making a bad argument here.
well, eohippus had multiple toes, and a deerlike snout, and subsequently specialized to one toe and a horse’s schnozz to thrive in open plains, so it’s more accurate to call these eohippus than horses, even though obviously neither eohippus nor equines had bright pink manes or weirdly fleshy wings.
but the point is they’re not ponies, and fluttershy and tree hugger are normally ponies, so it’s a species swap.
sorry if I’m being an ass about it. I dunno, I could easily be wrong.
Eh, whatever. If that’s your prerogative.
think of it in terms of searching. people looking for the “species swap” tag would appreciate these weirdass fugly star wars style creatures, while people filtering out the tag would not. it’s an interpretation of how a different species might be able to function somewhat like cartoon ponies do. realistic ponies look like this:
![](/images/tagblocked-7b05ae50e1f6b0f784fc7d2200ce2bd8.svg?vsn=d)
your current filter.And yet this species, the one shown in the image, is called PONIES by the creator of said species and is a direct analog for G4’s ponies. They’re a different interpretation of how ponies could work in a more realistic setting.
show-style ponys have stylized hooves. these creatures have multiple toes, and not hooves. they also have a split lip, which neither ponies nor show-style ponies have.
The thing is, this is Jayrockin’s version of ponies. They are, for all intents and purposes, ponies. Otherwise, we’d have to separate ponies with show-style hooves and ponies with realistic hooves into separate species too.
no, I agree with you. they’re obviously not ponies, so it’s a species swap.
I was talking about biological traits. You know, what defines a species. YOU replied to me with a superficial trait that has nothing to do with species, the very thing we’re disagreeing about. I’m not the one making a bad argument here.
they also don’t wear dresses. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
Eohippus hooves don’t form pseudo hands and their lips don’t function as a strong grip on small, delicate objects…
well, eohippus had multiple toes, and a deerlike snout, and subsequently specialized to one toe and a horse’s schnozz to thrive in open plains, so it’s more accurate to call these eohippus than horses, even though obviously neither eohippus nor equines had bright pink manes or weirdly fleshy wings.
but the point is they’re not ponies, and fluttershy and tree hugger are normally ponies, so it’s a species swap.
No? They’re Tiny Sapient Ungulates. It’s part of an old speculative bio project, they aren’t eohippus.
they’re eohippus