That's where you're messing up. Those are pentacoyotes, not quadferrets. The contact side between two polygonimals mating is actually obscured, so the actual number of sides in a copulation configuration is the sum of the sides of all involved polygonimals - 2. Therefore the octorca could not be two mating quadferrets, but could be two pentacoyotes, or a chain of duodugongs.

[–] ruckblack@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wtf are you guys talking about

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Polygonal phylogeny

[–] ruckblack@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, googling offers nothing, but I'm probably just being goofed on

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Try the Polygoogle. The regular non-euclidian google has a history of censorship when it comes to polygonal phylogeny

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't even think to recommend Poogle. Thank you!

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I still think about this thread on a near daily basis 👍