Listener Q's: Bigfoots...feets?

the questions that you write to me. If you're listening to this and you're like, hey, wait a minute, I have a question that relates to animal biology, maybe even animal psychology or human psychology and how that relates to animals, you can write to me at Creature Featurepod at gmail dot com and I will do my best to answer you. If not on the show, I'll send you a response via email, the electronic mailing system. But I try my best to answer everyone's questions. And here are some questions

that I received that I am now about to answer. Hey, Katie, love the show, and since you answered a question about monsters ink characters, I thought I would ask about a fictional character as well. A friend of mine is really into cryptids, and he and I usually get into disagreements when he brings up Bigfoot. He likes to say that Bigfoot is the most plausible of all cryptids, and that it's more likely that a large primate lived in the Americas at one time than not, and that maybe they're

still around in small numbers like the Tasmanian tiger. I'm not very well educated in science, but this seems wrong. Can you help me explain to him why this isn't a thing? Were there ever large primates in the Americas? Why are all the monkeys in South America small? And could they have a large cousin? Why are they only in South America? Was there ever non human primates in North America? Are there even any guerrilla sized primates anywhere

but Africa and Asia? Sorry if these are very obvious questions, they're not. Thank you for your question, But my friend believes things that just seem so fundamentally wrong. He also likes to say that girlas we're cryptids once, and we're only recently verified to exist. Do you happen to know what the difference between an animal existing but not being

really known and a cryptid? I know cryptids aren't your area of expertise, but you know so much about biology and evolution that I'm hoping you can help me get him to stop trying to convince me that bigfoot is a real thing. For what it's worth, I don't care that he likes to imagine a bigfoot wandering the forest, but when he tries to convince me of it and I get annoyed. So at info you can share with me will help me. Thank you. The struggle is real.

I understand this. I have had some people try to convince me that Bigfoot is real. I love the concept of Bigfoot, YETI sasquatch. That's fun. I really love it as a mythos and folklore. But no, I am not. I am not big foot pilled. I do not believe that Bigfoot exists and is real. But yeah, thank you so much for this question. Let's talk about it. Let's

talk bigfoot. So the problem with most cryptid accounts is that they tend to be a large megafauna that would be unlikely to be missed by human observation, like the Lockness monster or big mant or big man, Bigfoot or moth man are harder for me to believe in than say, like an undiscovered frog side species of which there could be plenty we are constantly finding, like micro hyghlid frogs, tiny tiny frogs that can fit on like your pinky, and other tiny animals that are new species that we

have not yet discovered, So little things existing in forest somewhere that we have not yet discovered, totally totally real. But something as big as a bigfoot, right, because when you think of bigfoot, I'm thinking man's eyes probably larger than manned because you know the name bigfoot. He's got big feet. So it's like this large ape creature. And so the idea is that somehow this really large megafauna, this large animal evades our detection and we have no

actual tangible evidence of it. So it is true like that large animals can be elusive, such as the giant squid, but we can still find tangible evidence bodies that wash up on the shore. With modern technology, we can even get video of them. And this is in the ocean, which is massive. It is an enormous area that is

very difficult to entirely explore. There's a lot about the ocean we simply don't know, and things like even the largest animals like whales, there's a lot of behavior that we have not been able to completely document because it's so hard to have a presence there where we're able to constantly have observational data, but we still have some tangible evidence for the large animals that exist in the ocean.

So this makes it pretty unlikely that a large Bigfoot like species could hang out in the forests of North America or Canada without ever leaving tangible evidence behind. So some people have submitted things like fur, but all the fur that's ever been submitted that has been attributed to Bigfoot turns out to be deer or some other animal. Of course, there's the famous footage. I'm not going to get into that because you know there's you can I'm

sure there's tons of documentaries on picking that apart. I don't think that footage is a Bigfoot. I think it's a guy in a costume on sort of grainy, low quality footage. So first thing though, in terms of debunking Bigfoot, is there can't just be one immortal Bigfoot. Let's just no, uh, there is no primate that lives like hundreds and hundreds of years that could sustain itself and just be the last one, the one guy who's just there for hundreds

of years. I would say no, if there could be a Bigfoot, there would have to be like a species of bigfoots reproducing and living in these forests. They would need to consume enough to maintain their large size, and there would be notable activities. So if we had like essentially like North American gorillas, we would find evidence of them because they make their presence known even if they're elusive,

even if they're trying to evade detection. Because they are large, they require a lot of food to consume, and they live in groups like we would find evidence eventually, even if our forests can be quite large. So what would say a bigfoot eat in these forests? Right? The forests of North America? These are like say the boreal forests or Appalachia. So large primate species such as ratans and gorillas are omnivores with vegetation making up a large part

of their diet. Now, the problem with North America for large primates or any primates really is the fact that we have so many grasslands, and in our forests they are made up of mainly coniferous trees, and these are not great for getting a ton of non grass foliage and for an arboreal lifestyle that most primates live. So deer that live in these forests feed on weeds, grasses,

and twiggins, so herbivores can live in these forests. But if there was a population of giant imates living in these forests, we would see a lot of evidence of them feeding on the flora, or if you want to argue that they would be carnivorous, say maybe eating the deer population, there would be evidence of that as well. Conservations observe things like deer carcasses and they can look for teethmark which actually they use that to track wolf

populations and wolf activity. So it would be highly unlikely that a group of large predators would go unnoticed by all of these conservationists, national park employees, researchers, and then you know, random hikers other than the you know, like I saw bigfoot once, which I do not really consider evidence so much, like you know, anecdotal evidence maybe, but

not real, tangible, scientifically durable evidence. So what if these bigfoots are really shy, really smart, and somehow have a secret society so they cover up all their activity and hide from people. I mean, this to me is extremely unlikely. But let's look at a real example of a huge primate that once lived that looks essentially like the popular depiction of a bigfoot. This was Gigantopithecus, who lived about

two million to two hundred thousand years ago. It may have weighed up to six hundred and fifty pounds, which is about three hundred kilogram, so it was a big, big guy big guys and gals. It sometimes is depicted as walking upright, but really most likely it walked on all fours like a gorilla, but like a gorilla, could probably be occasionally bipedal, like to stand up make itself taller.

Based on the molars that were found in the fossil evidence, it was likely an herbivore, and so this I've actually I think that Gigantopithecus is sometimes argued in favor of the existence of bigfoots, saying like, well, maybe it made its way to North America and now it's secretly living there. But here's the thing, Like, so evidence of this primate was found in southern China in what would have been

at the time probably tropical or subtropical forests. So these kinds of forests would better sustain a giant herbi of war, much like the bamboo forests can sustain pandas and So what is thought to have happened to Gigantopithecus is that climate change made their food source more scarce, and so they because they were so specialized in the in vegetation,

they were not able to get enough food. They were not able to compete with other animals, and because they were so big and they had such a high caloric need, then they died out just because they could not get enough food. So the question of like, well, could Gigantopithecus have traveled from South China to North America and established a secret society there, I think it's very unlikely. So there's no archaeological evidence showing any movement of Gigantipithecus across Europe.

Their bones were dated around two hundred thousand years ago. So in order to get to North America, they would have had to cross the bearing Land Bridge, and the bearing Land Bridge that is thought to have been the way in which human beings were able to come from from the Old World to the New World, which happened

about thirty five thousand years ago. Actually no, so the bearing Land Bridge was revealed by way of the glaciers melting so that you could actually access the bridge, but it hadn't been flooded yet about thirty five thousand years and I think human beings crossed it a little more recently, around like ten twelve thousand years ago. So for Gigantipithecus to have crossed the land bridge, it would have likely

been during an ice age period. And I don't even know if the glaciers would have melted by them to allow access to the bearing land bridge. I mean it was it fluctuated right over over the years, like there'd be like it'd get cold and then there may be be some warming. So there was were animals that would

cross this land bridge. But for a for Gigantipithecus, which was not really built for this kind of cold, very scarce environment, is hard for me to imagine it could have made it all the way from southern China to North America. And again without any evidence, right like, because if it had made it all the way to North America, I would imagine it would be over many many years

of adapting to its environment. And if that was the case, right, you know, you have this Gigantipitheca is that then slowly adapted maybe changed a bit to be able to make it to North America. Then we'd have fossil evidence like we have fossil evidence of mammoths. So I think that is really really unlikely. I don't think a bigfoot would be a gigantopithecus. Could it be some other primate that

once lived in North America? As our question ask or observed, there are currently no known primates in North America other than Canadians and Americans. But there were primates in North America tens of millions of years ago, and these primates died off around thirty million years ago as climate change caused North America to become cold and dry rather than the warm, wet climate for lush forests that primates thrive in,

and these primates tended to be small. I do not believe there were any primates in North or even in South America that were the size of, say, unterrang or a gorilla. So if small primates could not adapt to this change, I cannot imagine how a large primate without say, the social and technological advancement of humans, could have survived while their smaller relatives did not survive. And if bigfoots did somehow manage to survive through tool use or like

a bigfoot civilization. The fact that we don't see any evidence of it is to me that is Beggar's belief, like there would be some evidence of a bigfoot civilization. Actually, the last primate that we have evidence of living in North America was called igamo wee cha Shala, which was only five pounds. It was a little over two kilograms, and it was similar to a lemur. It died out

around twenty six million years ago. So again, the last survivor of the changing climate in North America was it heiny primate, and even it could not deal with the competition for food. So I just I really don't see it. I don't see how a bigfoot could survive or what really, what you would expect to see would be a group of you know, big big feet, big food foots, right, because primates are generally social and you would need to have you You couldn't have like the accounts of Bigfoot

spanning over hundreds of years. You would not just have like one immortal bigfoot or a family of like two bigfoots. That's not really a tenable situation. Yes, species can survive with not that many members, but you need some of them, right, And so in order for that to be the case, there would be some evidence. And I think the question asker also asked like if so, like why are they

only in South America? So that is because of the environment, right, Like, so they used to be in North America because North America's climate used to be more like South America is today, where it was lush, there were these you know, wet, moist forests with a lot of foliage. And again, primates are generally arboreal. They live in the trees. So even like the ancestors of say the gorilla, lived in trees.

Even though the gorilla is mostly now on the forest floor, they also thrive in forest because of the large amount of foliage insects food that an omnivore like a gorilla can eat. Also, like orangutans who are quite large, are still bor they live in the trees, They build nests in the trees. So once she started getting more grasslands and the forest started to dry out, it became not very hospitable for primates. So yeah, we lost the primates

in North America. Another question that you asked in your email was what is the difference sort of between cryptids and an animal existing but not really being known. I mean, you know, I don't know. I like you, like you correctly pointed out, I'm not really much of a cryptid expert. I think that. I mean, there are some cases right where people think an animal is a hoax or a cryptid and it turns out it is real, like the platypus.

Right Like, someone brought back a platypus that was, you know, a dead platypus taxidermy to one and people thought, oh, you just sewed some random animal parts together, like a bill and a tail, and it's laying eggs. You're saying, no, that's ridiculous. And of course it turned out to be real.

But I think that that is becoming less and less common because we have so much just like the mass amount of human observation it is, it is hard, and we also have ways of analyzing things like analyzing DNA to be able to say, like verify if something is actually what someone claims it is. Like there was a case of I believe a coote and a domesticated dog

or a fox and a dog. It might have been a fox and a dog that had it was like a hybrid, which is extremely rare because they're not very related and a DNA analysis actually showed that this is probably was a hybrid of a fox and a dog, which is really really interesting. And so like now it's like harder to It's both harder to have a hoax, right because you can do a DNA analysis of it, but it's also easier to show that something is real, So there's less time for something to get like a

cryptid status. And so yeah, I would say that, like I would not really define like undiscovered or possibly existing, but we're not really sure species as necessarily cryptid. Cryptid really, I think is more attached to the folklore wives tales like word of mouth rather than the si scientific community. Right.

That's not to say that like people's observations are bad, right, Like people's observations can absolutely help science and people observing the animals, like you know, researchers should pay attention to when people say like, hey, I saw this weird thing, or a group of people have some kind of legend.

But the follow up is that you need to be able to actually find you know, go to the area, look for evidence, find things, and if you can't really find anything to me, that's when it's like that is like a cryptid, right, Like, we've never found at Chupacabra. What we have found are coyotes that have mange and so they don't have any hair, and then they die and as they start to decay, their gum lines received so they look very scary, but it's really just a

poor madrid in coyote that is decaying. So yeah, I mean I think it. Cryptids are actually really interesting. I

find them fascinating. I love folklore. I love fairy tales, but I do make a very strict distinct between what I consider to be actual, like animal research and conservationist efforts to like say, find as species that may or may not be extinct, or even like discovering new species, or listening to I think it is important to listen to communities about like, hey, we think we saw something, because even if it's not the thing that they think it is or they think they saw, it could be

something kind of interesting, like how accounts of the mothman might actually be sand hill cranes like veering off of their regular migratory path. So I wouldn't I don't think it's like good to be so dismissive of folklore, but

it's also I don't. I'm when like people sometimes try to prove folklore with like scientific things of like, oh, well, maybe there's this piece of bigfoot hair, but then it turns out to be you know, dear hair or something, or making these kind of like scientific arguments when there's not that much evidence. I personally do not find that compelling.

But you know, hey, if you can write to me again, if there are any more pro bigfoot arguments that you want me to analyze or debunk, or if you're a pro bigfoot person and you want to email me, go for it. Like I'm here to hear your bigfoot arguments. We're going to take a quick break and when we get back, we're going to answer more listener questions. All right, on to the next listener question. Hi, Katie, I know you've discussed on the pod before that rabbits, pikas, and

hares aren't rodents. They are lagomorphs. And according to the Internet, this has been understood phylogenetically since nineteen twelve. That being the case, why was I taught in elementary school in the nineteen eighties in the US that they were rodents? Was this a failure of my teachers or the curriculum, or am I experiencing the most niche case of the Mandola effect. Thanks. Here is a photo of my Siamese mix Karina. Thank you so much, and first of all,

I love Karina. For the listeners, this cat looks like a princess who would not hesitate to start chopping heads and getting stuff done. I do love a very tyrant looking cat. She's beautiful, all right. So this is a great question. Rabbits did actually used to be classified as rodents in town until around the turn of the century. As you pointed out Question Asker and a lot of popular media, they were referred to as rodents, So I

think that helps with the confusion. I think also people probably have this idea that rodent means any kind of small herbivore with large teeth. In fact, there are animals who are rodents that are surprising to people, and animals who seem like they should be rodents but who are not. Phylogeny gets really confusing because we switched how we classified these animals, like say, based on certain things physical characteristics and assumed relatedness, which kind of transformed to be more

based on specific physiology like their digestive system. Rodents have

single pairs of continuously growing upper and lower incisors. And then we also have more sophisticated methods now of understanding relatedness, like genetic testing, and then all of this stuff gets really hotly debated, like how we define certain like families of animals or clades of animals, Like this is not none of this is necessarily super super settled, like it can be kind of controversial, but yes, absolutely today, like the most popular common assessment is that rabbits are lagomorphs.

They do not belong to the to Rodentia, although it is confusing because rabbits also have continuously growing incisors. It's just that they have two pairs on their upper jaw and one pair on the lower jaw. And then also the one of the reasons they're not considered rodents is the not being as related. But they do share a common ancestor with rodents, and so they do actually belong

to the same clade. Still, like the subject of the phylogeny of rabbits and rodents, whether they should be in the same clade or not, it's been subject to a lot of debates, So prepare for a lot of drama if you bring this up at your local taxonomy meet up. So some animals that people can be surprised to find out are rodents. Let's talk about this because this is fun. So beavers are rodents. They're large semi aquatic rodents. Similar to the beaver. Are the nutria, another large semi aquatic

rodent who some people will mistake for giant rats. If you see internet photos that claims that someone has found like a cat sized rat and they hold up this thing and it's enormous, that is probably a nutria, could be a muskrat, but most of those photos I've seen are nutria because I think people are more familiar with what a muskrat is. So nutria are found in South America, North America, and Europe. They weigh up to twenty pounds

or nine kilograms, and yeah, they're pretty similar to beavers. Actually, they have large orange teeth that are reinforced with iron, but they do not have the flat tail of a beaver. They also do not really build dams in the same way that beavers do. There's also the capybara, the very sweet cute animal that people love. It looks like a mule and a guinea pig had an adorable large baby. Cappy Barras can weigh up to around one hundred and fifty pounds, which is about sixty five kilograms, and they

live in South America and they are the world's largest rodent. Also, interestingly, there is another thing that is somewhat similar to the cappy barra. The Patagonian mara is also a rodent. It looks kind of like a donkey rabbit. It's smaller than the capybara. It weighs around thirty five pounds or sixteen kilograms,

and they are really really cute looking. There are some animals, on the other hand, that look like they should be rodents, but they are not so moles, shrews, hedgehogs, they are not rodents, nor are solidons, which are shrew like mammals that are actually venomous. They're very interesting, very kind of prehistoric looking. So there is this animal called the moon rat.

Fantastic name. I love it. They are a fascinating species of mammal found in Southeast Asia who could easily be confused for an apossum, But they are not apossums, nor are they marsupials. They are actually more closely related to hedgehogs. So moon rats not a rat, not a rodent, more closely related to hedgehogs, even though they look like a possums. Confused stuff, but very very cool. So let's try to do just a little quick game. So try to guess whether this animal is a rodent or not a rodent.

So porcupines are they rodents? Are they not rodents? What are they? I'll give you a few seconds. Okay, times up. Porcupines are actually rodents. They are found in both the New World and the Old World. There's different species of porcupines, and they are rodents, and they are not related. They are not very related at all. Two hedgehogs, because hedgehogs are not rodents, whereas porcupines are rodents. So yes, rodents are not just tiny little animals that have big teeth.

It is a you know, fairly well defined, well defined group of animals. But again there's like a lot of controversy, a lot of argument about how exactly we define the phylogeny and the taxonomy of animals. So I'm not surprised that there's confusion confusion about rabbits being rodents, especially you know, maybe back in the nineteen eighties when we didn't have

the Internet to correct us. Although now with the sort of like when you google something and the AI thing comes up, that worries me because I'm not sure AI is prepared to discuss the complex subject of phylogeny. But we'll see. All Right, another quick break and when we get back our last listener question. All right, here is our last listener question. Hi, Katie, I recently watched Life twenty seventeen the movie, and oh my was I frightened two bits. If you haven't watched it, then I won't

recommend it to you. It's that scary for me at least, So it's okay if you can't answer my question, but if you have watched it, I was wondering just how realistic the science was in the movie to wake an organism in stasis after billions of years, and also just how probable was the organism's growth. Thanks for the awesome podcast. A Concerned citizen of Earth and listener Jesse. Hey, Jesse,

So I did read the Wikipedia of this movie. A guilty pleasure of mine is actually spoiling movies for myself that I am too scared to watch. So I did enjoy doing that the idea I guess of this movie, which you described and I also read on the Wikipedia, is that there's this organism found I guess in the soil of Mars that has revived after billions of years, and then it rapidly evolves in order to commit various acts of bloody mischief aboard a space shuttle. And I

think Ryan Reynolds is there too. So, first, is it realistic for something living to survive billions of years? So we do know that some species can survive quite a while, like that famous tiny animal, the tartar grade, who can survive for decades in a state of stasis. It desiccates itself, and it can survive extreme temperatures, extreme conditions for decades, and it can be revived. But what about four billions

of years? So when we're on this timescale, we actually start to wade into the wacky waters of physics instead of biology, because now we're going to talk about like decay. A piece of DNA, say preserved in a fossil or something, can only survive for a few thousand years because of the half life of DNA molecules. So the half life of DNA is about five hundred years, So it only takes a few million years for DNA to completely decay.

So for an organism with the DNA to survive millions of years or billions of years, it would need to be continually renewing its DNA, so it couldn't be in

a state of stasis. It would actually have to be say, reproduce, renewing itself, right, reproducing itself in DNA for a single organism, it can't, like cells can't endlessly reproduce, Like we have telomere length which kind of like shortens as you are continually doing cell replication, and then at a certain point, as that telomere gets whittled down and down and down, sort of like the body of a candle, then you can no longer keep replicating cells, having cell replication without

having enormous genetic errors which can be represented in things like cancer and aging. And so yeah, that's why we can't really have, you know, an immortal organism or organism that lasts such a long time. So in order for it to really survive that long, have to have some kind of DNA or an RNA or genetic system that does not use the same genetic system that we do, like DNA or RNA, some kind of protein strand that

doesn't need these things. It's hard for me to conceive of like how that would actually work, right, So, but you know, you could have maybe an organism that is made up of smaller organisms that are you know, dying and then evolving over many millions of years, right like there, I mean there are things like forest systems or like coral systems where you know, one could look at these things as kind of like one mega organism that has all these smaller units to it that are sort of

reproducing and you know, somewhat maintaining this this system that I suppose you could look at it as like an organism, right, like a coral reef that is made up of all these kind of interconnected corals that are self replicating or sexually reproducing and then lasting you know, many many thousands of years, or or for systems that are lasting millions of years. You could see that as like an organism. So maybe an alien organism could be made up of

a bunch of individual little organisms. But I don't know that it would survive stasis, right because again you run into that half life issue of like if these are

if this is just inert DNA sitting there. The molecules have to follow the rules of physics in terms of like these these you know, bonds like breaking down and decaying, and so yeah, I really don't see how something like DNA or RNA or even an alien version of DNA or RNA could survive billions of years, let alone, right, millions or thousands of years, because it would start to break down, and even before it's broken down completely, once

you start to break down, that's interesting reducing so many errors, And it's not like DNA is super robust against like a lot of errors or a lot of breakdown, because then you would get, you know, genetic problems that would be really bad for an organism. So but let's kind of move past that the idea of it surviving in stasis for so long and into the idea of it

rapidly going under evolution. So basically in the movie, I think it changes shape and size and the shape of its body and its teeth over time, right, like it seems to be able to evolve really rapidly. Evolution doesn't generally work in this way where you have a single organism changing its body and its genes over its own lifetime because of the way that genetics work in terms like your genes cannot really change that much over a single lifetime or mutate in rapid response to your environment.

There's some amount of that, right, Like you can argue that, hey, we have an immune system, right, and our immune cells undergo evolutionary pressures and stuff when we're introduced to pathogens, and so there is some amount of like evolution happening

within a complicated organism over its lifetime. But generally speaking, like to have really dramatic changes over a lifetime of a complex organism, I'm pretty skeptical now if this is made up of like say it's a super organism made out of individual organisms and they're all under they're like tiny microorganisms that are all undergoing evolution, right and reproducing, having genetic mutations and responding dynamically to evolutionary pressures, and

then are forming this maga organism. Again, like to be able to like we do see animals like this, right, but usually like say you have a slime mold that is made up of individual organisms, but then it's basically like a blob. To create a more complicated organism that has structure or teeth or a form that is responding

to its environment. I don't see how you would need something very different from our system of DNA or even RNA in order to have something that can evolve that rapidly, because again it's like you need it's not it's it would need to have an incredibly rapid life span of this DNA and in credibly rapid sex and mutations. And one of the issue with really really rapid mutations, or really dramatic rapid mutations, is that will mess you up.

A mutation can have a really good chance of just killing you, right, So if you have these massive rapid mutations happening, most likely outcome is you just die. So yeah, I'm I do not think we have to worry about this kind of alien unless there's some completely different type of you know, protein strand in, like an alien genetics that works completely differently. I have a hard time conceptualizing that.

But who knows. I could be wrong and there could be aliens among us right now disguising themselves as things like your box of tissues or a podcast. But yeah, no, not very likely, I think. So. I'm sorry to be a wet blanket on this episode to be like aliens. Encryptids don't exist. Actually, I do think that aliens exist. I don't know what they would look like or seem like, but I think it is very likely given on our Earth, how we see so much parallel evolution. Like basically humans

and octopuses evolved completely independently. We our last common ancestor was like kind of a warm thing with a simple eye spot, and yet we both evolved brain, we both evolved eyes, we both seem to actually dream. So I think that, like, it is very likely that if you have the conditions on some planet somewhere for life, complex organisms that are not like completely different from organisms on Earth could evolve. Like I think that is a reasonable

thing to believe. And I do think that believing in aliens is not weird or wacky, just that the aliens in this movie, in this life movie. I don't buy it so much, all right, So before we go last week, I played a rerun episode because I was having some technical difficulties with my studio. But there was a mystery animal sound on that episode, and the hint was this.

It was if you've got happy feet, this is not a sound you want to hear, all right, So I've got a few correct guesters here, Jacob Bim, damiumg I said Damium, didn't I, Damien, g Anna El, and Nicole l all guess correctly. Congratulations. So next week there will be a new mystery animal sound as well as the answer to the mystery animal sound that was played on the episode is Earth Alive which aired a couple weeks ago, so stay tuned for that. Thank you guys so much

for writing to me with your questions. I love answering these, like I still love the main episodes with the guests and everything, but I actually have a lot of fun answering these questions, so I hope you're enjoying that as well. And if you would like to write to me, you can write to me at Creature feature Pod at gmail dot com. Your questions, your comments, your pictures of your beautiful pets, always love those, or if you think you know,

actually I guess. If you want to listen to is Earth Alive and then that last part has that mystery animal sound and want to answer that, you can also send your mystery animal sound answers to that email address as well. Thank you guys so much for listening, and thanks to the Space Classics for their super awesome song Exil Lumina Creature features a production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts like the one you just heard, visit the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcasts, or Hey, guess what where are you

listen to your favorite shows. I'm not your mother, and I can't tell you what to do, but I do care about you and I hope you have like chocolate chip cookies and milk, so you know, have a good day and I'll see you next Wednesday.