Why aren't there any mullets in the zoo ?
492550
Where do you think Patrick Swayze and Billy Ray Cyrus have been for the last few years? L. A. Zoo, make a left at the crew cut chimps cage, past the arboreal mice with buzz cuts... bingo, you're at the mullet display.
632658
hey  dont   make  the   chimps   look  bad.  i  think  i  saw   bush  at  the   atlanta  zoo,  the  other  day.
533108
OMG I have thought of the same thing before!!!  It's insane, never happened to begin with, otherwise one day at the zoo you would see a man sitting in the tree in a cage.  Just doesn't happen!!!
881313
Basically none of the animals on the endangered species list is the rarest because animals once thought to be extinct keep getting rediscovered.  There is no way to know exactly how many of the rediscovered animals there actually are.  i do know that the Stegodont was rediscovered in Asia.  There was a television show about it and then I found this website http://web.ncf.ca/bz050/HomePage.gne.html\nSince they are so large there are probably less of them than any other ex-extinct animal, but you never know.
701739
Most of the time its a near endangered species.  They usually aren't so bad that they are on the endangered species list but are close.  It can act as a way for animal rights people to protect them even though they aren't at the needed population level to be protected.  This is true most times, but not all.
429181
The MOUNTAIN Hippo?  I'm fairly sure there isn't one. Double check just to be sure.
520975
That's an interesting question!\nThe short answer would be "Different evolutionary paths", which is true. But those paths imply adaptive and functional differences. \nThe teeth of sharks are not too different from those of other tetrapods. Aside from birds, most tetrapods have many generations of teeth (this is called polyphyodonty), and those teeth are usually not strongly attached to the jaws. They`re more or less easily lost and replaced during normal activities. So, why don't we mammals have such a useful feature? \nThe loss of all those teeth replacements was a tradeoff for our acquisition of better tooth occlusion. Occlusion is the way the surfaces of the upper and lower teeth contact each other, and in mammals, our chewing teeth (molars and premolars) have complex occlusal surfaces, which allow for slicing food (shearing like scissors), crushing food (cusps and basins that act like a mortar and pestle), and other ways of basically, disintegrating food items. \nThe thing is, the precise interlocking of cusps and vales is not easy to achieve (as anybody with occlusion problems has probably heard from the dentist). So the hypothesis is that the evolutionary path of mammals "focused" on one generation of perfectly occluding teeth. Thus, molars erupt late in life, grow slowly, and are not replaced. And the other teeth (incisors, canines and premolars) have a first, "milk" teeth generation that allows the young mammal to feed while its skull is expanding. Then, by the time its growth has slowed down, the definitive teeth erupt and take their places (they would not fit in the small jaws).\nThe teeth of man, as those of all primates, are brachydont. This means that they don't keep growing once they've erupted completely. However, the enamel that forms the outer cover of the teeth is the hardest substance in our bodies, and is able to endure the wear from our food. However, many other mammals that eat more abrasive foods (plants, and especially grasses) have permanently growing teeth (hypsodonty). This is, in a way, the equivalent of having multiple generations of teeth; their teeth keep growing throughout part of their lives (as in the case of horses) or all of their lives (like many rodents and ruminants). But we cannot "recover" the capacity for multiple teeth generations that we "gave up" evolutionarily when we became mammals.
557000
Because pets are cute when they have hairy ears....you on the other hand...  (try some nair next time)\n\n:-)
1036252
Why is there no mammal with green fur? Green is a good camouflage color, and nonmammals (for example, frogs, snakes, and birds) do come in green. Why not mammals?\n\nThis is similar to the first question I asked on yahoo! answers, and this was the link from the best answer to that question. It was exactly what I was looking for, hope you think so too.\n\n\nI know from my general zoology classes that mammals can make only two kinds of pigment: melanin (black or brown pigment) and the reddish-yellow pigment that red-haired people have. So my first idea for a simple explanation of the nonexistence of green mammals was to say that mammals just can't make green pigment for some reason. This is of course not a good evolutionary explanation, but at least it superficially answers the question.\n\nAs I started researching this a bit more, I was astounded to discover that frogs, birds, and others in the tetrapod, or four-legged, world can't make green pigment, either! Or blue, for that matter. It turns out that all color variation that we see in tetrapod animals is the result of different combinations of patterns of deposition and refraction of the same two types of pigments: black and yellow-red. A chameleon's color changes because of rapid shape changes in refractory cells in its skin, not by rapid production or release of an actual pigment. Frogs are green because of the pattern of refraction of blue light by special cells in their skin, which blends with their yellow pigment.\n\nThe colors of bird feathers are also generated by light refraction but by a different mechanism. The surface of feathers has microscopic ridges that form ordered tracks, much like the surface of a CD. The spacing of the ridges and the size and orientation of the pigment granules they contain determine the feathers' brilliant greens and blues (see links in reference 2). Tiny air pockets in feathers can add to color variation in birds. Light refraction is also responsible for the color of the human iris, which can range into deep blue or green hues. Another example is the sky-blue nose of the mandrill. For an exploration of the ways animals make different colors, see reference 1.\n\nAs you can see, the question is really why mammals don't have the ability to generate a variety of colors in their fur. This is a difficult question, and until we master time travel—to be able to trace back the evolution of mammals—we won't know the answer with certainty. But it's interesting to speculate, so here are some possible explanations.\n\n1. I think that the most important difference is in the lifestyle of mammals. Being warm-blooded animals, they are constantly in search of food and are moving a lot. Even if an animal has the best camouflage, as soon as it starts moving, it is more easily detected. In contrast, many amphibians and reptiles can spend a long time being motionless, and here looking the same as a leaf nearby helps more. I believe that during evolution, mammals have "invested" more into working out active escape mechanisms (for example, running away and hiding in burrows) rather than into developing passive camouflage techniques.\n\n2. Scientists believe that the first mammals were relatively small, ratlike creatures that ate insects. Their habitats were probably different in terms of background color patterns compared with the habitats of amphibians and reptiles. Mammals, of course, originated on land, while amphibians never leave the source of water. More green is around amphibians, and therefore we find more green amphibians.\n\nIn contrast to their early ancestors, many mammals are now large, and for them, a factor of size comes into play in determining coloration. As we know from classical statues, it's difficult to cover a whole mammal with a fig leaf (but it is quite possible for a frog). A solid-green mammal would in fact stand out in real habitats rather than be hidden. For a large animal, being dappled h
9251
They did find a creature recently, in Indonesia though. Don't know anything about one in Brazil.\n\nhttp://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=creature+indonesia&c=
3478
Cimpanzees and most of the higher primates have no tails.  It seems that somewhere along the evolutionary marathon tails got discarded, but it was relatively recently....
223449
Because they haven't quite finished evolving yet! Back when we were apes, every once in awhile Mama ape would go out with all of her girlfriends to the local cave tavern. Papa ape had to stay behind and feed Junior ape. Since there was no Mama ape around, and no milk man delivered any freshly squeezed milk from an anklysoaraus, then Papa ape had to resort to using his own nipples to provide Junior ape with the nourishment he needed to be a big strong hairy caveman.\n\nThe real answer is, because God created man with two nipples. End of story.
167567
Because Yahoo! Answers wasn't available ... they had to do something to occupy their time.\n\nOr perhaps there was an abundance of furry animals in North America and a shortage in Europe where people wanted to make clothing out of the fur.
618436
... zoos ... wolves?\nIt "sounds" as if English is your first language, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.
392389
not if there isn't an accompanying beard to go with it!
463725
I do not ! But, please visit this site :\nhttp://www.mulletmadness.com/\nYou'll find plenty !
655962
Great question. Animals face different environmental pressures. When I say "environmental" I mean not just the weather, but also food resources, predators, and even the pressure from one's own species. For example, let us imagine that a certain species of elephant migrates north, where it is colder. Because it is so cold up north, elephants who have thicker patches of hair will survive longer than those who don't. Those thick-haired elephants will also have better luck producing offspring. Over many generations, there will be more elephants with lots of hair than with little hair. Or imagine that another species- say wild dogs- migrates to a region where there are lots of competing predators, such as large wild cats.  Those dogs who develop larger canines will be better able to fend off competing predators.  This is the entire basis for "evolution".\n\nEvolution can happen for a variety of reasons. Traditionally, evolutionary biologists believed that evolution happened very slowly. For example, we can imagine that over hundreds of years the neck of the giraffe got longer and longer (so it could reach the succulent top leaves of trees). But geological and environmental evidence suggests that this may not always be the case. If a sudden and catastrophic environmental event creates harsh pressures on organisms, evolution may happen relatively quickly. Keep in mind that "evolution" is not happening here with purpose of mind. That is, there is no internal mechanism inside each species which switches to the "on" position every time evolution is desirable. It is actually entirely by chance, like a lottery. Some individuals win that lottery, and some lose it.\n\nNot all evolution is the result of adaptation to the natural environment, however. Sometimes animals "evolve" because their own species (notably the females of the species) select for certain characteristics which they find desirable. Imagine that the female peahen desires a large fan-tail on the peacock. Those males with the larger feathers will get selected more often (and therefore will reproduce with greater frequency). Eventually, most peacocks might evolve to have huge feathers, as we see today. In this example, the peacocks aren't evolving in order to adapt to the natural environment, but as a result of pressures from the female member of the species. In fact, this might be a reason why there is so much sexual dimorphism (physical difference) between most males and females. Human males tend to be, on average, about 50% larger than human females, a very large difference. It is quite possible that in our own evolution females tended to choose the larger, more powerful males and therefore we "evolved" to be larger and stronger. (Note: this needn't mean males are better than females).\n\nOne might ask how a female preference for certain characteristics in males evolved in the first place. One possibility is that a random genetic change caused certain females to have a preference for certain characteristics. Evolution doesn't always happen for a good reason. Chance always plays an important role. Much of the variation that we see today is a result of random events which, over time, have resulted in the multitude of colors, shapes, sizes, etc.\n\nFactors such as natural and sexual selection, random genetic drift, and the migration of individuals within a population all tend to increase the variation within a species, and sometimes result in the creation of new species.