Talk:Cattle/Popular culture: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Nancy Sculerati |
imported>Stephen Ewen No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Bulls should be a separate article, I think. The biological creatures may be the same species, but the bull in poular culture is an entirely different animal than the cow in popular culture.[[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 09:31, 1 June 2007 (CDT) | Bulls should be a separate article, I think. The biological creatures may be the same species, but the bull in poular culture is an entirely different animal than the cow in popular culture.[[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 09:31, 1 June 2007 (CDT) | ||
:Having studied this issue out last night, I need to agree cows and bulls need to be separate, even for practical reasons of length. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 14:51, 1 June 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 13:51, 1 June 2007
http://www.aurochs.org/cows/famous/
Cows, Cows AND Bulls, Or Bovine in popular culture?
What say you? Stephen Ewen 19:57, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
Actually, I think it's cows, cattle and bulls. Bulls are only used for breeding and breaking bones at rodeos. Greg Woodhouse 08:47, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
- What about Ferdinand the Bull? I remember that being an animated story.--Robert W King 09:18, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Bulls should be a separate article, I think. The biological creatures may be the same species, but the bull in poular culture is an entirely different animal than the cow in popular culture.Nancy Sculerati 09:31, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
- Having studied this issue out last night, I need to agree cows and bulls need to be separate, even for practical reasons of length. Stephen Ewen 14:51, 1 June 2007 (CDT)