Copyright 1952, this one's a "Little Golden Book Classic." Which is fine, for the most part. I mean, who can argue with cute baby animals? It?s the ragtag selection I find strange, is all. My babygirl loooves the baby owl that closes the book (though, having never actually read the text to her, I'm only now noticing that the baby owl says, "Whooooooo's undressed and whooooooo's in bed?" perv!), and the usual assortment of jungle, forest, and woodland creatures don't really betray the book's age (though going from opossums to camels might be a little weird).
But really, this is what gets me, why I'm even writing this for a "bizarre book" contest--were little kids in 1952 really supposed to know and recognize a mink? The text shows it catching its first fish for breakfast. I suppose an update would have him running from the farmer so he won't get skinned?
[ed. note: interesting, this is the second book you said you don't read the words to. I remember doing that sometimes, too, just entertaining myself by making up the narrative; I figured the kid didn't know the difference and was happy just hearing something. Now the kid's memorized so many books, she's becoming a bit of a stickler: "No, daddy, not 'coat.' It's a 'jacket.' It's like living with the Beckett Estate.]