It is kind of the same suffix but the story is a mess.
That -ario and all words using it are reborrowed* from Latin. And originally it was two related suffixes, fulfilling two purposes:
- masculine -arius, feminine -aria: transform noun into adjective. Like "a be ce de" (ABCD) into "abecedarius" (alphabetic).
- neuter -arium: noun denoting a place for another noun. Like "dictio" (saying) into "dictionarium" (dictionary, or "where you store sayings")
Except that Latin allowed you to use an adjective as if it was a noun (Spanish still does it), so that "abecedarius" ended as a substantive again. And Spanish merged Latin masculine and neuter, further conflating both versions of the suffix.
*the inherited doublet is the -ero in llavero (place for keys) and herrero (related to iron - professions took the suffix and systematised the re-substantivisation).
I was trying to trigger the same output from Bard, and it answered correctly; they probably addressed that very specific case after it got some attention. Then of course I started messing around, first replacing "elephants" with "snakes" and then with "potatoes". And here's the outcome of the third prompt:
My sides went into orbit. The worst issue isn't even claiming that snakes aren't animals (contradicting the output of the second prompt, by the way), but the insane troll logic that Bard shows when it comes to hypothetical scenarios. In an imaginative scenario where potatoes have legs, the concept of "legless" does apply to them, because they would have legs to lose.