In a nutshell: speaking cladistically, there is no such thing as a fish, or alternatively, all tetrapods are fish. You cant define a monophyletic group that includes “fish” that doesnt also include humans (and all other tetrapods eg birds and such).
That’s my understanding anyway
Fish is a polyphyletic group. It’s a shorthand to refer to various lines of aquatic vertebrates with a similar anatomy. It’s not a clade but that’s not the only way to logically group organisms. People trot it out like a “gotcha” or just misuse it in much the same way they don’t understand speciation (or most science terminology, to be frank)
We are not fish by anyone’s honest definition, but “there’s no such thing as a fish” is the kind of attention-grabbing false revelation I hate: it’s the headline with none of the understanding to actually learn something.
(I’m not annoyed at you, I think you understand perfectly based on your wording)
From what I understand, this is sorta like a hangover from pre-DNA taxonomy. We went “yeah, those all look like fish, we’ll put them in the fish group”, only to find out later that a bunch of them weren’t very closely related at all. So now we have a ‘fish’ group that’s a total mess, and we’re in the middle of getting it organized and re-labelled.
Yeah exactly lol science is full of silly stuff like that but that’s the price of knowledge and of using models to understand things. Same with trees and such, they look alike to us so we call a lot of organisms trees but they are VASTLY different from each other in many cases
Can’t we just un-fish it like we do for other clades when we need to?
“There’s an ape in the office!”
“Yes, his name is Tom. More importantly, he is a human being, and we don’t refer to them as apes outside of an academic context and even then, only when necessary.”
[Tom eats a banana, screams at an intern, and starts picking his nose]
I certainly agree that the texture of Poa Pratensis is much more pleasurable. However, being in zone 8 and not wanting to seed my entire lawn every year, I’m more familiar with E. ophiuroides and Zoysia japonica.
Also, IIRC, some fish are more closely related to us than they are to other fish, making it impossible to biologically define a category of animal that includes everything we call a fish but doesn’t include us.
some have book-lungs not true lungs. Only us fish have “true” lungs
edit: this thread turned into nerd-heaven. i love it!
Agreed. I was referring to book lungs.
Also, I feel like you got some ‘splainin’ to do regarding the fish reference.
In a nutshell: speaking cladistically, there is no such thing as a fish, or alternatively, all tetrapods are fish. You cant define a monophyletic group that includes “fish” that doesnt also include humans (and all other tetrapods eg birds and such). That’s my understanding anyway
Fish is a polyphyletic group. It’s a shorthand to refer to various lines of aquatic vertebrates with a similar anatomy. It’s not a clade but that’s not the only way to logically group organisms. People trot it out like a “gotcha” or just misuse it in much the same way they don’t understand speciation (or most science terminology, to be frank)
We are not fish by anyone’s honest definition, but “there’s no such thing as a fish” is the kind of attention-grabbing false revelation I hate: it’s the headline with none of the understanding to actually learn something.
(I’m not annoyed at you, I think you understand perfectly based on your wording)
My knowledge on the subject is purely at a youtube video level so i am happy to have someone else provide better knowledge and insight
I too have seen that Clint’s Reptiles video, lmao
From what I understand, this is sorta like a hangover from pre-DNA taxonomy. We went “yeah, those all look like fish, we’ll put them in the fish group”, only to find out later that a bunch of them weren’t very closely related at all. So now we have a ‘fish’ group that’s a total mess, and we’re in the middle of getting it organized and re-labelled.
Yeah exactly lol science is full of silly stuff like that but that’s the price of knowledge and of using models to understand things. Same with trees and such, they look alike to us so we call a lot of organisms trees but they are VASTLY different from each other in many cases
Excellent pic and excellent username. The tooooth!
Thanks frigidaphelion!
Is there a better way to link a user?
Can’t we just un-fish it like we do for other clades when we need to?
“There’s an ape in the office!”
“Yes, his name is Tom. More importantly, he is a human being, and we don’t refer to them as apes outside of an academic context and even then, only when necessary.”
[Tom eats a banana, screams at an intern, and starts picking his nose]
No, fuck paraphyletic groups.
I meant, can’t we just be more specific rather than use paraphyletic grouping?
“What’s for dinner?”
“Fish”
“That could mean anything!”
“You know I meant Actinopterygii.”
“Still pretty broad.”
“Oncorhynchus.”
“You know how I feel about trout.”
“Ugh. tshawytscha.”
“Well, why didn’t you just say so in the first place?”
Some commenters here really need to go and come into contact with Eremochloa ophiuroides
Respectfully, I must disagree. I recommend Poa pratensis, but I admit that this varies based on the USDA plant hardiness zone.
I certainly agree that the texture of Poa Pratensis is much more pleasurable. However, being in zone 8 and not wanting to seed my entire lawn every year, I’m more familiar with E. ophiuroides and Zoysia japonica.
We’re all descended from fish.
Also, IIRC, some fish are more closely related to us than they are to other fish, making it impossible to biologically define a category of animal that includes everything we call a fish but doesn’t include us.
Thanks!
Also, I recognize your username. I feel like you may have encountered my ignorance on at least one previous occasion.