4 ms·
The article was very interesting, and I know this isn't the main point of the article, but this is an interesting fact I like to share- > "Fish generally ... a
by elsherbini 8y ago
The article was very interesting, and I know this isn't the main point of the article, but this is an interesting fact I like to share-
> "Fish generally ... are in a certain part of the phylogenetic tree."
Fish are actually paraphyletic[0], meaning they are in multiple "parts" of the tree of life. To try to use fish as a phylogenetic term is useless because the clade that contains everything we call fish also includes reptiles, birds, and humans. Try explaining that to King Solomon...
[0] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss1/phyly.html http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss1/phyly.html
- adrianratnapala 8y agoCheers to you and Scott! "Whales are not fish" annoys me more than a true statement really should. I think it's because the characters in Moby Dick sometime whales fish. It's not as if those guys were ignorant. They knew perfectly well what whales are -- more viscerally (!) then you or I could. And if they chose to call them fish, well perhaps they had good reasons.
- coldtea 8y agoThe problem is having a single name for sea creatures with fins and similar attributes and sea mammals with fins and similar attributes. The intuitive name is better for 99% of the population for most intends and purposes than the genetics or whatever scientific classification name.
- dghf 8y agoIIRC, Moby Dick has an entire chapter where the narrator debates whether or not whales are fish, coming down on the "yes they're fish" side for largely the same reasons as this article's Solomon.