3 ms·
Several comments seem to suggest this is not really an animal, and I don't yet understand why. Is that your intention? If so, why is this not an animal?
by jshevek 7y ago
Several comments seem to suggest this is not really an animal, and I don't yet understand why. Is that your intention? If so, why is this not an animal?
- kazinator 7y agoThe point is that "discover an animal that doesn't breathe oxygen" is purely a word semantic game. Not breathing oxygen isn't interesting; anaerobic bacteria do that. If we call those "animals", then we already have non-oxygen-breathing animals. By the way, the following is from ten years ago: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907586/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907586/ If that discovery found "animals", then it is rightly the first one.
- jshevek 7y ago>The point is that "discover an animal that doesn't breathe oxygen" is purely a word semantic game. I still don't understand your point. This species is an animal, according to accepted taxonomy.