4 ms·

To be fair, most species of fish evolved independently, and the term 'fish' has zero scientific category or phylum. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish htt

To be fair, most species of fish evolved independently, and the term 'fish' has zero scientific category or phylum. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish --- In earlier times, even biologists did not make a distinction – sixteenth century natural historians classified also seals, whales, amphibians, crocodiles, even hippopotamuses, as well as a host of aquatic invertebrates, as fish. Edit: to put things into perspective, a salmon is more closely related to a camel than it is to a hagfish.

mcphage 4y ago
> and the term 'fish' has zero scientific category or phylum. And yet, a bumblebee is clearly not a fish.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Somewhere, on some metaphysical plane, Diogenes is running desperately through the equivalent of a hallway towards the equivalent of a forum with the equivalent of a can of tuna in his hand.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    Diogenes de-bones a chicken, rendering it an invertebrate.
  - q_andrew 4y ago
    If this isn't a quote from somewhere, thanks for the funniest original comment I've seen in months
  - mcphage 4y ago
    I believe if you look closely, you’ll see that it’s actually a can of bees.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > And yet, a bumblebee is clearly not a fish. A bumblebee is clearly an invertebrate. The statute explicitly defines “fish” for the purpose of the power at issue as “a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.” [Cal. Fish & Game Code § 45, emphasis added] A bumblebee is, unmistakably, a “fish” under the applicable statutory definition. The challenge to the executive branch action here called on the court to disregard the express language of the statute granting regulatory authority.
robbrown451 4y ago
Today fish is generally defined as chordates (vertebrates) minus tetrapods (four limbed things like amphibians, reptiles and mammals). Not a taxonomic category, but more scientific than including all things that live in water. This of course excludes those things we refer to as "shellfish," which are generally mollusks or crustaceans. Bumblebee doesn't even come close to any definition of fish. It doesn't live in the water, and isn't in the same clade than includes all living fish (as we are, being tetrapods). Not sure what you mean by "most species of fish evolved independently," by the way.
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  Reading the link, it appears most species of 'fish' have as most recent ancestor, some ancient sea sponge or something. They became what they are through independent evolutionary paths. It's called something like 'convergent evolution' and its a common thing, where environmental pressure causes wildly different original organisms to evolve to look and act nearly the some. It's true with fish, trees and I imagine other things. See, just because they look about the same doesn't mean they share any common parentage.
  - robbrown451 4y ago
    Well the common ancestor of all living fish would be more like a lancelet, which is nothing like a sea sponge. (it is bilaterally symmetrical and has a "notochord" which is like a primitive spinal chord. The main issue I have with the parent's comment is the idea that "most species" evolved independently. No, most species have a whole bunch of other species very closely related to them. There are a few major branches of fish, such as ray finned (most fish) and lobe finned, the taxanomic category of the latter also includes tetrapods, and only has a couple of species that are still actual fish, such as coelacanth and lungfish. And above that distinction, there are bony fish and cartilaginous fish, such as sharks and rays. But still, even if fish is not monophyletic, it is not polyphyletic, which means all things considered fish are "connected" to other fish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_fish#/media/File:Fish_evolution.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_fish#/media/File:...

mcphage 4y ago

> and the term 'fish' has zero scientific category or phylum. And yet, a bumblebee is clearly not a fish.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Somewhere, on some metaphysical plane, Diogenes is running desperately through the equivalent of a hallway towards the equivalent of a forum with the equivalent of a can of tuna in his hand.
- robonerd 4y ago
  Diogenes de-bones a chicken, rendering it an invertebrate.
- q_andrew 4y ago
  If this isn't a quote from somewhere, thanks for the funniest original comment I've seen in months
- mcphage 4y ago
  I believe if you look closely, you’ll see that it’s actually a can of bees.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> And yet, a bumblebee is clearly not a fish. A bumblebee is clearly an invertebrate. The statute explicitly defines “fish” for the purpose of the power at issue as “a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.” [Cal. Fish & Game Code § 45, emphasis added] A bumblebee is, unmistakably, a “fish” under the applicable statutory definition. The challenge to the executive branch action here called on the court to disregard the express language of the statute granting regulatory authority.

robbrown451 4y ago

Today fish is generally defined as chordates (vertebrates) minus tetrapods (four limbed things like amphibians, reptiles and mammals). Not a taxonomic category, but more scientific than including all things that live in water. This of course excludes those things we refer to as "shellfish," which are generally mollusks or crustaceans. Bumblebee doesn't even come close to any definition of fish. It doesn't live in the water, and isn't in the same clade than includes all living fish (as we are, being tetrapods). Not sure what you mean by "most species of fish evolved independently," by the way.

JoeAltmaier 4y ago
Reading the link, it appears most species of 'fish' have as most recent ancestor, some ancient sea sponge or something. They became what they are through independent evolutionary paths. It's called something like 'convergent evolution' and its a common thing, where environmental pressure causes wildly different original organisms to evolve to look and act nearly the some. It's true with fish, trees and I imagine other things. See, just because they look about the same doesn't mean they share any common parentage.
- robbrown451 4y ago
  Well the common ancestor of all living fish would be more like a lancelet, which is nothing like a sea sponge. (it is bilaterally symmetrical and has a "notochord" which is like a primitive spinal chord. The main issue I have with the parent's comment is the idea that "most species" evolved independently. No, most species have a whole bunch of other species very closely related to them. There are a few major branches of fish, such as ray finned (most fish) and lobe finned, the taxanomic category of the latter also includes tetrapods, and only has a couple of species that are still actual fish, such as coelacanth and lungfish. And above that distinction, there are bony fish and cartilaginous fish, such as sharks and rays. But still, even if fish is not monophyletic, it is not polyphyletic, which means all things considered fish are "connected" to other fish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_fish#/media/File:Fish_evolution.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_fish#/media/File:...