4 ms·

Today fish is generally defined as chordates (vertebrates) minus tetrapods (four limbed things like amphibians, reptiles and mammals). Not a taxonomic category,

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:...
  - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
    Another picture, with time scale: https://phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2015/5649bb15633da.png https://phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2015/5649bb15633da.pn...
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Bumblebee doesn't even come close to any definition of fish. It fits well within the only relevant definition of fish, the one explicitly written in the statute under which the Fish and Game Commission operates, and of which the challenge to their action would have required the court to disregard the plain language. The issue here isn't what the word fish means in general usage, it's what the California State Legislature granted the California Fish and Game Commission regulatory authority over, and in the law granting that authority, all inverterbrates are expressly included. The courts job is to apply the law.

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:...
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  Another picture, with time scale: https://phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2015/5649bb15633da.png https://phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2015/5649bb15633da.pn...

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Bumblebee doesn't even come close to any definition of fish. It fits well within the only relevant definition of fish, the one explicitly written in the statute under which the Fish and Game Commission operates, and of which the challenge to their action would have required the court to disregard the plain language. The issue here isn't what the word fish means in general usage, it's what the California State Legislature granted the California Fish and Game Commission regulatory authority over, and in the law granting that authority, all inverterbrates are expressly included. The courts job is to apply the law.