(It's a nice podcast, but discussing the name:) The phylogenetic nomenclature is basically textbook cope; coping with the fact that the ancient word of fish do

(It's a nice podcast, but discussing the name:) The phylogenetic nomenclature is basically textbook cope; coping with the fact that the ancient word of fish doesn't align well with what biologists have learned. If you want to create a scientifically and genetically sound classification of 'fish' that roughly aligns with what people already know fish to be, then you have to make it a phylogenetic group to exclude humans, whales, lizards, snakes, etc. It's a mess. But it's a mess biologists unnecessarily made for themselves, by trying to adapt an ancient word to their new discoveries. I prefer the traditional approach: fish do exist, they are simply animals that live in the water. It's not a genetic classification, simply a folk taxonomy. Salmon and hagfish both live in the water, so they're both fish. Dolphins live in the water, so they're fish too. Starfish and jellyfish are both fish. Sea turtles are almost fish, but not quite because they lay their eggs on dry land. Coral are a tricky edge case.