You can't evolve out of a clade. Humans didn't stop being apes, haplerines, primates, mammals, therapsids, etc. at any point, because a clade includes all descendants of a common ancestor.
Yep, that would be the fish clade. The only way to draw a clade that includes all extant animals we'd consider fish is to include all of vertebrata. You could also consider the fish clade to just be ray-finned fishes if you want, but then sharks, rays, coelacanths, mudskippers, etc would not be fish, which seems absurd to me (but is also cladistically valid).
But fish are not a clade. Mice are not fish. Birds are not fish. I don't know how else to explain it to you. Do you understand that there can be terms for groups of living things that are not clades or that have no scientific basis whatsoever? Did you know that there is no difference between frogs and toads except that, broadly speaking, we call the ugly warty ones toads?
You are right, but... Then there's logic. People say cartilaginous fish (like sharks) are fish and bony fish (like carps) are fish, the only clade that contains both is the vertebrates, hence language is dumb and we all should hug each other.
I can find plenty of places with authority that describe Vertebrata as a clade. I can't find any that describe fish as a clade.
If fish are a clade, people uninfluenced by internet memery would refer to all vertebrates as fish, yet I'm pretty sure this also doesn't happen. If the guy in the restaurant today had told me that the varying fish on the menu was not sea bream, but a sodding gecko, I'd have been pretty miffed.
If fish are a clade, people uninfluenced by internet memery would refer to all vertebrates as fish, yet I'm pretty sure this also doesn't happen. If the guy in the restaurant today had told me that the varying fish on the menu was not sea bream, but a sodding gecko, I'd have been pretty miffed.
I'm confused why you think the common usage of the word fish has any relevance to a discussion about choosing a definition for a fish clade. I'm not making the claim that this is how people use fish in common usage. My claim is that if you want to draw a fish clade, the only consistent way to do that is to include all of vertebrata. Scientists defining clades don't concern themselves with how laymen group animals together, because that would be dumb.
so all tetrapods are bony fish, not fish, because fish is a non cladistic category of animals that roughly means animal you think of when you think of fish
This is a popular definition of a species*, but you're applying it to a class**. Humans can't breed with other apes, but we are apes. Biological classification (fish vs whales) is based on evolutionary relationships and traits, not whether two animals can interbreed.
Cladistically, whales are not fish because “fish” isn’t a clade. Fish are an everyday label, not a clean scientific clade or rank.
* - this is a very limited definition of species
** - fish really aren't a class, but that's how it's taught in grade school
No, modern cladistics is not like that at all, because fish do not form a clade. Fish are non-tetrapod vertebrates; humans are tetrapods, hence vertebrates but not fish.
I'm not sure if you're missing that the whole point is that trying to treat "common" terms like scientific terms creates logical conundrums like this because nature isn't about clean lines and groups.
The whole point of saying "Whales are fish" and things like that is as a reminder that human classification (even detailed and precision-focused scientific classification) is still just a human construct we use to order the world around us. It's arbitrary what is and is not a fish.
In fact we see science educators bring this up so much, I think, because it's important to be able to answer "why don't the scientists just call them fish?" when discussing ray finned fishes or something like that and this discussion is helpful practice for that.
Yes it's arbitrary what is and is not a fish... So why pretend that the category is something other than what it is? Noone who isn't being weird about it on the internet thinks all vertebrates are fish.
Because why not? It's in the same view as thought experiments. Things that make you go "huh". Nobody is being weird about it, they just aren't being serious about it.
There is no formal definition for fish that includes everything that we consider a fish and excludes everything we don't. All human classification systems are based on vibes.
Its the exact opposite. Definitions and categpries are suppused to be black and white. Nature is gray and evolution is based on vibes. Which makes it really difficult to draw lines and categorize things neatly
Extra pendant here, all terrestrial vertebrates are descended from lobe-finned fish. Sharks, lampreys, and ray-finned fish are not descended from lobe-finned fish.
50 Comments
notabot@piefed.social · 29 pts · 13d
Rar! Grrr! Snarl! Angry stomping noises!
Whales evolved from fish, but ceased being fish when they could no longer breed with them.
I didn't want to leave you with no angry commenys.
craftrabbit@lemmy.zip · 17 pts · 13d
So salmon is not fish? Salmon can breed with other salmon but not other fish...
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de · 23 pts · 13d
Up comes Diogenes with a fish insemination machine shouting: "Behold, a fish!"
CannonFodder@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 13d
Salmon are fish. Salmon can breed with salmon, so salmon can breed with fish. Ergo salmon are fish.
PaintedSnail@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 11d
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question
gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 13d
You can't evolve out of a clade. Humans didn't stop being apes, haplerines, primates, mammals, therapsids, etc. at any point, because a clade includes all descendants of a common ancestor.
FishFace@piefed.social · 4 pts · 13d
But fish are not a clade. The clade you're thinking of is vertebrates.
gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 12d
Yep, that would be the fish clade. The only way to draw a clade that includes all extant animals we'd consider fish is to include all of vertebrata. You could also consider the fish clade to just be ray-finned fishes if you want, but then sharks, rays, coelacanths, mudskippers, etc would not be fish, which seems absurd to me (but is also cladistically valid).
FishFace@piefed.social · 3 pts · 12d
But fish are not a clade. Mice are not fish. Birds are not fish. I don't know how else to explain it to you. Do you understand that there can be terms for groups of living things that are not clades or that have no scientific basis whatsoever? Did you know that there is no difference between frogs and toads except that, broadly speaking, we call the ugly warty ones toads?
dawcas@scribe.disroot.org · 3 pts · 12d
You are right, but... Then there's logic. People say cartilaginous fish (like sharks) are fish and bony fish (like carps) are fish, the only clade that contains both is the vertebrates, hence language is dumb and we all should hug each other.
ebber@europe.pub · 1 pts · 12d
WHALE IS FISH, NO HUG (unless...?)
gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 12d
Sure they are, smallest clade that includes coelacanths and hagfish, which would be vertebrata.
FishFace@piefed.social · 1 pts · 11d
I can find plenty of places with authority that describe Vertebrata as a clade. I can't find any that describe fish as a clade.
If fish are a clade, people uninfluenced by internet memery would refer to all vertebrates as fish, yet I'm pretty sure this also doesn't happen. If the guy in the restaurant today had told me that the varying fish on the menu was not sea bream, but a sodding gecko, I'd have been pretty miffed.
gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 11d
I'm confused why you think the common usage of the word fish has any relevance to a discussion about choosing a definition for a fish clade. I'm not making the claim that this is how people use fish in common usage. My claim is that if you want to draw a fish clade, the only consistent way to do that is to include all of vertebrata. Scientists defining clades don't concern themselves with how laymen group animals together, because that would be dumb.
ashestoashes@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 12d
so all tetrapods are bony fish, not fish, because fish is a non cladistic category of animals that roughly means animal you think of when you think of fish
AlfalFaFail@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 13d
This is a popular definition of a species*, but you're applying it to a class**. Humans can't breed with other apes, but we are apes. Biological classification (fish vs whales) is based on evolutionary relationships and traits, not whether two animals can interbreed.
Cladistically, whales are not fish because “fish” isn’t a clade. Fish are an everyday label, not a clean scientific clade or rank.
* - this is a very limited definition of species
** - fish really aren't a class, but that's how it's taught in grade school
tomatosametomato@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 13d
Once a fish, always a fish. Modern cladistics is weird like that. Unironically, humans are fish 🐟
FishFace@piefed.social · 0 pts · 13d
No, modern cladistics is not like that at all, because fish do not form a clade. Fish are non-tetrapod vertebrates; humans are tetrapods, hence vertebrates but not fish.
RedAggroBest@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 12d
I'm not sure if you're missing that the whole point is that trying to treat "common" terms like scientific terms creates logical conundrums like this because nature isn't about clean lines and groups.
The whole point of saying "Whales are fish" and things like that is as a reminder that human classification (even detailed and precision-focused scientific classification) is still just a human construct we use to order the world around us. It's arbitrary what is and is not a fish.
In fact we see science educators bring this up so much, I think, because it's important to be able to answer "why don't the scientists just call them fish?" when discussing ray finned fishes or something like that and this discussion is helpful practice for that.
FishFace@piefed.social · 2 pts · 12d
Yes it's arbitrary what is and is not a fish... So why pretend that the category is something other than what it is? Noone who isn't being weird about it on the internet thinks all vertebrates are fish.
RedAggroBest@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 11d
Because why not? It's in the same view as thought experiments. Things that make you go "huh". Nobody is being weird about it, they just aren't being serious about it.
FishFace@piefed.social · 1 pts · 11d
I didn't detect anyone treating it as a tight experiment... maybe it was an implication that was lost through the textual medium...
CombatWombat@feddit.online · 21 pts · 13d
There is no formal definition for fish that includes everything that we consider a fish and excludes everything we don't. All human classification systems are based on vibes.
Zexks@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 12d
Its the exact opposite. Definitions and categpries are suppused to be black and white. Nature is gray and evolution is based on vibes. Which makes it really difficult to draw lines and categorize things neatly
CombatWombat@feddit.online · 1 pts · 12d
Which, of course, is why no-one struggles to define exactly what a hot dog or a sandwich is.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 1 pts · 11d
We?
You, maybe
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 13d
By that logic humans are fish too.
gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 15 pts · 13d
Of course. Humans are a type of bipedal, terrestrial lobe-finned fish.
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de · 7 pts · 13d
So the reptilian people theory is actually true.
festnt@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 12d
but we're fish, not reptiles
daddycool@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 13d
But I can't swim.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 12d
you're really bad at being a fish, but you still are one
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 12d
There is no such thing as fish, nor trees.
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 12d
Trees only have a culinary definition. If we put them in a salad they're trees, otherwise they're just sparkling wood 🪵
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 1 pts · 11d
Behold the deception of the lungfish
HollowNaught@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 12d
Counterpoint: there is no such thing as a fish
WalleyeWarrior@midwest.social · 7 pts · 13d
Extra pendant here, all terrestrial vertebrates are descended from lobe-finned fish. Sharks, lampreys, and ray-finned fish are not descended from lobe-finned fish.
Maroon@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 13d
Zizzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 12d
You can look at my post history on fun fish facts to see people will in fact get riled up over this
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 12d
Tbf, I think me mentioning that it was bait muted the impact. Maybe I can harness this phenomenon? 🤔
craftrabbit@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 13d
Whales are fish just as much as cucumbers are fruit
Phantaminum@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 13d
Always said penguin are fish
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 5 pts · 12d
Man attempts to neatly categorize his complex ancient world based on imperfect knowledge, gets angry when it doesn't work out.
pirc_lover@feddit.uk · 7 pts · 12d
Foucault be like:
erusuoyera@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 13d
If lampray and sharks are fish, then everything between coelacanth and clownfish are definitely fish too.
riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 13d
this but with capybara as fish
derek@infosec.pub · 3 pts · 13d
Fish don't exist.
brown567@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 11d
Taxonomy is applesauce 👍
festnt@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 12d
sacabambaspis
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 11d
Actually cetaceans should be taxonomically the only true fish