▲ 159 ▼ rule-bait (lemmy.blahaj.zone) submitted 5 days ago by TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone [M] to c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone 47 comments fedilink hide all child comments Watch nobody actually get angry at this. It would be just my luck
[–] gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago (1 child) But fish are not a clade. Sure they are, smallest clade that includes coelacanths and hagfish, which would be vertebrata. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 3 days ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 3 days ago My point is that scientists do not define a fish clade precisely because to do so would be so far removed from the common understanding of the word fish, and there being a different term for the same thing to hand. And this is the point I'm making because I believe further up the thread people were saying stuff based on a false impression that you had to think of "fish" cladistically in some situation or other, and hence that some creatures were fish when in fact they are not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 3 days ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 3 days ago My point is that scientists do not define a fish clade precisely because to do so would be so far removed from the common understanding of the word fish, and there being a different term for the same thing to hand. And this is the point I'm making because I believe further up the thread people were saying stuff based on a false impression that you had to think of "fish" cladistically in some situation or other, and hence that some creatures were fish when in fact they are not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 3 days ago My point is that scientists do not define a fish clade precisely because to do so would be so far removed from the common understanding of the word fish, and there being a different term for the same thing to hand. And this is the point I'm making because I believe further up the thread people were saying stuff based on a false impression that you had to think of "fish" cladistically in some situation or other, and hence that some creatures were fish when in fact they are not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 3 days ago My point is that scientists do not define a fish clade precisely because to do so would be so far removed from the common understanding of the word fish, and there being a different term for the same thing to hand. And this is the point I'm making because I believe further up the thread people were saying stuff based on a false impression that you had to think of "fish" cladistically in some situation or other, and hence that some creatures were fish when in fact they are not. permalink fedilink source parent
