Comment on On trees...
SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days agoSource?
Because all the sources I’ve come across say that “fish” is not a monophylatic classification and is essentially arbitrary.
Comment on On trees...
SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days agoSource?
Because all the sources I’ve come across say that “fish” is not a monophylatic classification and is essentially arbitrary.
DancingBear@midwest.social 5 days ago
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish
SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days ago
… and Wikipedia states that the category of “fish” is paraphylatic, meaning that it is defined by convention rather than ‘fact’ and its boundaries can be argued, since it excludes some of the descendants of fish.
also, as pointed out, we use the word fish to describe lots of things that are not included in this definition, like starfish and crayfish.
DancingBear@midwest.social 5 days ago
So you’re suggesting that because we all evolved from a sesspool swamp we are all fish?
I’m down
SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days ago
Having recently learned about trees, I actually don’t think I know what a tree is. at least, not enough to create a reasonable, non-blurry definition of “tree.”
You’ve defined fish as being vertebrates, and as such I cannot find an invertebrate that fits that definition. But what you can’t do is just say the word “fish” and expect me to know what you mean - you have to provide a definition, and I could provide a different definition in a different context and neither of us would really be “wrong.”