finitebanjo@piefed.world 21 hours ago
I think a more nuanced answer is better: "Only if you believe mammals and fish are not mutually exclusive."
Deceptichum@quokk.au 20 hours ago
finitebanjo@piefed.world 20 hours ago
I'm flattered, honestly, that guy is my favorite treefucker.
recklessengagement@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Humans are fish
i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 14 hours ago
Humans living under the sea are fish.
Like people in Netherlands.
tyler@programming.dev 20 hours ago
I think the even more nuanced answer is that “fish” is not a scientific category so comparing it to mammals makes no sense.
Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 hours ago
Got it , got it… writes in margin
tyler@programming.dev 17 hours ago
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish
This is in contrast to the class
Mammalia
which is a complete clade.In other words, I could make up a branch of science called
foobarthology
that studies Jurassic raptors, whales, and the Rock Dove, but that doesn’t mean those things are related, or a ‘true’ scientific group of their own. It just means I put them together for some other reason, either cause it’s easier for the requirements of the job, or I wanted to, or many other reasons including historical.Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 hours ago
“Scientific group” is not the applicable term. “natural group” or “monophyletic group” or “clade”, would be more… scientific
stevedice@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
lol no. Whales are clearly not foobars.
F04118F@feddit.nl 16 hours ago
So, fish are paraphyletic to whales?