Most active commenters
  • quietbritishjim(3)

←back to thread

Eels are fish

(eocampaign1.com)
178 points speckx | 11 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
boesboes ◴[] No.45116372[source]
Apparently we are all fish. Or fish don't exist.

To explain: if you want to define a taxonomy in which all things that look like fish and swim are 'fish' then we are too. We are more closely related to most 'fish' than sharks are. I.e the last common ancestor of herring AND sharks is older than our & herring's LCA.

replies(16): >>45116523 #>>45116561 #>>45116589 #>>45116591 #>>45116672 #>>45116695 #>>45116701 #>>45116727 #>>45116873 #>>45116932 #>>45117053 #>>45117159 #>>45117194 #>>45117563 #>>45121139 #>>45123694 #
1. quietbritishjim ◴[] No.45116873[source]
Looking at the Wikipedia article for fish, it looks like a reasonable definition would be:

* Everything in the subphylum vertebrata (i.e. vertibrates)

* Except tetrapoda (tetrapods: amphibians, reptiles, mammals and the like).

It's not perfect because tetrapoda does fit within vertebrata in a biological / genetic sense (as a sibling comment put it: fish is not a monophyletic group). But it's a precise enough definition that I don't think we need to claim that we're all fish or that there's no such thing as a fish (as the QI elves would say).

replies(2): >>45116997 #>>45117054 #
2. dillydogg ◴[] No.45116997[source]
But what about our precious friends the coelacanths?

Edit: foolish me coelacanths are not tetrapods

But a better question may have been regarding the lungfishes

replies(2): >>45117262 #>>45118327 #
3. daedrdev ◴[] No.45117054[source]
Mammals include orcas and whales
replies(1): >>45117127 #
4. SideburnsOfDoom ◴[] No.45117127[source]
And orcas and whales are not fish.
replies(3): >>45121176 #>>45123347 #>>45123457 #
5. quietbritishjim ◴[] No.45118327[source]
First of all: I think it's ok if the definition of fish is a bit blurry around the edges.

But actually I think coelacanths are quite a fun example. I hadn't heard of these before, thank you!

Yes, they're not tetrapods, but (I've just discovered) they're not even vertebrates (no spine). According to my definition, they shouldn't be fish, but they do seem quite fish like.

They are chordates (they have a spinal cord, just no backbone for it), so I could expand my definition to any chordate that isn't a tetrapod. But there are some rather non-fishy chordates [1] so that doesn't work either.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunicate

(For those that don't know, the top level subclassification of animals is phylum. There are a lot of phyla but a common ones are chordates (all vertebrates plus a few odd animals like discussed above), arthropods (insects and insect-like things like spiders and crabs), and molluscs (like slugs and clams). When I was at school, animals were just vertebrates or invertebrates but the reality is more interesting. I went down that rabbit hole when I found out that, weirdly, octopuses are molluscs.)

replies(1): >>45119276 #
6. IAmBroom ◴[] No.45119276{3}[source]
> They are chordates (they have a spinal cord, just no backbone for it)

None of the cartiligenous fish have backbones. Nor any other bones.

Coelacanths have backbone-functioning cartilige.

7. hinkley ◴[] No.45121176{3}[source]
Orcas and whales are flip floppers (no pun intended).

We left the water and they went back. (I have a theory that given enough time, Labrador retrievers would form a new branch of marine mammals with similar morphology to seals).

8. emmelaich ◴[] No.45123347{3}[source]
But literarily (not literally) they can be.

See also https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-ma...

9. shawn_w ◴[] No.45123457{3}[source]
Whales are fish that spout and have horizontal tail fins. (Currently re-reading Moby-Dick and that's the definition Ishmael comes up with.)
replies(1): >>45126465 #
10. quietbritishjim ◴[] No.45126465{4}[source]
I think it's ok for there to be two meanings of "fish": a biologically formal (but not perfect) definition like I gave in my comment above, and a more informal meaning of "animal thing in the sea" that includes whales and even "starfish". It's very common for words to face more than one meaning. But that doesn't mean you can invalidate one by referring to the other.
replies(1): >>45157019 #
11. SideburnsOfDoom ◴[] No.45157019{5}[source]
I have multiple meanings of "fish", and that's ok.

But none of them include marine mammals such as seals, dolphins and whales. And none of them include penguins, even though penguins flying through the water on their little wings are impressively graceful and fast. None of these animals are fish to me under any meaning of the word.