←back to thread

Eels are fish

(eocampaign1.com)
178 points speckx | 1 comments | 03 Sep 25 14:02 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
boesboes ◴[03 Sep 25 14:37 UTC] 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 #
madcaptenor ◴[03 Sep 25 15:10 UTC] No.45116727[source]▶
Does this hold even if we don't include whales and dolphins in "things that look like fish"?
replies(3): >>45116928 #>>45117013 #>>45117132 #
1. PxldLtd ◴[03 Sep 25 15:27 UTC] No.45116928[source]▶
Yes, the issue is the ancestry between "fish" being very distant. It doesn't matter if you exclude marine mammals. Many fish in the ocean are still more closely related to beings on land than another fish. It's the equivalent of calling all flying animals birds. If we excluded bats from this new definition of "bird" then a bumblebee won't suddenly become more closely related to a Buzzard.