←back to thread

Eels are fish

(eocampaign1.com)
178 points speckx | 1 comments | 03 Sep 25 14:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.233s | 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. LeifCarrotson ◴[03 Sep 25 15:34 UTC] No.45117013[source]▶
Those aren't the problem. The real issue is that the tetrapods which evolved into most land animals (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) are further down the phylogenetic tree of bony fishes than coelacanths and lungfish, which are further down the tree than cartilaginous fishes like sharks and rays, which are further down the tree than jawless fishes like lampreys and hagfish.

In taxonomy, it's called a "Paraphyletic group" [1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphyly#Examples