• Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 days ago

      “Fish” isn’t a real type of animal, it’s a term of convenience for similar looking/acting things that humans have lumped together.

      Its taking that back to the medieval level of “whales are fish”… Which ignores that key difference of them breathing air and not having gills.

    • chaos@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      There isn’t a simple evolutionary definition of “fish”, not the same way there is for, say, mammals. If you found the common ancestor of everything we call a mammal and said “everything descended from this one is also a mammal”, you’d be correct. If you did that for everything we call fish, every animal in the world would be a fish. Also, we decided which animals were fish mostly on vibes, so without a clear definition you can pedantically argue that everything is a fish including mammals.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        That’s not quite true. A lot of worms, for example, wouldn’t be fish, but all fish would be worms. Most invertebrates also wouldn’t be fish.