Curated Tumblr

3964 readers

949 users here now

For preserving the least toxic and most culturally relevant Tumblr heritage posts.

Image descriptions and plain text captions of written content are expected of all screenshots. Here are some image text extractors (I looked these up quick and will gladly take FOSS recommendations):

-web

-iOS

-android

Please begin copied raw text posts (lacking a screenshot that makes it apparent it is from Tumblr) with:

# This has been reposted here to Lemmy as part of the "Curated Tumblr Project."

I made the icon using multiple creative commons svg resources, the banner is this.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1166

What’s in a name? (i.imgur.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

142 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Axolotl are fish

Frogs are fish

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do frogs have gills? The tadpole stage of frogs might be fish, but adult frogs aren't fish.

But, whether or not you want to consider axolotl and frogs fish, "gills" is a neat line that separates humans from trout and sharks.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sure but what the OP was saying is that these common definitions of fish are paraphyletic. In order to make a monophyletic group including everything we call fish, we'd have to include humans, birds, lizards, etc. And going by the water-and-gills definition, this group would include things we tend not to call fish like crabs, amphibians, sea slugs, some insects... Not to mention that gills have evolved multiple times. And something like a frog being not a fish but it's larvae being fish doesn't make sense for cladistics.

separates humans from trout

I'm a little bit curious about why you specifically selected humans to be differentiated from fish

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because:

There is no sensible phylogenetic definition of “fish” which includes both trout and sharks but not humans.

Gills.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'll be just as terse

phylogenetic

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I admit I don't really know much about that. But Wikipedia says:

In biology, phylogenetics (/ˌfaɪloʊdʒəˈnɛtɪks, -lə-/)[1][2][3] is the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among or within groups of organisms. These relationships are determined by phylogenetic inference methods that focus on observed heritable traits, such as DNA sequences, protein amino acid sequences, or morphology.

Where morphology is:

Morphology is a branch of biology dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features.[1]

This includes aspects of the outward appearance (shape, structure, colour, pattern, size), i.e. external morphology (or eidonomy), as well as the form and structure of the internal parts like bones and organs

It sure seems to me like that should cover gills.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, fish would be a morphology that includes gills, fins, streamlined body shape for swimming, etc. But there is no good phylogenetic definition because all the animals we call "fish" do not form a monophyletic group. The monophyletic group encompassing all fish would include also mammals, reptiles including birds, and amphibians because these all have fish ancestors

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But there is no good phylogenetic definition because all the animals we call “fish”

The challenge was to come up with a group "which includes both trout and sharks but not humans". It seems like "gills" satisfies that pretty well.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Animals with gills do not form a monophyletic group.