… and Wikipedia states that the category of “fish” is paraphylatic, meaning that it is defined by convention rather than ‘fact’ and its boundaries can be argued, since it excludes some of the descendants of fish.
also, as pointed out by another commenter, we use the word fish to describe lots of things that are not included in this definition, like starfish and crayfish.
So you’re suggesting that because we all evolved from a sesspool swamp we are all fish?
I’m down
Trees also do not have a real definition. But you think you know what a tree is.
Fish have a more strict definition than trees.
I provided you a source please name a fish that is an invertebrate or what not that is really cool and has the backbone in some other genetically cool place
Having recently learned about trees, I actually don’t think I know what a tree is. at least, not enough to create a reasonable, non-blurry definition of “tree.”
You’ve defined fish as being vertebrates, and as such I cannot find an invertebrate that fits that definition. But what you can’t do is just say the word “fish” and expect me to know what you mean - you have to provide a definition, and I could provide a different definition in a different context and neither of us would really be “wrong.”
If you did just say “fish” without providing a definition, I would be tempted to either exclude sharks or include crabs, depending on context.
Fish are vertebrates they have a backbone
Some fish are, yeah
Sorry bro, all fish are vertebrates
While I understand it is an arbitrary classification system designed by humans, one of the defining factors of fish is that they are vertebrates.
What about starfishes? Checkmate.
That made me chuckle, but because this is a science meme forum, I will just clarify that starfish are not fish.
Source?
Because all the sources I’ve come across say that “fish” is not a monophylatic classification and is essentially arbitrary.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish
… and Wikipedia states that the category of “fish” is paraphylatic, meaning that it is defined by convention rather than ‘fact’ and its boundaries can be argued, since it excludes some of the descendants of fish.
also, as pointed out by another commenter, we use the word fish to describe lots of things that are not included in this definition, like starfish and crayfish.
So you’re suggesting that because we all evolved from a sesspool swamp we are all fish?
I’m down
Trees also do not have a real definition. But you think you know what a tree is.
Fish have a more strict definition than trees.
I provided you a source please name a fish that is an invertebrate or what not that is really cool and has the backbone in some other genetically cool place
Having recently learned about trees, I actually don’t think I know what a tree is. at least, not enough to create a reasonable, non-blurry definition of “tree.”
You’ve defined fish as being vertebrates, and as such I cannot find an invertebrate that fits that definition. But what you can’t do is just say the word “fish” and expect me to know what you mean - you have to provide a definition, and I could provide a different definition in a different context and neither of us would really be “wrong.”
If you did just say “fish” without providing a definition, I would be tempted to either exclude sharks or include crabs, depending on context.
Sharks are fish I believe but I am not the one making the definitions. Wikipedia / fish …