▲ 303 ▼ the welsh are fish (quokk.au) submitted 1 year ago by Deceptichum to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] finitebanjo@piefed.world 46 points 1 year ago (11 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] tyler@programming.dev 34 points 1 year ago (6 children) I think the even more nuanced answer is that “fish” is not a scientific category so comparing it to mammals makes no sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 year ago (5 children) Got it , got it... writes in margin Ichthyology ≠ Science permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] tyler@programming.dev 13 points 1 year ago (4 children) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish In a break from the long tradition of grouping all fish into a single class (''Pisces''), modern phylogenetics views fish as a paraphyletic group. Paraphyly is a taxonomic term describing a grouping that consists of the grouping's last common ancestor and some but not all of its descendant lineages. The grouping is said to be paraphyletic with respect to the excluded subgroups. In contrast, a monophyletic grouping (a clade) includes a common ancestor and all of its descendants. This is in contrast to the class Mammalia which is a complete clade. In other words, I could make up a branch of science called foobarthology that studies Jurassic raptors, whales, and the Rock Dove, but that doesn’t mean those things are related, or a ‘true’ scientific group of their own. It just means I put them together for some other reason, either cause it’s easier for the requirements of the job, or I wanted to, or many other reasons including historical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) "Scientific group" is not the applicable term. "natural group" or "monophyletic group" or "clade", would be more... scientific permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] tyler@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago Sure, and not calling them fish is even more scientific. From a grouping perspective, (which is how you refer to it) there is no such group. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago lol no. Whales are clearly not foobars. permalink fedilink source parent [–] F04118F@feddit.nl 1 point 1 year ago So, fish are paraphyletic to whales? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Deceptichum [S] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] recklessengagement@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) Humans are fish permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 8 points 1 year ago Humans living under the sea are fish. Like people in Netherlands. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tyler@programming.dev 34 points 1 year ago (6 children) I think the even more nuanced answer is that “fish” is not a scientific category so comparing it to mammals makes no sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 year ago (5 children) Got it , got it... writes in margin Ichthyology ≠ Science permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] tyler@programming.dev 13 points 1 year ago (4 children) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish In a break from the long tradition of grouping all fish into a single class (''Pisces''), modern phylogenetics views fish as a paraphyletic group. Paraphyly is a taxonomic term describing a grouping that consists of the grouping's last common ancestor and some but not all of its descendant lineages. The grouping is said to be paraphyletic with respect to the excluded subgroups. In contrast, a monophyletic grouping (a clade) includes a common ancestor and all of its descendants. This is in contrast to the class Mammalia which is a complete clade. In other words, I could make up a branch of science called foobarthology that studies Jurassic raptors, whales, and the Rock Dove, but that doesn’t mean those things are related, or a ‘true’ scientific group of their own. It just means I put them together for some other reason, either cause it’s easier for the requirements of the job, or I wanted to, or many other reasons including historical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) "Scientific group" is not the applicable term. "natural group" or "monophyletic group" or "clade", would be more... scientific permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] tyler@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago Sure, and not calling them fish is even more scientific. From a grouping perspective, (which is how you refer to it) there is no such group. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago lol no. Whales are clearly not foobars. permalink fedilink source parent [–] F04118F@feddit.nl 1 point 1 year ago So, fish are paraphyletic to whales? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 year ago (5 children) Got it , got it... writes in margin Ichthyology ≠ Science permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] tyler@programming.dev 13 points 1 year ago (4 children) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish In a break from the long tradition of grouping all fish into a single class (''Pisces''), modern phylogenetics views fish as a paraphyletic group. Paraphyly is a taxonomic term describing a grouping that consists of the grouping's last common ancestor and some but not all of its descendant lineages. The grouping is said to be paraphyletic with respect to the excluded subgroups. In contrast, a monophyletic grouping (a clade) includes a common ancestor and all of its descendants. This is in contrast to the class Mammalia which is a complete clade. In other words, I could make up a branch of science called foobarthology that studies Jurassic raptors, whales, and the Rock Dove, but that doesn’t mean those things are related, or a ‘true’ scientific group of their own. It just means I put them together for some other reason, either cause it’s easier for the requirements of the job, or I wanted to, or many other reasons including historical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) "Scientific group" is not the applicable term. "natural group" or "monophyletic group" or "clade", would be more... scientific permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] tyler@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago Sure, and not calling them fish is even more scientific. From a grouping perspective, (which is how you refer to it) there is no such group. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago lol no. Whales are clearly not foobars. permalink fedilink source parent [–] F04118F@feddit.nl 1 point 1 year ago So, fish are paraphyletic to whales? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tyler@programming.dev 13 points 1 year ago (4 children) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish In a break from the long tradition of grouping all fish into a single class (''Pisces''), modern phylogenetics views fish as a paraphyletic group. Paraphyly is a taxonomic term describing a grouping that consists of the grouping's last common ancestor and some but not all of its descendant lineages. The grouping is said to be paraphyletic with respect to the excluded subgroups. In contrast, a monophyletic grouping (a clade) includes a common ancestor and all of its descendants. This is in contrast to the class Mammalia which is a complete clade. In other words, I could make up a branch of science called foobarthology that studies Jurassic raptors, whales, and the Rock Dove, but that doesn’t mean those things are related, or a ‘true’ scientific group of their own. It just means I put them together for some other reason, either cause it’s easier for the requirements of the job, or I wanted to, or many other reasons including historical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) "Scientific group" is not the applicable term. "natural group" or "monophyletic group" or "clade", would be more... scientific permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] tyler@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago Sure, and not calling them fish is even more scientific. From a grouping perspective, (which is how you refer to it) there is no such group. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago lol no. Whales are clearly not foobars. permalink fedilink source parent [–] F04118F@feddit.nl 1 point 1 year ago So, fish are paraphyletic to whales? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) "Scientific group" is not the applicable term. "natural group" or "monophyletic group" or "clade", would be more... scientific permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] tyler@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago Sure, and not calling them fish is even more scientific. From a grouping perspective, (which is how you refer to it) there is no such group. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tyler@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago Sure, and not calling them fish is even more scientific. From a grouping perspective, (which is how you refer to it) there is no such group. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago lol no. Whales are clearly not foobars. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] F04118F@feddit.nl 1 point 1 year ago So, fish are paraphyletic to whales? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Deceptichum [S] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] recklessengagement@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) Humans are fish permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 8 points 1 year ago Humans living under the sea are fish. Like people in Netherlands. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 8 points 1 year ago Humans living under the sea are fish. Like people in Netherlands. permalink fedilink source parent