🧵 How tf are sharks vertebrates if they don't have bones?
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:52:05 UTC No. 16591408
They're chordates at best.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:55:20 UTC No. 16591412
>>16591408
Keep asking your little "questions", see what happens.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:57:20 UTC No. 16591416
>>16591412
Landshark?
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:00:10 UTC No. 16591812
>>16591408
Sharks have spines. They "don't have bones" because their bones aren't mineralized, and are instead light and flexible cartilage (you may not like it, but this is what peak efficiency looks like.)
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:14:39 UTC No. 16591826
>>16591812
Looks more like a segmented notochord to me
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:18:35 UTC No. 16591832
You don't need bones to be a vertebrate. You don't even need a spinal cord.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:53:36 UTC No. 16591879
You can have a spine even without ossificstion, you nerd.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:55:17 UTC No. 16591882
>>16591408
In the depths of the ocean, they glide,
With a fin and a tail, they move with pride,
No bones to break, just cartilage strong,
These creatures of the sea sing their song.
Cartilaginous fish, they swim so free,
Cartilaginous fish, come dance with me!
Sharks, rays, and skates, they're made to soar,
A world beneath the waves, they explore!
The shark is a hunter, sleek and fast,
Rays with their wings, they glide past,
Skates on the bottom, they’ll softly creep,
In the ocean’s deep, they quietly sweep.
Cartilaginous fish, they swim so free,
Cartilaginous fish, come dance with me!
Sharks, rays, and skates, they're made to soar,
A world beneath the waves, they explore!
No bones to weigh them down, they glide,
With cartilage as their guide,
A living mystery in the sea,
The wonders of these fish we see!
Cartilaginous fish, they swim so free,
Cartilaginous fish, come dance with me!
Sharks, rays, and skates, they're made to soar,
A world beneath the waves, they explore!
So dive on down, and take a look,
The ocean’s mysteries are in the book,
Cartilaginous fish, so wild and true,
The sea's alive, just for you!
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 00:50:59 UTC No. 16591999
>>16591408
They're called vertebrates for a reason, not boners.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 01:08:17 UTC No. 16592024
>>16591999
>They're called vertebrates for a reason
They aren't, actually. At least 3 species of vertebrates are single-celled organisms.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 01:17:45 UTC No. 16592027
>>16592024
All members of kingdom animalia are multicellular by definition. You shouldn't have slept through higschool bio. Embarassing.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 01:39:35 UTC No. 16592047
>>16592024
Does that include the Transmissible Canine Venereal Cancer?
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 01:41:23 UTC No. 16592050
>>16592027
That's wrong in so many different ways its actually funny.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 02:18:47 UTC No. 16592066
>>16592047
Yes, it does.
>>16592027
I regret to inform you that you're a midwit.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:19:50 UTC No. 16592431
>>16591812
I wonder why fish evolved bones then.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:37:17 UTC No. 16592450
>>16592047
Transmissible cancers are not considered separate organisms or species. They're unique, but still just mutated cells of an organism and can’t survive independently.
>>16592050
>>16592066
I regret to inform you that you failed basic taxonomy. Please retake highschool biology.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:50:17 UTC No. 16592696
>>16592450
>They're unique, but still just mutated cells of an organism and can’t survive independently
They literally can. That's what makes them transmissible. There's even one transmissible cancer that infects a different species than it originated in. Now if you meant they can't survive for long outside their hosts...yes, they're obligate parasites. Not a particularly novel concept for single-celled organisms.
They are, for all intents and purposes, new species.
>just mutated cells
Yeah. That's how you get new species.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:00:40 UTC No. 16592714
>>16592696
>Now if you meant they can't survive for long outside their hosts...yes, they're obligate parasites.
Obligate parasites have distinct separate lineages and their own metabolism. A cancer cell is just a mutation of the host’s own tissue, still functioning as part of the host's metabolism.
>Yeah. That's how you get new species.
They're an edge case that maybe become a distinct organism if it eventually evolves its own metabolism.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:09:57 UTC No. 16592722
>>16592714
>Obligate parasites have distinct separate lineages
So do transmissible cancers. Also this isn't even strictly true.
>their own metabolism
Not a requirement for something to be alive or an independent organism. You're thinking of homeostasis. Plenty of parasites rely completely on their hosts for nutrients. E.g. angler fish.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:02:14 UTC No. 16592869
>>16592722
>So do transmissible cancers.
No, transmissible cancers don't have separate lineages. CTVT for example still traces back to a single dog that lived thousands of years ago. There was no other organism with its own reproductive cycle on the way.
>Also this isn't even strictly true.
Name an obligate parasite without a separate lineage.
>Not a requirement for something to be alive or an independent organism. You're thinking of homeostasis.
You need both to be considered alive in any traditional model of life.
>Plenty of parasites rely completely on their hosts for nutrients. E.g. angler fish.
Metabolism encompasses all life sustaining chemical reactions in an organism, not just where you get your nutrients from.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:17:32 UTC No. 16592888
>>16592450
>Transmissible cancers are not considered separate organisms or species.
I would agree if we were talking about tapeworm cancers that can move to humans, but transmissible canine venereal cancer spreads through many dogs. It doesn't arise in dogs randomly from their bodies. It happened once ~10,000 years ago and its been reproducing ever since.
A dog literally evolved into a single celled organism that lives in colonies on the bodies of other dogs.
Evolution is fucking terrifying. All Tomorrows has NOTHING on reality.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:20:31 UTC No. 16592891
>>16592450
>Please retake highschool biology.
I bet you also think dolphins aren't fish.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:22:43 UTC No. 16592900
>>16591999
underrated comment
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:42:46 UTC No. 16592932
>>16592891
Yes, dolphins are not fish, nor are they osteichthyes like your silly picture suggests. They're mammals. They have mammary glands, they have hair during their embryonic stage and they have mammalian ears with the malleus, incus, and stapes, all of which are defining traits absent on other animals.
It's a pretty safe bet to assume i do know higschool biology, but than you nontheless.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:48:39 UTC No. 16592945
>>16592891
>>16592932
it is my understanding that 'fish' isn't a category at all
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:56:46 UTC No. 16592966
>>16592945
"Fish" is a paraphyletic group, which means it doesn't include all the descendants of a common ancestor. Modern taxonomy uses monophyletic groups. It's still a valid way to classify, just inprecise and not used in a scientfic context.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:01:30 UTC No. 16592971
>>16592431
Even fish have something they wish to protect.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:11:56 UTC No. 16592992
>>16592869
>No, transmissible cancers don't have separate lineages. CTVT for example still traces back to a single dog that lived thousands of years ago. There was no other organism with its own reproductive cycle on the way.
That's a separate lineage from the dogs it infects. Definitionally. Neither the cancer is descended from the dogs it infects nor the dogs it infects descended from the cancer. To say nothing of transmissible cancers that actually do infect outside their species like in clams.
>Name an obligate parasite without a separate lineage.
CTVT
>You need both to be considered alive in any traditional model of life.
Cancer is considered alive. What it isn't considered is a separate lifeform from its host...until it transmits itself to a new host. No biologist would equate cancer and a virus or prion in terms of degree of vivity.
>Metabolism encompasses all life sustaining chemical reactions in an organism, not just where you get your nutrients from
That's genuinely not a counterargument unless you think cancers don't carry out life-sustaining chemical reactions for themselves.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:19:44 UTC No. 16593022
>>16592932
>>16592945
Fish in terms of cladistic taxonomy would just mean vertebrate. Different words mean different shit in different contexts. Obviously if you are going to refer to vertebrates in cladistic taxonomy, it would be more common and useful to just say vertebrate though.
Also, a thing being A doesn't stop it from being B.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:20:51 UTC No. 16593028
>>16592869
>No, transmissible cancers don't have separate lineages. CTVT for example still traces back to a single dog that lived thousands of years ago. There was no other organism with its own reproductive cycle on the way.
That's a separate lineage from the dogs it infects. Definitionally. Neither the cancer is descended from the dogs it infects nor the dogs it infects descended from the cancer. To say nothing of transmissible cancers that actually do infect outside their species like in clams.
>You need both to be considered alive in any traditional model of life.
Cancer is considered alive. What it isn't considered is a separate lifeform from its host...until it transmits itself to a new host. No biologist would equate cancer and a virus or prion in terms of degree of vivity.
>Metabolism encompasses all life sustaining chemical reactions in an organism, not just where you get your nutrients from
That's genuinely not a counterargument unless you think cancers don't carry out life-sustaining chemical reactions for themselves.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:22:51 UTC No. 16593036
>>16591408
This is why trump won. Scientists just can't shut up, can they?
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:30:29 UTC No. 16593345
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:01:56 UTC No. 16593478
>>16592945
>>16592966
Fish are not paraphyletic, they just include ALL chordates.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:04:14 UTC No. 16593486
>>16593022
>Fish in terms of cladistic taxonomy would just mean vertebrate.
Chordates, not vertebrates. You have to include tunicates because lancelets exist.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:07:20 UTC No. 16593503
>>16592932
https://www.mindat.org/taxon-5314.h
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:14:04 UTC No. 16593521
>>16592450
>failed basic taxonomy.
Did you graduate in the 80s? Its all about phylogeny now.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:24:12 UTC No. 16593555
>>16593478
>chordates
vertebrates, not chordates
>>16593486
Lancelets aren't fish, which is why you can exclude tunicates.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:28:22 UTC No. 16593571
>>16593555
Listen, I had to argue so hard to make sure dino nuggets were 100% real dinosaur meat. Do not fuck this up for me.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:31:10 UTC No. 16593583
>>16593521
Not that anon and I graduated in 2008 and even back then archaea wasn't even taught as a thing yet. Taxonomy has been on a wild ride in the past few decades. I remember my books switched from the 5 kingdom model to the 6 kingdom model while I was still in school, but even then archaea were still called archaebacteria.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:11:44 UTC No. 16593676
>>16593503
Cool mineral forum. How about you take a look at the actual, non-mineral sources they have listed?
>https://www.gbif.org/species/5314
>https://paleobiodb.org/classic/che
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:12:46 UTC No. 16593679
>>16593521
Phylogeny doesn't make cancers individual organisms. Taxonomy is a mess, but it's not that bad yet.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:21:46 UTC No. 16593700
>>16593679
>Phylogeny doesn't make cancers individual organisms
It ought to. Taxonomy is just slow as shit to update shit.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:24:29 UTC No. 16593709
>>16593478
>humans are fish
Are you from Innsmouth?
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:27:00 UTC No. 16593716
>>16593700
Careful what you wish for or you will end up being refused your leukemia treatment because it was banned by the cancer rights movement.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:31:15 UTC No. 16593724
>>16593716
Not happening. We do consider mosquitos a taxonomic group and we're still actively doing the math on deliberately extincting them for the benefit of humanity.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:33:49 UTC No. 16593729
>>16593724
But mosquitos aren't human. You start considering cancer individual organisms, you will have to live with the fact that getting cancer will mean you just gave birth to a homo sapiens subspecies.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:56:14 UTC No. 16593794
>>16592932
Dolphins ARE fish.
>>16592945
Fish is a category of animal and has been for thousands of years. It means animals that live in the water.
>nooo that's not scientific
Who gives a shit? Are only scientists allowed to classify things now? The word fish is ancient, scientists didn't invent it and so scientists don't have the right to redefine it or banish it from the common vernacular.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:05:26 UTC No. 16593820
>>16593729
Cancer's already born so nobody will give a shit about its survival, if it's human.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 23:19:38 UTC No. 16594084
>>16591412
>>16591999
>>16592024
>>16592971
>>16592891
>>16593345
>>16593729
>>16593820
I love this place so much it's unreal
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:08:19 UTC No. 16594165
>>16593676
Here is the chain from Osteichthyes to Tetrapoda, from your site.
Side note: Dolphins are tetrapods.
Follow the subtaxa:
https://paleobiodb.org/classic/chec
https://paleobiodb.org/classic/chec
https://paleobiodb.org/classic/chec
https://paleobiodb.org/classic/chec
https://paleobiodb.org/classic/chec
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:11:47 UTC No. 16594175
>>16593676
OH WAIT LMAO JUST CLICK "CLASSIFICATION"
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 01:24:35 UTC No. 16594258
>>16593679
It does when it can propagate from host to host indefinitely.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 02:15:46 UTC No. 16594318
>>16592450
>>16592932
>It's a pretty safe bet to assume i do know higschool biology, but than you nontheless
It seems highschool biology is the extent of what you know. Taxonomy is not based on superficial defining traits like the presence of mammary glands, that is a thing of the past. If a mammal were to lose its mammary glands in the next ten million years it wouldn’t stop being a mammal. You cannot evolve out of a clade
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 08:00:05 UTC No. 16594536
>>16593794
>It means animals that live in the water.
Jellyfish
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 08:07:20 UTC No. 16594545
>>16594536
>literally has "fish" in the name
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 08:26:42 UTC No. 16594550
>>16594318
>You cannot evolve out of a clade
return to monke
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 10:03:47 UTC No. 16594612
>>16594318
>Taxonomy is not based on superficial defining traits like the presence of mammary glands, that is a thing of the past.
That doesn't mean the traits cannot be used for recognition. So far, all known mammals have mammary glands, and mammary glands are not found outside of mammals. If some of them eventually evolve to stop having them, or if a different group evolves them indepently, the list of mammalian traits will be adjusted.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 10:54:42 UTC No. 16594649
>>16594612
I didn’t say they couldn’t. The point is those are just features you can use to recognise a mammal, not features that define a mammal
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:54:37 UTC No. 16594693
>>16591812
Damn son, shark skeletons are scary yo. Also, sharks are surprisingly empty.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:35:33 UTC No. 16594761
>>16591812
Arguably this skeleton should include all the dermal denticles since they're just skin teeth and it includes the mouth teeth.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 16:45:53 UTC No. 16595044
>>16591832
Yes but you need to be descended from something that had bones
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 16:48:00 UTC No. 16595052
>>16592891
This is just as valid
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 21:25:16 UTC No. 16595470
>>16594536
>JellyFISH
Yes, they are FISH.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 22:01:29 UTC No. 16595513
>>16595470
ur moms a fish
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 23:09:18 UTC No. 16595634
>>16595513
Correct, in the phylogenetic sense. Wrong, in the colloquial (real) sense.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:45:27 UTC No. 16595780
>>16595634
ur moms a colloquial
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:59:47 UTC No. 16595798
>>16595780
how dare you