Image not available

750x500

gfpuffer2.jpg

🗑️ 🧵 Fish literally DON'T EXIST

Anonymous No. 16624909

Fish are not an actual clade, which means that we arbitrarily exclude organisms from being called "fish" regardless of their actual ancestry. We just pick and choose what's considered a fish. Humans and salmon actually belong to the same clade (Osteichthyes), but not the same clade as sharks (Chondrichthyes), and both of these are also a different clade from hagfish (Agnatha).

If fish aren't monophyletic, then why the hell can't dolphins and whales be considered fish? They're marine vertebrates with fins that are more closely related to salmon than sharks are, so you have to pick one: either salmon aren't fish, or sharks aren't fish.

Anonymous No. 16624911

>>16624909
taxonomic threads are the best

Anonymous No. 16624914

>>16624909
all of these are fish

Anonymous No. 16624915

>>16624914
Even humans?

Anonymous No. 16624917

>>16624915
Especially humans. You are a lobe finned fish.

Anonymous No. 16624947

I agree. The root of this is taxonomists are probably the most autistic group of individuals in biology.

Anonymous No. 16625008

>>16624909
Chondrichthyes should just be called "true fish" because they're the highest taxon of fish where all members are unquestionably fish

Anonymous No. 16625046

>>16624909
>Fish literally DON'T EXIST
Fishes, OP. Fishes.

Anonymous No. 16625050

>>16624909
I mean you could just define fish as vertebrates that never left the ocean

Anonymous No. 16625059

>>16625050
But amphibious fish exist

Anonymous No. 16625094

Anon it's simple. If it has gills, it's a fish.
If it doesn't, it isn't.

Anonymous No. 16625125

>>16625094
Axolotls? Crabs?

Anonymous No. 16625133

>>16625125
Shut the fuck up.
Crabs are crabs. Not fish.
Axolotls are salamanders. Not fish.
Other things with gills that looks fish-like are fish.

There's no precise definition of a chair, and neither there will be of fish.

Anonymous No. 16625257

>>16625133
Axolotls are actually fish.

Anonymous No. 16625267

>>16624909
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXmzzfyC8WU

Anonymous No. 16625375

>>16624909
>Does it live in water?
Yes
>Does it have gills?
Yes
>Does it have fins to swim?
Yes

It's literally this simple.

Image not available

1920x1080

1742595455471.jpg

Anonymous No. 16625399

>>16625375
Behold, a fish!

Anonymous No. 16625503

>>16625375
So...hagfish aren't fish?

Anonymous No. 16625513

>>16624909
Fish can be defined as aquatic vertebrates with gills and lacking limbs with digits. Not that complicated

Image not available

3908x3136

frog.jpg

Anonymous No. 16625537

>>16625513
Behold, and amphibian

Anonymous No. 16625560

>>16625537
It wouldn't need to have "hand" in its name if the grasping fins weren't a unique feature that's lacking in all other fish.

Anonymous No. 16625692

cetaceans arent fish, get over it OP

Image not available

1200x706

frogfish.jpg

Anonymous No. 16626419

>>16625560
They aren’t a unique feature though. Hand fish aren’t the only fish that have hands, frogfish and reef anglerfish also do

Anonymous No. 16626423

>>16624915
>he hasn't read You Inner Fish
ngmi

Anonymous No. 16626424

>>16625046
only in illiterateland.

Anonymous No. 16626426

>>16626424
>he doesn’t know about fish vs fishes
Heh

Anonymous No. 16626437

OP has a good point. Fish are about as real as concepts such as "chair" or "table". They are not actually real in a sense such as atoms are: they are just a made up heuristic categorization.

Anonymous No. 16626447

>>16625692
they could be honorary fish.

Anonymous No. 16626458

fishes are dinosaurs

Anonymous No. 16626459

>>16624909
Clads are social counteracts from atheist rationalists

Anonymous No. 16626507

>>16625692
Cetaceans are fish and so are you

Image not available

2329x1287

tadpoleGE-579fd40....jpg

Anonymous No. 16626548

>>16625375
I present you a fish

Anonymous No. 16626549

>>16625692
Define fish then

Anonymous No. 16626560

>>16625399
Where are it's fins?
>>16625503
Correct, they're eels.
>>16626548
No fins.

Anonymous No. 16626565

>>16626560
It has tail fin

Anonymous No. 16626581

>>16626565
That's a tail, not a fin.

Anonymous No. 16626584

>>16626581
It has a fin on its tail

Anonymous No. 16626585

>>16626584
Nope. If it looks like a fin, then its a fin. If it looks like a tail, then its a tail. Simple. As.

Anonymous No. 16626591

>>16626585
>If it looks like a fin, then its a fin
Yes, and it looks like a caudal fin

Anonymous No. 16626595

>>16626591
>If I keep repeating the lie, it becomes the truth
For shame anon.

Anonymous No. 16626597

>>16626595
>caudal fins are not fins because they just aren't okay???!!!

Anonymous No. 16626599

>>16626560
Horseshoe crabs have fins on their underside used for swimming.

Anonymous No. 16626643

>>16624909
non-tetrapod vertebrates

Anonymous No. 16626685

OP is correct

Image not available

1600x1600

432423432.jpg

Anonymous No. 16626709

>>16626643
A fish

Anonymous No. 16626955

>>16626597
Correct, they're tails.

Anonymous No. 16626960

>>16626955
No they’re fins on tails

Anonymous No. 16627049

>>16626960
>fins on tails
Madness! It's either a fin, or a tail. Pick one anon.
[spoiler]Its a tail btw[/spoiler]

Anonymous No. 16627091

>>16627049
>Its a tail btw
Then why is it a fin

Anonymous No. 16627368

>>16627091
No silly, a tail can't be a fin. If a tail was a fin then it would be a fin.

Anonymous No. 16627395

>>16625050
freshwater fish aren't fish?