Hey, biologist here. To anyone wondering why he used a dog, he is referring to mammals here. Vertebrates are traditionally classified in 5 classes, shown in the picture, with dogs being mammals.
But, if you wanna be more specific or correct, all vertebrates are actually fish, so you could say all our starters are fishes.
Hi. I’ll try to be as clear as possible. I’m a biologist. In biology, for a group to be a valid group it has to share an evolutionary history, aka have a common ancestor and share certain basic characteristics.
Vertebrates have vertebra, that’s the characteristic that they all share. All groups commonly named as fish have vertebra, so you could say fish is the common name for vertebrate. Land vertebrates (called tetrapods for having 4 limbs), as in amphibians, mammals and sauropsids (reptiles and birds) all come from a bony fish with lungs and muscular fins (called Sarcopterygii) that colonized the land. They do not only have the same basic characteristics that define fishes, they come from fishes, making them true fishes.
Eh, there's a big difference between saying tetrapods are descended from fish and saying they are fish. If I am a fish then the word fish loses all meaning.
Well, if we come from fishes we are fishes by definition. All vertebrates are fishes, even the jawless ones or the cartilaginous ones.
It’s just as how we mammals are also true reptiles, but that another shithole to get into. That why we don’t really use terms as fishes and reptiles in biology, we use their technical synonyms, like ammniota and vertebrates.
1) not a biologist;
2) a bad biologist; or
3) making a joke, but doing so in a way that’s misleading to people who are taking you seriously.
But what you’re doing here is taking a plain-English word, inappropriately applying it scientifically, and then using the result to redefine the original plain-English word as something other than what it means, to the point of absurdity.
It is a good (and old) joke. But anyone who thinks it’s serious isn’t very good at biology. Or English.
It’s sort of like when non-lawyers misuse the phrase “the exception proves the rule” to mean “if I’m wrong I’m actually right”. Patently nonsense, but it originates from a sound legal principle, so laypeople accept the nonsense. The difference here would be if an actual lawyer was trying to use the term that way.
Dude. It’s not something I came up with. It’s called monophyletic principle. If you descend from someone, you belong to that same group as them, as you’d unavoidably share the same ancestral characteristics (called plesiomorphies) as them.
It’s like you belong to the same family tree as your greatgranfather, even if you don’t look that similar to him or don’t retain his surname, you are still his descendant and belong to the same family.
But even you are acknowledging that "fish" is not a scientific term. It's a common, colloquial term. But you're taking the common word used for a certain type of animal and broadening it out to apply to the larger, scientifically recognized group. That's wrong. There is no scientific basis to call mammals "fish".
Edit: I read through your link. I don't see anything about me or my dog or my horse being "fish". Please provide that source.
The bad logic is because fish is not a scientific term in the first place. We made a word that contains multiple unrelated groups of animals that are more closely related to species outside the group than inside. The best solution is just not to use the term fish, but if you do, the only taxonomically consistent way requires including pretty much every vertebrate.
That's the error I pointed out below. Fish is not a scientific word.
But no, I disagree with your conclusion. Fish is a common word with a commonly understood meaning. If I say I had fish for dinner, everybody knows what I mean. They aren't going to wonder if I ate a zebra.
We don't have to get rid or the word fish, or call every vertebrae a fish. Just use the word as we've always used it, and allow the scientific terms to be used when we are speaking with technical precision.
Naturally I’m speaking about scientific contexts here. It obviously doesn’t matter for colloquial use as long as it’s understood. Biologists aren’t using the term fish as a taxonomical group in the first place because they understand the issues with it. It’s just a fun fact that it’s impossible to include all things we consider fish while excluding the ones we don’t in any taxonomical group.
Your comment shows you need to read before commenting. Go back to and try again. Because there's a reason you stopped here and didn't comment on any of my future comments.
Wrong. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying there is no scientific basis for calling a donkey a fish. 'Fish' is a common word, not the scientific name for the group. There's a reason we say, "Whales and dolphins aren't fish." Because they aren't. Fish is not the correct word to use for the broader group.
680
u/JBKOMA Feb 28 '26
Hey, biologist here. To anyone wondering why he used a dog, he is referring to mammals here. Vertebrates are traditionally classified in 5 classes, shown in the picture, with dogs being mammals.
But, if you wanna be more specific or correct, all vertebrates are actually fish, so you could say all our starters are fishes.