310

submitted 4 months ago by Deceptichum@quokk.au to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] tyler@programming.dev 34 points 4 months ago

I think the even more nuanced answer is that “fish” is not a scientific category so comparing it to mammals makes no sense.

[-] Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 4 months ago

Got it , got it... writes in margin

Ichthyology ≠ Science

[-] tyler@programming.dev 13 points 4 months ago

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.