Comment on On trees...
SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 weeks agoSource?
Because all the sources I’ve come across say that “fish” is not a monophylatic classification and is essentially arbitrary.
Comment on On trees...
SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 weeks agoSource?
Because all the sources I’ve come across say that “fish” is not a monophylatic classification and is essentially arbitrary.
DancingBear@midwest.social 4 weeks ago
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish
SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
… and Wikipedia states that the category of “fish” is paraphylatic, meaning that it is defined by convention rather than ‘fact’ and its boundaries can be argued, since it excludes some of the descendants of fish.
also, as pointed out, we use the word fish to describe lots of things that are not included in this definition, like starfish and crayfish.