I’m willing to grant you the distinctions between goats and true goats, in deference to the science of biology.
Well that’s my point: this post is about how common names contrast with actual, rigid taxonomical definitions. :p
Like the colloquial word “goat” fits, but your comment read to me, given the context of the post, like you were saying goats can exist outside Capra via a technical definition, which isn’t true.
Yes, we don’t disagree on the biology… I’m just emphasizing the nature of colloquial language as a crowdsourced effort and distinguishing it from the technical rigors of taxonomy.
My doctors office as a young kid had a mural wall with a bunch of silly fish. They had the names written next to cartoonish drawings in an undersea landscape. One example was the catfish had the face of a cat.
No, and not even close. Consider a tree of life. Formally, vertebrates are subphylum Vertebrata within the phylum Chordata (the chordates). That already eliminates most of the animals, as most animals are invertebrates – defined as being outside Vertebrata. All the arthropods, molluscs, echinoderms (like starfish), sponges, cnidarians {jellyfish, corals, anemones, etc.), nematodes, and so on are invertebrates.
Instead of just assaulting you with terminology, here’s a phylogenetic tree showing the vertebrates within the chordates and the chordates next to our nearest neighbors.
To get fish from the vertebrates, you simply exclude the tetrapods (clade Tetrapoda), which are the four-legged vertebrates. However, even within the tetrapods, plenty of tetrapods also have no legs (snakes, for example); they’ve simply lost them through evolution, a phenomenon called “secondary loss”.
Here’s a phylogenetic tree, meanwhile, within the vertebrates. Anything outside “Tetrapoda” on that tree is a fish.
TL;DR: There are many, many, many legless animals that aren’t fish.
True in that it’s a fruit botanically and a vegetable culinarily (or, less arbitrarily for the latter, that it’s a part of a plant consumed for food).
A carrot, as another fun example, is a root botanically, a vegetable culinarily, and, in the European Union, a fruit legally as a carve-out for laws about making jams.
Well that’s my point: this post is about how common names contrast with actual, rigid taxonomical definitions. :p
Like the colloquial word “goat” fits, but your comment read to me, given the context of the post, like you were saying goats can exist outside Capra via a technical definition, which isn’t true.
Also this post is a joke, as King Bird isn’t taxonomically defined.
Yes, we don’t disagree on the biology… I’m just emphasizing the nature of colloquial language as a crowdsourced effort and distinguishing it from the technical rigors of taxonomy.
now do it with fish!
My doctors office as a young kid had a mural wall with a bunch of silly fish. They had the names written next to cartoonish drawings in an undersea landscape. One example was the catfish had the face of a cat.
Absolutely outrageous
Phylogenetically, “fish” are simply all non-tetrapod vertebrates.
Behold, a fish:
Snakes are tetrapods m8. Specifically referring to the clade Tetrapoda, within which snakes have secondarily lost their four limbs.
so in other words its a catch-all for legless animals?
No, and not even close. Consider a tree of life. Formally, vertebrates are subphylum Vertebrata within the phylum Chordata (the chordates). That already eliminates most of the animals, as most animals are invertebrates – defined as being outside Vertebrata. All the arthropods, molluscs, echinoderms (like starfish), sponges, cnidarians {jellyfish, corals, anemones, etc.), nematodes, and so on are invertebrates.
Instead of just assaulting you with terminology, here’s a phylogenetic tree showing the vertebrates within the chordates and the chordates next to our nearest neighbors.
To get fish from the vertebrates, you simply exclude the tetrapods (clade Tetrapoda), which are the four-legged vertebrates. However, even within the tetrapods, plenty of tetrapods also have no legs (snakes, for example); they’ve simply lost them through evolution, a phenomenon called “secondary loss”.
Here’s a phylogenetic tree, meanwhile, within the vertebrates. Anything outside “Tetrapoda” on that tree is a fish.
TL;DR: There are many, many, many legless animals that aren’t fish.
Maybe we should base s podcast around the fact that, according to the Oxford dictionary, there is no such thing…
And other inane trivia
True or false: The tomato is a fruit and a vegetable.
True in that it’s a fruit botanically and a vegetable culinarily (or, less arbitrarily for the latter, that it’s a part of a plant consumed for food).
A carrot, as another fun example, is a root botanically, a vegetable culinarily, and, in the European Union, a fruit legally as a carve-out for laws about making jams.
Same with peppers, zucchini, and all forms of squash.
Also, strawberries aren’t fruit, botanically speaking because the seeds aren’t inside