the welsh are fish
from Deceptichum@quokk.au to science_memes@mander.xyz on 22 Aug 11:45
https://quokk.au/post/209225

the welsh are fish

#science_memes

threaded - newest

finitebanjo@piefed.world on 22 Aug 11:49 next collapse

I think a more nuanced answer is better: "Only if you believe mammals and fish are not mutually exclusive."

Deceptichum@quokk.au on 22 Aug 11:56 next collapse

<img alt="" src="https://i.imgur.com/JMYrZJN.jpeg">

finitebanjo@piefed.world on 22 Aug 12:00 collapse

I'm flattered, honestly, that guy is my favorite treefucker.

tyler@programming.dev on 22 Aug 12:31 next collapse

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 on 22 Aug 15:20 collapse

Got it , got it… writes in margin

Ichthyology ≠ Science

tyler@programming.dev on 22 Aug 15:34 collapse

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.

F04118F@feddit.nl on 22 Aug 16:17 next collapse

So, fish are paraphyletic to whales?

Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 22 Aug 17:36 next collapse

“Scientific group” is not the applicable term. “natural group” or “monophyletic group” or “clade”, would be more… scientific

tyler@programming.dev on 23 Aug 01:22 collapse

Sure, and not calling them fish is even more scientific. From a grouping perspective, (which is how you refer to it) there is no such group.

stevedice@sh.itjust.works on 22 Aug 17:53 collapse

lol no. Whales are clearly not foobars.

recklessengagement@lemmy.world on 22 Aug 15:39 collapse

Humans are fish

i_love_FFT@jlai.lu on 22 Aug 18:11 collapse

Humans living under the sea are fish.

Like people in Netherlands.

BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net on 22 Aug 14:31 next collapse

If you’re gonna be a lumper you might as well go all the way

Derpenheim@lemmy.zip on 22 Aug 15:10 next collapse

“BuT thEy aRe iN ThE sAmE tReE oN thE fUnnY ChArT!!!1!!1”

stevedice@sh.itjust.works on 22 Aug 17:50 collapse

pHyLoGeNeTiCaLlY

negativenull@piefed.world on 22 Aug 15:31 next collapse

<img alt="" src="https://i.imgflip.com/a3uk1h.jpg">
or something, I'm not a biologist

skisnow@lemmy.ca on 23 Aug 01:57 collapse

Continuing a long proud tradition of “midwit” memes being made exclusively by people who think they’re the 145 IQ guy, but are actually the the 55 IQ guy who found a brown hood.

BakerBagel@midwest.social on 22 Aug 15:31 next collapse

You can’t fool me. I’ve read Moby Dick and Melville dedicated an entire chapter about how whales are absolutely fish

lime@feddit.nu on 22 Aug 15:48 next collapse

they’re a berry i think

Mist101@lemmy.world on 22 Aug 20:55 next collapse

This tracks, berries keep their seeds on the inside. Whales are bananas and vice versa.

Deceptichum@quokk.au on 22 Aug 22:12 collapse

Yes but only when culinary, this is why it's okay for vegans to eat whale.

StrongHorseWeakNeigh@piefed.social on 22 Aug 15:53 next collapse

Look all I'm saying is Hank Green agrees with me that whales are fish.

https://youtu.be/-C3lR3pczjo?si=mbgIkIDQPcpp44dV

teft@piefed.social on 22 Aug 16:17 collapse

Hank Green is great but good god the adhd runs strong in that one. Watch some of his vlogbrothers videos and count the number of cuts. It's like watching Liam Neeson jump a fence.

<img alt="" src="https://i.imgur.com/JhQPcF7.gif">

StrongHorseWeakNeigh@piefed.social on 22 Aug 19:13 next collapse

Maybe that's why I like him so much lol

dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world on 22 Aug 19:17 collapse

As one of the horde of neurodivergent folks that love Hank’s content, I kind of need it this way. Chris Boden is another one. Long, still, static shots, just punch me right in the attention span and are hard to get through. It takes way more effort than the occasional jump-cut to pull off.

sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 23 Aug 02:22 collapse

Maybe that’s why Louis Rossman is so boring

stevedice@sh.itjust.works on 22 Aug 17:51 next collapse

No, but seriously, why did this become so common? It seems like the internet learnt a new word and is just rolling with it.

Soup@lemmy.world on 22 Aug 19:07 next collapse

Well, yea that. I know Hank Green likes to bring it up and he’s popular, and it’s come up with a bunch of other content creators, too. It’s fun, technically true, and enough people don’t know it yet so it’s great to bring up in the real world.

Plus it’s super cool to explain how our eyes are built for the ocean and they had to get a special lens on top to fix it. Or how we carry the sea with us in the form of all this salty water. Or the whole swimbladder/lungs/guts thing relationship I mean they’re all quite fun, really.

I also like explaining that octopuses are molluscs and, because we say that molluscs have one “foot”, it’d be more appropriate to say that octopuses are really just going around the world with eight funky toes and not eight arms.

Netux@lemmy.world on 22 Aug 23:07 collapse

Didn’t know that octopus came from the molluscs branch. Even more surprising that they at a smart as they are.

Never gave any thought to were they branched off, but them being advanced slugs is crazy.

Soup@lemmy.world on 23 Aug 04:03 collapse

Yea it’s wild. Frickin’ love this stuff, especially when it’s all easy enough to learn and explain accurately enough for fun fact time.

skisnow@lemmy.ca on 23 Aug 02:06 collapse

I get the impression from the other comments that a popular YouTuber made a recent video about it, where I’m guessing he tried to be a smartass about some of the implications of “fish” being ambiguously defined, and a bunch of his more credulous viewers have got the wrong end of the stick and ran with it?

I mainly know the idea from an old QI episode that explained it as “there’s no such thing, biologically speaking”, which in turn became the title of the show’s researchers’ long-running podcast “No Such Thing As A Fish”.

NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world on 22 Aug 18:05 next collapse

Whales aren’t fish, they’re whales. There is no such thing as a fish.

FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world on 22 Aug 18:15 next collapse

Nonsense, we’re all fish

NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world on 22 Aug 18:23 next collapse

I don’t know how many times I have to say this, I AM NOT A FISH! I am a regular tasty human, and frankly I’m growing real tired of these targeted attacks. You people are ridiculous. I won’t swi-STAND! Y-we stand. I won’t stand for this!

DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social on 22 Aug 18:32 collapse

Guys I think this guy might be a fish

NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world on 22 Aug 18:38 collapse

Guys, I think this guy might be a HUGE JERK FACE!

count_duckula@discuss.tchncs.de on 22 Aug 18:57 collapse

Dunno mate, seems like a dragon to me.

NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world on 22 Aug 19:15 collapse

A dragon with a jerk for a face.

DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social on 22 Aug 21:18 collapse

No that guy’s Canadian I think

Magnum@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 22 Aug 21:29 collapse

Clearly he is a gay fish

NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world on 22 Aug 22:30 collapse

STOP TELLING PEOPLE I’M A FISH!!!

rockerface@lemmy.cafe on 23 Aug 03:57 collapse

I’m a fish, you’re a fish, OP is a fish, are there any other fish I should know about?

Hagdos@lemmy.world on 22 Aug 23:33 collapse

Whaddayamean there’s no such thing as a fish? I just ate one!

DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social on 22 Aug 18:32 next collapse

I know a doctor of marine biology who disagrees with your assessment.

Everyone that doesn’t revel in their fishness is a coward or worse, a creationist.

stray@pawb.social on 23 Aug 05:32 collapse

I don’t know how anyone could read Moby Dick and not come away convinced of their obvious fishness. Surely one’s nature and behavior are more important than one’s reproductive organs.

hperrin@lemmy.ca on 22 Aug 18:33 next collapse

Cladistically speaking, whales are just a big colony of eukaryotic clones.

DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social on 23 Aug 02:29 collapse

Tru

huf@hexbear.net on 22 Aug 18:39 next collapse

people who fish have also always known that whales are fish. not sure about the welsh though, that seems iffy.

Kolanaki@pawb.social on 22 Aug 21:22 next collapse

Whales are mammals. How is the dude on the right even being pedantic and not just outright dumb?

Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com on 22 Aug 21:32 next collapse

“Fish” isn’t a real type of animal, it’s a term of convenience for similar looking/acting things that humans have lumped together.

Its taking that back to the medieval level of “whales are fish”… Which ignores that key difference of them breathing air and not having gills.

jol@discuss.tchncs.de on 22 Aug 23:28 collapse

Calling something a fish is like calling something a tree.

skisnow@lemmy.ca on 23 Aug 01:55 collapse

you’re a tree

Revan343@lemmy.ca on 22 Aug 22:49 next collapse

Mammals are fish

Kolanaki@pawb.social on 22 Aug 22:58 collapse

Isn’t that only if they are born between February 19th and March 20th? 🤔

jol@discuss.tchncs.de on 22 Aug 23:27 collapse

Those are fishies.

chaos@beehaw.org on 22 Aug 23:58 collapse

There isn’t a simple evolutionary definition of “fish”, not the same way there is for, say, mammals. If you found the common ancestor of everything we call a mammal and said “everything descended from this one is also a mammal”, you’d be correct. If you did that for everything we call fish, every animal in the world would be a fish. Also, we decided which animals were fish mostly on vibes, so without a clear definition you can pedantically argue that everything is a fish including mammals.

DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social on 23 Aug 02:28 collapse

That’s not quite true. A lot of worms, for example, wouldn’t be fish, but all fish would be worms. Most invertebrates also wouldn’t be fish.

MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip on 22 Aug 21:44 next collapse

Generally not but some fish (Whaleshark) can be confused with a whale.

Triasha@lemmy.world on 23 Aug 02:11 collapse

Sharks aren’t fish. Humans and all other terrestrial mammals are.

Hank Green explained it.

sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 23 Aug 02:20 collapse

Sharks are fish too, if you want to include them.

But you can’t exclude the terrestrial vertebrates however you slice it.

TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 22 Aug 23:21 next collapse

all are fish i dont care

beejboytyson@lemmy.world on 23 Aug 03:19 collapse

Ah that’s the spirit!!!

[deleted] on 22 Aug 23:40 next collapse

.

azi@mander.xyz on 23 Aug 02:38 next collapse

Broke: Whales are fish because they look like other fish

Woke: Whales aren’t fish because they’re in the class Mammalia, not Pisces

Bespoke: Whales are fish because any monophyletic group that encompasses all the fishes must also include the clade Tetrapoda

Artichoke: Whales aren’t fish because fishes are a paraphyletic group that includes the entire clade Vertebrata at the exclusion of the clade Tetrapoda.

Stick and Poke: Whales are fish because they’ve developed the same bodyplan and are in the same ecological niche as the pelagic fishes.

Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com on 23 Aug 09:24 collapse

Tadpoles are fish too, right?

And they even have gills.

HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world on 23 Aug 04:47 collapse

whales are fish because they successfully went back to the ocean and i’m jealous