What they are trying to say: One cannot taxonomically group every animal we consider fish without also including all the mammals and i think even reptiles and birds. that’s because there are multiple taxonomic branches of fish that split off of the trunk before our ancestors started to walk on land, and not all of the fish in our branch decided to go on land, and continued their own branch. therefore yes: whales are fish and so are you. what does this mean? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
it is technically correct which is, of course, the best kind of correct.
I understand that and completely agree, but comparing taxonomical categories with common categorizations such as “fish” is also missing a big point. You can make better comparisons to get people to understand that taxonomy is made up and not reliable to follow religiously, barely even works as a guideline
All mammals are taxonomically fish. Perhaps even all chordates. YOU are a fish!
After this conversation, I wish I was.
What they are trying to say: One cannot taxonomically group every animal we consider fish without also including all the mammals and i think even reptiles and birds. that’s because there are multiple taxonomic branches of fish that split off of the trunk before our ancestors started to walk on land, and not all of the fish in our branch decided to go on land, and continued their own branch. therefore yes: whales are fish and so are you. what does this mean? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
it is technically correct which is, of course, the best kind of correct.
I understand that and completely agree, but comparing taxonomical categories with common categorizations such as “fish” is also missing a big point. You can make better comparisons to get people to understand that taxonomy is made up and not reliable to follow religiously, barely even works as a guideline