[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Definition of 'fish', & GSP is displeased ;-)
> << In the long run, I think "fish" should be
> restricted to
> Actinopterygii. It's already slowly retreating from the
> chondrichthyans in my impression."
> I've felt that way for nigh on a decade now, and I couldn't
> more. 40,000+ species is a pretty damn good chunk of
> taxonomic and
> ecological diversity to bear that particular banner.
I would be more flexible on this point, with a view to the history of the word
'fish', and apply it to all non-tetrapod vertebrates. Not just
actinopterygians (the ray-finned fishes), but also basal sarcopterygians
(lungfishes and coelacanths) and cartilaginous fishes (sharks, rays,
chimaeras). Lampreys and hagfishes too. This corresponds to the historical
usage of 'Pisces' ("fishes"). And after all, things like hagfish and ratfish
and lungfish lie outside the Actinopterygii. So the word 'fish' is pretty
entrenched in the English language for lots of non-actinopterygians.
In general, I think we can afford to be imprecise and sloppy with vernacular
terms, such as 'fish' and 'bird' and 'worm'. That's why we have scientific
nomenclature: to ensure a rigorous and universal system for the naming of
animals (and all other life-forms).
> What is wrong with people. When the topic changes change
> the damn subject
Opinion noted. I guess threads take on a life of their own, and can sometimes
diverge beyond their original subject lines.