[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Definition of 'fish', & GSP is displeased ;-)
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Tim Williams <email@example.com> wrote:
> Andreas Johansson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>ÂAnd after all, things like hagfish and ratfish
>> and lungfish lie outside the Actinopterygii. ÂSo the word
>> 'fish' is pretty entrenched in the English language for lots
>> of non-actinopterygians.
>> It's also entrenched for a number of non-vertebrates (eg.
> True; but 'starfish' is an exception that proves the rule. ÂOverall, the vast
> majority of names ending in 'fish' are, well, fishes (= non-tetrapod
> We can allow for some poetic license when dealing with common names. ÂThe
> sand-tiger and smooth-hound are sharks, and the sea robin and sea raven are
> actinopterygian fishes, for example. ÂThese names don't detract from what we
> commonly understand 'tiger' or 'hound' or 'robin' or 'raven' to mean.
So why couldn't or shouldn't "hagfish" and "lungfish" be treated the
same way? There's not all that many non-actinopterygian craniates with
frequently used common names ending in "fish" that I can think of.
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?