Are Sharks Fish?

[Coelacanth18]

Same situation with birds and reptiles as well, since birds are a monophyletic group nested within the reptiles. This was essentially why I made a joke earlier about something that people in the thread have now taken seriously, which is the idea that if you're going to categorize animals phylogenetically you should carry that out to the furthest logical conclusion. There's plenty of semantic or philosophical arguments to be had about whether a shark is a "fish"... but at the end of the day the word fish is not a taxonomic unit. There's a group of organisms that society generally agrees are fish, and sharks are included in that group.

Is a bird a reptile? Yes, but who cares? It's also a bird. Are humans fish? Yes, but who cares? I've embraced my fish ancestors, it's been a long time coming for the rest of you

If we consider sharks fish why aren't all tetrapods fish?

Because then we have 2 page forum debates about whether elephants are fish

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Because then we have 2 page forum debates about whether elephants are fish

Boom.

 

[Julio C Castro]

How is random people on a message board better backup than websites for shark organizations, national geographic, NOAA, major aquariums, and hundreds of other reputable places?

I second this as well! Also perhaps have this presumably physician reach out via social media to any organization relating to shark or fish biology if they’re so steadfast with their ideas.

 

[WalkingAgnatha]

What is the logic for this?

, which both live under water, have gills, can breathe through water, have fins, etc,

Yes I agree that fish are probably a catch all term but from that perspective couldn't you argue that other what are now considered inaccurate polyphyletic also are still the same thing and thus would fall under it's classification? Like saying whales are fish, etc.

 

[Great Argus]

have gills, can breathe through water,

Yes I agree that fish are probably a catch all term but from that perspective couldn't you argue that other what are now considered inaccurate polyphyletic also are still the same thing and thus would fall under it's classification? Like saying whales are fish, etc.

@TinoPup already excluded whales from those two quoted specifics.

 

[Dassie rat]

Because from an evolutionary viewpoint what we call "fish" is not a monophyletic group. Some "fish" are evolutionary more closely related to elephants than to other "fish" , as they share a more recent common ancestor.

Source: Home

This includes all jawed vertebrates as members of the Gnathostomata, which excludes the Agnatha. Therefore, if sharks are fish, so are tetropods.

 

[Tetzoo Quizzer]

Similarly, Apes are phylogenetically closer to Old World Monkeys than either of these are to New World Monkeys; therefore, if we want a cladistic group “Monkeys”, Apes (including Humans) must be part of this group!
Essentially, the English language was not designed to automatically name cladistic groups; sharks are fish, or sharks are not fish, depending on how you define fish!

 

[Dassie rat]

Boom.

If this animal is a mixture of two animals, it must be a chimaera

 

[WalkingAgnatha]

@TinoPup already excluded whales from those two quoted specifics.

So? I was just saying under that logic because why would this morphological definition be above someone elses, like one that Linnaeus had? Also her definition would include amphibians as fish.

 

[aardvark250]

I mean if all tetrapods are fish, and tetrapods include mammals, and whales are mammals, then technically you could say whales are fish, just not in the traditional sense.

 

[CMP]

Because then we have 2 page forum debates about whether elephants are fish

The answer is of course that it would be silly to call all chordates fish and it is much more useful to have birds separate from reptiles, and tetrapod classes separate from fish classes.

 

[Kakapo]

Taking in account that for modern taxonomist (and hence most Zoochatters, who follow them blindly) all vertebrates are fishes, then I don't see a reason for considere the sharks as non-fishes.

I also see no reason for the continous harassment and bullying that Bengal Tiger apparently is receiving in various threads of the forum. But since I read very little of the forum I probably have not enough info for judge this correctly. Anyway, I like him and his posts, and I hope he stays here

P. D. after publishing I saw that the "all vertebrates are fish" issue already has been mentioned in the thread. Sorry for not checking before, it's already a very long and tiring thread to read at once.

 

[IndianRhino]

I also see no reason for the continous harassment and bullying that Bengal Tiger apparently is receiving in various threads of the forum. But since I read very little of the forum I probably have not enough info for judge this correctly.

I promise no one here is trying to harass or bully him in any way. Many of us are just getting frustrated with him constantly posting things without taking a second to reread it and think about whether or not his posts are adding any value to the forum. We’ve asked for him to do so many times, in a much kinder manner. But him promising to do so, like Argus quoted earlier on, but failing to keep up with his promise is what’s getting many of us a bit annoyed.

Anyway, I like him and his posts, and I hope he stays here

It’s not that we don’t like him and want him to be gone. We’d just like it if he’d actually try and listen to the advice other, more experienced zoochatters are giving him, rather than just acknowledging it.

@Bengal Tiger I hope you understand that we don’t hate you or anything. Don’t take it personally, all we’re trying to do is help you out on this site. Whether you take the advice or not is up to you but if you choose not to, please don’t get upset if people continue to correct you for things like this.

 

[Great Argus]

I also see no reason for the continous harassment and bullying that Bengal Tiger apparently is receiving in various threads of the forum. But since I read very little of the forum I probably have not enough info for judge this correctly. Anyway, I like him and his posts, and I hope he stays here

Harassment and bullying are not the right words. He is constantly making himself look rather silly and childish across the forum, and many of us have been trying to help him understand how he can portray himself better and look more mature. He has asked for feedback on a few different occasions as well as made various promises, nearly all of which he continues to promptly forget, even as quickly as half a page later. The continued lack of effort and follow through on his own promises is making it very difficult for many of us to avoid replying meanly or in condescension. I would be very pleased to see him step up to the plate and start improving his posts with all the feedback he has received, but I am sorry to say that I will be very surprised if that happens at this point...

 

[WalkingAgnatha]

I mean if all tetrapods are fish, and tetrapods include mammals, and whales are mammals, then technically you could say whales are fish, just not in the traditional sense.

Yes which is what I'm saying, I'm only making these examples to challenge TinoPup's view.

 

[TinoPup]

Yes which is what I'm saying, I'm only making these examples to challenge TinoPup's view.

You're not challenging anything. Sharks are fish. Mammals are not.

 

[Hipporex]

Taking in account that for modern taxonomist (and hence most Zoochatters, who follow them blindly) all vertebrates are fishes, then I don't see a reason for considere the sharks as non-fishes.

No need for the condescending language. Most of us ZooChatters follow modern taxonomists because these are the experts of their field. Do you have a PhD in taxonomic studies we should know about? It's also worth noting we're not "blind" followers. Many of us are often speculative of the latest data but as time progresses, and more evidence points one way or the other, then we make up our personal determinations. Still, it may be regarded as best to keep up to date with the latest research because these taxonomists are, at the end of the day, the ones doing the studies, not us behind computer screens.

 

[CMP]

You're not challenging anything. Sharks are fish. Mammals are not.

From a cladistic and linguistic standpoint, yes. But from a taxonomic standpoint, which is what we should be mostly using here on ZC, it is debatable. This is because including sharks with the rest of the fish means that you would also have to include tetrapods, which includes mammals, otherwise fish are a paraphyletic group.

 

[TinoPup]

From a cladistic and linguistic standpoint, yes. But from a taxonomic standpoint, which is what we should be mostly using here on ZC, it is debatable. This is because including sharks with the rest of the fish means that you would also have to include tetrapods, which includes mammals, otherwise fish are a polyphyletic group.

This post wasn't about taxonomy. It was about a babysitter.

 

[CMP]

This post wasn't about taxonomy. It was about a babysitter.

I don't see why the discussion should not be about taxonomy. It is a valid discussion to have for a thread with such a title.