Are Sharks Fish?

ChunkyMunky pengopus said:
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.
Click to expand...

In point of fact, this is the case whether you include sharks or not - so the inclusion of sharks literally has no bearing on the matter :p the only way one can taxonomically define fish as a monophyletic group which excludes mammals is to exclude lobe-finned fish too.

From a linguistic point of view, GHOTI is also a fish ;)
 
Hipporex said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ignore him, At this point I'm convinced Kakapo is a troll, his behavior and his views on taxonomy being from the 1300s or something has been pointed out so many times there's already been an entire thread made for it, and he still constantly makes a point of him being righteous and everyone else just being 'sheeple'.
 
Great Argus said:
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...
Click to expand...
I appreciate the incredible positivity Argus, you are starting to sound like me IRL. You know, I've been making an effort, it just takes more time for people like me. Also, @Kakapo, no one was bullying me, they are just trying to help me seem more mature, even if their approach is not as pleasant as some of the less grumpy members of the forum.
 
Bengal Tiger said:
You know, I've been making an effort, it just takes more time for people like me.
Click to expand...
We understand it may take a while but you’ve been claiming that you’re “making an effort” for months now and we’ve failed to see much improvement. I’m glad you’ve been trying and for the sake of all of us and this site, I hope you continue to do so and take it up a notch :).

Bengal Tiger said:
even if their approach is not as pleasant as some of the less grumpy members of the forum.
Click to expand...
You’re not helping your case here by calling us grumpy :p

For the record, none of us are grumpy because we’re mean. We’ve tried helping you and were initially as kind as could be but like Argus said, it’s become quite impossible for us to continue replying to you with that same kindness and patience when we’re just seeing repetitive behavior.

Anyways, I think it’s about time this conversation comes to an end. Before anyones feelings are hurt and before we get seriously off topic. Just know, continuing to act this way is likely going to get you some more “grumpy” feedback from us “grumpy members”.
 
IndianRhino said:
We understand it may take a while but you’ve been claiming that you’re “making an effort” for months now and we’ve failed to see much improvement. I’m glad you’ve been trying and for the sake of all of us and this site, I hope you continue to do so and take it up a notch :).


You’re not helping your case here by calling us grumpy :p

For the record, none of us are grumpy because we’re mean. We’ve tried helping you and were initially as kind as could be but like Argus said, it’s become quite impossible for us to continue replying to you with that same kindness and patience when we’re just seeing repetitive behavior.

Anyways, I think it’s about time this conversation comes to an end. Before anyones feelings are hurt and before we get seriously off topic. Just know, continuing to act this way is likely going to get you some more “grumpy” feedback from us “grumpy members”.
Click to expand...
Well, I’ll do what I can ;) I really do want to be a contributing member to the site, so I’m gonna make my self think more before I post, also it ain’t you who’s grumpy.
 
Bengal Tiger said:
Well, I’ll do what I can ;) I really do want to be a contributing member to the site, so I’m gonna make my self think more before I post, also it ain’t you who’s grumpy.
Click to expand...
I sincerely hope this time you actually mean it and won’t forget about this in like 2 days or something, like in the past. ;)

Well then I’m glad I got my thoughts out without sounding condescending or grumpy. However, I can assure you most if not all the other members who have replied to you about this feel very similarly so I think what I said applies to everyone who commented about it.
 
I suspect that the original person meant that dolphins are not fish. And confused sharks with dolphins. :D :D :D

A human is technically a specialized colony of bacteria, but this flies over the head of most people.
 
My two cents on the matter:
By any reasonable non-phylogenetic definition, sharks are fish: they are aquatic vertebrates with gills and limbs in the form of fins.
Interestingly, phylogenetics does give us a reason to not consider sharks fish. As has been stated, fish are paraphyletic unless tetrapods are to be included, so a monophyletic definition of “fish” could include ray-finned fishes only, to the exclusion of cartilaginous, jawless, and lobe-finned “fish”. I suspect this might make more sense than calling all terrestrial, bony animals fish.
Of course, I suppose that the term “fish” is better used in the convenient traditional sense.
 
Surely, sharks are fish. Despite there are a few exceptions of fish adapted lung-like breathing organs, if you want to persuade others giving that sharks breath using oxygen dissolved in water
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top