buggiepie

don't jump me but i probably belong more to the "humans are fish" category lollll. didn't realize there was a real debate over this but i mean. i don't see how humans don't count as lobe-finned fish haha. what's the difference between calling humans fish and calling humans vertebrates? (is there functionally a distinction between fish and vertebrates?? i've never actually considered this before! okay, wait, i guess that's what this question is actually asking haha) what about calling us amniotes and cynodonts? they're all clades that we're included in. one could argue that we should be saying non-terrestrial fish like we've started saying non-avian dinosaurs. the only way i can think of to genuinely argue for fish only being paraphyletic is to consider it a matter of body structure rather than phylogenetics (is that the argument people are making? cause it's a legit one, if so.)

anyway, i think it's just a matter of bias. we pick and choose what terminology we use based off of what is most comfortable, clear, and appealing to us. like, a lot of people consider Aves to be a class when birds also belong to Class Reptilia---how does that make any sense? the levels at which we assign taxonomic clades is completely subjective lol. so, in practice, i use "fish" in the paraphyletic sense because it's the easiest way to go about things, but i certainly have no issue following it up with the classic, "☝️🤓 well technically, all vertebrates are actually fish." i've actually gone by the username "your favorite lobe-finned fish" in a couple group chats before lol.

this is maybe a little off topic, but i feel like people like to forget that our taxonomic system is ultimately made for humans by humans, not by nature. i love taxonomy (shoutout linnaeus), and it's an extremely important tool for biologists, but the second you start treating the rules of any kind of human-made categorization system invented to describe a natural phenomenon (especially anything to do with biology) as if they're laws of nature, you're actually kinda succumbing to the logical fallacy of nominative determinism lol. these species didn't tell us their names like they're pokémon---they're names that various people and communities came up with for them, and are subject to bias, mistakes, and most crucially redundancy and obsoletion.

i just think it's hilarious how subjective our taxonomic levels are lol. there's a reason we fight like dogs over whether populations are a species, subspecies, or entire separate genus. when phylogenetics concerns determining how long ago two populations diverged, how much they changed, and the degree of introgression, we're seeking an objective truth that actually exists---so i have no issue with people squabbling over the arrangement and timeline of a phylogenetic tree. but when it comes to squabbling over levels at which we should group taxa, it starts to sound a little silly to me. maybe this is just cause i'm prone to monophyletic-favoring logical reasoning, but as far as i'm concerned, our current setup is no more scientifically valid or accurate than considering every single organism it's own species. the concept of any taxonomic level is completely man-made and constantly-changing (and only about 300 years old!), and as such it's just a matter of personal preference as we have no rigid, perfectly accurate definitions or perfectly understood natural laws of speciation to uphold them to. so personally, i just prefer we try to keep things as clear and understandable without overgeneralizing or splitting hairs unnecessarily haha.

@thedragonboi real asf, i forgot to include this parallel in the initial version of this response but that argument i mentioned for fish being a body type descriptor instead of a taxonomic class would work like the "worm" category, like how there's flatworms and roundworms and segmented worms, and they can all count as worms without having to be monophyletic. and it would work because worms aren't just legless animals, they're specifically soft-bodied legless invertebrates, so whales and dolphins would still not count as fish cause they don't have gills. like i think fish is a good descriptor of an animal that we shouldn't throw out cause everyone has a pretty solid understanding of what a fish generally is. but wait wdym sharks aren't fish. they're cartilaginous fishes aren't they?? do people not count that as a fish anymore?? that's bs why should bony fish be the only true fish

Some of these mini originals are available in my online shop which is open until July 22nd. They are all based on wildlife encountered in the last two months while helping out around my local nature reserve in Yorkshire. ☀️

There are also prints and art books available 🌼

can't tell you my #1 cause i'm gatekeeping her for my research rn and don't want anyone to steal my research idea 🤫

but ahhhh that's such a hard question otherwise omg. my fav would probably have to be the scale-eating cichlid because they're such an amazing example of frequency-dependent selection!! also just!! what's up with that morphology???? what!!! i love it

aesthetically speaking there's a lot of contenders. not saying that the cichlid isn't cute in it's own right, but man, leopard morays...? or morays in general?? or lionfish or oarfish??? frilled sharks with their notochords and crazy teeth!!! squirrelfish, frogfish, leafy seadragons, ohhhh mannnnnn. and there's tons i'm not even thinking of right now cause i'm putting myself on the spot. i love fish yo.

how could i forget my beloved.

ratfish

also known as the "unreal fucking fish" (my proposal. approval pending.)