Watch nobody actually get angry at this. It would be just my luck

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Yep, that would be the fish clade. The only way to draw a clade that includes all extant animals we'd consider fish is to include all of vertebrata. You could also consider the fish clade to just be ray-finned fishes if you want, but then sharks, rays, coelacanths, mudskippers, etc would not be fish, which seems absurd to me (but is also cladistically valid).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    But fish are not a clade. Mice are not fish. Birds are not fish. I don't know how else to explain it to you. Do you understand that there can be terms for groups of living things that are not clades or that have no scientific basis whatsoever? Did you know that there is no difference between frogs and toads except that, broadly speaking, we call the ugly warty ones toads?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (5 replies)