Bumble fish?
I see your bumble fish and raise you a water bee.
(No, I have no fucking clue what this is all about.)
8 Likes
I once interfaced with a swarm of bees at high speed on my motorcycle and I can attest that swarming bees are full of honey - so I suspect the flavour is more sweet and spicy.
Also, bee smush and honey is a remarkably tenacious composite material.
9 Likes
Came here to say that. Should be described as a protocrab, as everything is eventually crabby.
3 Likes
This sort of thing comes up in law suits more than you would think. A case often studied in law school is infamous for asking, “what is chicken?”
5 Likes
8 Likes
It’s very counterintuitive, but something like a shark or hagfish broke off earlier than other fish. So we’re more closely related to trout and other fishy fish, than we are to sharks or hagfish. And trout are more closely related to us than sharks or hagfish. This is a fun online database on this sort of info.
http://www.timetree.org/
6 Likes
Now I feel old.
4 Likes
Same with human ancestry. A person of European ancestry is quite likely more closely related to a person of East African ancestry than the East African person is related to a person from another part of their own continent.
Yet we still use the term “African” to describe the people whose ancestors didn’t migrate out of Africa just as we use the term “fish” to describe the critters whose ancestors didn’t go the “lungs and legs” route.
7 Likes
African person is not a term used in biology, it’s pretty meaningless in that context. Too much interbreeding around the world.
ETA:
and it’s confusing, because some fishy seeming things, like some lungfish, are more closely related to us than they are trout. And we’re less related to other fish that evolved into amphibious fish, like mudskippers.
4 Likes
Ah….we’re at about 30 comments in and nobody has mentioned “Crotch” Bees yet? I am profoundly disappointed in how mature you’re all being.
8 Likes
I can see why “fish” would be a problematic term in science for similar reasons, but it’s still useful if you’re using the term to describe a group of creatures living in similar circumstances.
For example, if you were talking about the impact of ocean pollution on different species it doesn’t really matter if we’re more closely related to a salmon than a salmon is to a shark, because the salmon and the shark are the ones swimming in the ocean breathing through gills while we’re the ones on the surface breathing with lungs.
5 Likes
So, whales and dolphins, you’re comfortable describing as fish?
Last I heard whales and dolphins breathe with lungs. But I do understand why ancient peoples referred to those creatures as “fish.”
3 Likes
So, lungfish. Or Betta Splendens. Air gulpers. fish?
ETA:
“fish” on land
You can call them whatever you want. I’m just saying it makes sense to have a catch-all word to describe all the limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animals with gills and fins who live in the water. Especially since most non-scientists don’t have any way to know any given species’ ancestry.
6 Likes
I am afraid to google.
4 Likes
bees are invertebrates, so yes.
1 Like
I got you. Cute little bugger.
7 Likes
If you think I’m going to use a rectal thermometer on every critter with fins and gills just to know whether I can rightly call it a “fish” or not you can guess again.
6 Likes
