Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

atomfullerene t1_iy60q10 wrote

>It's also worth noting that fish in particular may be so widely varied because they're miscategorized; there's a push among some biologists to split up "fish" into several differently groups because there's so much more variation among "fish" than among equivalent groups.

While this is true, the splits would be jawless fish, sharks and rays, lungfish and kin, and everything else. So a huge chunk of the diversity of fish, and especially the colorful fish, is actually in one group of fish.

3

Any-Broccoli-3911 t1_iy62m35 wrote

All fishes are one group if you include tetrapodomorpha (amphibian, reptiles including bird, mammals).

https://biologue.plos.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2020/05/Fig1_FToL2-scaled.jpg

If you don't, then fishes are not one group. Not even bony fishes.

2

atomfullerene t1_iy6544e wrote

> Not even bony fishes.

Sure, but there are 8 living species of bony fish that would not be in the group, so the vast majority of all color and shape diversity in fish is in that one group.

3

Dorocche t1_iy692fm wrote

And it's far more accurate to say those 8 species aren't "true" fish than to say that fish doesn't exist as a category.

1