• TheTechnician27M
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago
    • Horseshoe crab – Not a crab.
    • Hermit crab – Not a crab.
    • King crab – Not a crab (but, in fact, a hermit crab).
    • Porcelain crab – Not a crab.
      • TheTechnician27M
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 month ago

        Not only that, but horseshoe crabs are closer to camel spiders than they are to crabs – closer, in fact, than horseshoe crabs are to bees, which themselves are (recently) crustaceans.

        Not sure why you got downvoted, btw; great example.

      • TheTechnician27M
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s actually not true, funnily! There’s no such monophyletic thing as a fish, but “fish” has a very clear, commonly accepted definition in modern science, namely non-tetrapod vertebrates.

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Which is the point.

          All these animal names (goat / crab / fish / etc) have accepted meanings. They may not match specific genus, but that’s ok.

          • TheTechnician27M
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            All these animal names (goat / crab / fish / etc) have accepted meanings. They may not match specific genus, but that’s ok.

            That’s not what I’m referring to. “Fish” has an accepted scientific meaning. The accepted scientific meaning for “goat” is the genus Capra; the accepted scientific meaning for “crab” is the infraorder Brachyura. Among phylogeneticists, a “fish” is a non-tetrapod vertebrate, which unlike the other two is paraphyletic but nevertheless creates a completely rigid definition. It’s not about “matching a specific genus”; it’s about being well-defined among scientists.

            These all have strict definitions that don’t resort to “well, it looks like [thing], so toss it on the pile.” There literally is such a thing as a fish.

            • wewbull@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              “They all have strict definitions…” in a scientific setting. Not in a colloquial one, which is where most people live. Language isn’t precise in everyday usage, and words have multiple definitions. A mountain goat may not be a goat (scientific definition), but it is a goat (colloquial definition) and it’s certainly the GOAT (Greatest of all time) of shaming mountain climbers.

    • artifex@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      We’re headed toward a weird collision of memes, where everything becomes crabs, but nothing is one.