Fish absolutely exist cladistically, OP just didn’t want to admit they’re a land dwelling fish. You believe the implications of cladistics or you don’t, cowards.
I’d also argue it’s relatively easy to separate fish-fish from land fish from land fish that became sea fish again to bully the fish fish.
Seems so. Wikipedia tells there are seven classes of vertebrates:
Agnatha (jawless fishes, paraphyletic)
Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes)
Osteichthyes (bony fishes, paraphyletic)
Amphibia (amphibians)
Reptilia (reptiles, paraphyletic)
Aves (birds)
Mammalia (mammals)
So yes, fishes is the same thing as vertebrates.
Probably because if you were a vertebrate living in the sea, you needed some sort of gills and fins and such. And those are what makes people assume something is a “fish”.
Considering that you misspelled the name of a common term and that’s not a biological classification I’m going to stand by what the doctorates who taught my zoology courses said.
Fish absolutely exist cladistically, OP just didn’t want to admit they’re a land dwelling fish. You believe the implications of cladistics or you don’t, cowards.
I’d also argue it’s relatively easy to separate fish-fish from land fish from land fish that became sea fish again to bully the fish fish.
Is fish just another name for vertebrates ?
Nah. You could have a fish that evolved out of having a spine (see: Chuck Schumer) but you can’t evolve out of a clade.
Seems so. Wikipedia tells there are seven classes of vertebrates:
So yes, fishes is the same thing as vertebrates.
Probably because if you were a vertebrate living in the sea, you needed some sort of gills and fins and such. And those are what makes people assume something is a “fish”.
You sound exactly like a specimen from the Dunning-Krueger clade
I’m not gonna lie man this one sounded better in your head
Considering that you misspelled the name of a common term and that’s not a biological classification I’m going to stand by what the doctorates who taught my zoology courses said.