I’m studying insects at the moment and came across a couple of cracking beetles:
Peacock - not a vegetable.
But definitely a dick
Oh yes look at this bird with its mostly white plumage, except for the males during the mating season. What should I call it, I know I shall call it the black-headed gull. A fitting name. Hopefully we don’t come across a different gull with a black head year round, or that name is going to be stupid, but I’m sure that won’t happen.
Sea Lion - not a Lion.
Also, does not taste like sea.
Also, got at least a B average.
So you are telling me that Mayfly may or may not fly?
Uh, I sure hope it does!
It may fly.
But may not fly in may.
Maybe.
Not sure what the original source of this was, other than an old tumblr post
That looks like some Diogenes shit right there
Here’s the original tumblr thread just in case
Hello my baby, hello my honey, hello my ragtime gal.
Nobody has mentioned mountain oysters.
Rocky mountain oysters
Bull Fries.
Is the guy on stage squatting one out?
A mountain goat is a goat, it’s just not in genus Capra.
Fun trip and interesting trip through taxonomy, though, in addition to the gags. A collection of wikipedia articles would be a nice companion.
Context is what matters, I agree, except in contexts where the difference is important (conservation, biology, ecology)
it’s just not in genus Capra
That’s definitionally what goats are. It’s close, being in the same subfamily, but then so are sheep.
Common names of animals often describe phenotype not genotype. If it looks like a ducks, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s common name is duck. There are lots of animals with common names grouping them by physical characteristics and ecological niche rather than genetic relationship, especially animals named longed before we had any real scientific study of their genetics.
I think words like “goat” should have a generic and unstudied applicability: if it looks like a goat, and acts like a goat, it’s a goat.
A mountain goat looks like a goat and acts like a goat, therefore it is a goat.
A sheep neither looks like a goat, nor acts like a goat, therefore it is not a goat.
All semantics, of course. If you want to understand goat to mean “member of genus Capra”, you certainly can. If you want me to make goat mean that, you’re out of luck.
I’m willing to grant you the distinctions between goats and true goats, in deference to the science of biology. I am not a monster.
I’m willing to grant you the distinctions between goats and true goats, in deference to the science of biology.
Well that’s my point: this post is about how common names contrast with actual, rigid taxonomical definitions. :p
Like the colloquial word “goat” fits, but your comment read to me, given the context of the post, like you were saying goats can exist outside Capra via a technical definition, which isn’t true.
Also this post is a joke, as King Bird isn’t taxonomically defined.
now do it with fish!
My doctors office as a young kid had a mural wall with a bunch of silly fish. They had the names written next to cartoonish drawings in an undersea landscape. One example was the catfish had the face of a cat.
One example was the catfish had the face of a cat.
Absolutely outrageous
Phylogenetically, “fish” are simply all non-tetrapod vertebrates.
Behold, a fish:
Snakes are tetrapods m8. Specifically referring to the clade Tetrapoda, within which snakes have secondarily lost their four limbs.
so in other words its a catch-all for legless animals?
No, and not even close. Consider a tree of life. Formally, vertebrates are subphylum Vertebrata within the phylum Chordata (the chordates). That already eliminates most of the animals, as most animals are invertebrates – defined as being outside Vertebrata. All the arthropods, molluscs, echinoderms (like starfish), sponges, cnidarians {jellyfish, corals, anemones, etc.), nematodes, and so on are invertebrates.
Instead of just assaulting you with terminology, here’s a phylogenetic tree showing the vertebrates within the chordates and the chordates next to our nearest neighbors.
To get fish from the vertebrates, you simply exclude the tetrapods (clade Tetrapoda), which are the four-legged vertebrates. However, even within the tetrapods, plenty of tetrapods also have no legs (snakes, for example); they’ve simply lost them through evolution, a phenomenon called “secondary loss”.
Here’s a phylogenetic tree, meanwhile, within the vertebrates. Anything outside “Tetrapoda” on that tree is a fish.
TL;DR: There are many, many, many legless animals that aren’t fish.
Maybe we should base s podcast around the fact that, according to the Oxford dictionary, there is no such thing…
And other inane trivia
Yes, we don’t disagree on the biology… I’m just emphasizing the nature of colloquial language as a crowdsourced effort and distinguishing it from the technical rigors of taxonomy.
True or false: The tomato is a fruit and a vegetable.
True in that it’s a fruit botanically and a vegetable culinarily (or, less arbitrarily for the latter, that it’s a part of a plant consumed for food).
A carrot, as another fun example, is a root botanically, a vegetable culinarily, and, in the European Union, a fruit legally as a carve-out for laws about making jams.
Same with peppers, zucchini, and all forms of squash.
Also, strawberries aren’t fruit, botanically speaking because the seeds aren’t inside
This is very jackdaw.
It’s clobberin’ time.
Wait until you find out what a fish is.
Either everything is fish, or nothing is
if it looks like a goat, and acts like a goat, it’s a goat.
Logic like this is why people used to consider mammals like dolphins and beavers as fish. Stop it.
“fish” is perhaps a bad example to make your point with, given that that’s a non-technical term that doesn’t refer to any particular genetic branch of the animal kingdom - hence the podcast “no such thing as a fish”. So I’d say that calling a mountain goat a goat is supported by the idea that many unrelated animals are called fish.
Doplphins and beavers don’t act or look like fish to me. Dolphins maybe I could understand if you were an ancient person who lived inland, but beavers?
But I guess part of crowdsourcing is that you get some really stupid people on the project.
Some communities and parishes in the St Louis , MO area still recognize a 17th century French Catholic decision that, as aquatic animals, Beaver fall inside the dispensation that “fish” is acceptable for consumption on Fridays. Soooo, no matter its appearance, it is kinda fish?
Who tf listens to Catholic’s opinions on taxonomy? Especially 17th century ones?
Catholics in St Louis who really want to eat beavers on Fridays apparently
St. Louis Catholics when in relation to Friday apparently. Also I feel like this is one of those spite filled fights that’s been going on for centuries and at this point it’s easier to jest leave em alone.
Historians, I guess.
Well you talk about ‘goat like behaviour’, how many different types of goat cling to the side of mountains like some kind of Rock Lobster?
My experience of goats is mainly in fields like, oh I dunno, a sheep?
Goats cosplay being in mountains no matter where they are. Goat yards are litered with large object topped by goats. Goat yoga is a thing.
Found the python programmer.
Nice ouroboros definition
genus Capra
Ahh so thats what Capra Demon is
The goat head on the dude didn’t give it away?
It May Fly, but does it???
Does it???
It does for a bit, and it’s more like a Junefly in my experience
In Canada they’re junebugs
Hmmmm… The guide didn’t say the mountain goat isn’t a mountain… So I guess I’ll go catch me me own mountain!
Mayfly indeed may fly, give it a pass!
Also that is around spring/summer.
Which I find pretty accurate for their name since they might not hatch immediately at the end of April, where spring starts. It makes more sense for Mayflies to be mostly absent in April, but everywhere in May.
Do people not consider May to be between Spring and Summer? Legit confused here.
Mayfly implies only active in May whereas it’s active in a broader season of months
Depends on the hemisphere you live in.
most south american “foxes” arnt true foxes, genus vulpes they have thier own lineages. new world porcupine isnt actually closely related to old world porcupine(different evolution ).
extinct american cheetah, wasnt actually a cheetah but a PUMA relative, a different species.
- 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.
Camel spider - Not a camel, Not a spider.
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.
Bees are crustaceans‽
Were.
Coconut crab - Not a coconut
Cocconut tree - Not a tree
Wait… What are they then? Really tall shrubs?
I thought they were ferns but I was wrong, turns out they are grass.
Palm trees are angiosperms, which means flowering plants. They are monocots which means their seeds produce a single, leaf-like cotyledon when they sprout. This makes palms closely related to grasses and bamboos.
But, in fact, a hermit crab!
Have you ever fucked a coconut?
Tried, once. Dick was too big.
The coconut’s?
Porcelain crab – Not a crab.
And not made of porcelain
We’re headed toward a weird collision of memes, where everything becomes crabs, but nothing is one.
No Such Thing As A Fish
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.
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.
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.
“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.
- Imitation Crab - a crab
Hermit Crab - what kind of hermit would be so obsessed with real estate deals?
I never see a hermit crab by itself, there’s always at least a hundred of them together
a king crab is a hermit crab.
Bro needs to make a decision. Can’t be both a king and a hermit.
king crabs arnt really crabs, but a type of hermit crab.
Ooh that means hermit crabs aren’t really crabs but actually hermit crabs!
Convergent evolution.
Also, horseshoe crabs are apparently arachnids now. The largest arachnids in fact
Also sea spiders arnt spiders at all, a sister group and basal of chelicterata. as many of them dont have 8 legs, some have 5, and others have 6.
Ah, more of an autonomous singleton.
