-2
$\begingroup$

I really wish this question only contained the title and tags, but the website forces me to write some text.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes. All tetrapods are descendents of lobe-finned fish. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod) $\endgroup$ – Gyro Gearloose Feb 14 '16 at 15:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Gyro How does that make him a lobe-finned fish? I've never met lolmaus-Andrey Mikhaylov, so you could be right, in which case I'd be intrigued to know how he used his little fins to type this post. $\endgroup$ – Harry Vervet Feb 14 '16 at 17:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (My half-finished comment somehow got lost on my browser). I take the question a little broader. He, (and me, don't know about you(?!)) is a descendent of lobe-finned fish. And, of course, I'm not my mother nor my father. He's a lobe-finned fish in version 42k (call it that way) with shrinked dorsal fins, several times re-designed lungs and skeleton, uncountable changes on immune system and many other amendments, $\endgroup$ – Gyro Gearloose Feb 14 '16 at 17:41
7
$\begingroup$

The answer depends on whether you want to know in the common sense or in the modern scientific sense. The phrasing of the question suggests you want to know in the common sense, but the choice of the phylogenetics tag indicates you want a scientific answer.

In modern biology, the term lobe-finned fish would be formally taken as (an imprecise) convenient term for the clade Sarcopterygii. Presuming you are not an alien or computer but are human, yes, you are a lobe-finned fish (a member of the class Sarcopterygii).

In the common sense, no, you are not a fish, lobe-finned or otherwise. This would also be the answer under the old tradition of zoological taxonomy, which was based on taximetrics (measurement of an organism's form) rather on the modern phylogenetic (evolutionary relationship) basis for biological taxonomy.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I would add "ecological sense" to "common sense". Ecologically, humans are not lobe-finned fish: they do not live in water, and don't use fins for swimming. But their body structures are inherited from animals that did so. $\endgroup$ – bli Feb 14 '16 at 20:27
  • $\begingroup$ @mgkrebbs, thank you for your answer. It explicitly covers my short question. 🙇‍♂️ $\endgroup$ – lolmaus - Andrey Mikhaylov Nov 5 '19 at 7:48
  • $\begingroup$ @bli So? Beavers live in water and have flappy tails. Does it make them fish? Medieval monks believed beavers to be fish, which was a loophole allowing eating meat during fasting. Very convenient, but meaningless otherwise. $\endgroup$ – lolmaus - Andrey Mikhaylov Nov 5 '19 at 7:50
  • $\begingroup$ @lolmaus-AndreyMikhaylov That's a very good illustration of the fact that classifications may have a purely practical goal! $\endgroup$ – bli Nov 5 '19 at 7:54
  • $\begingroup$ A practical goal of fabricating a rule by neglecting the true nature of things? 😬 $\endgroup$ – lolmaus - Andrey Mikhaylov Nov 5 '19 at 8:18

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.