• schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 дней назад

    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.

      • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 дней назад

        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.

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          ·
          11 дней назад

          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.

          • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 дней назад

            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.

                • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 дней назад

                  Snakes are tetrapods m8. Specifically referring to the clade Tetrapoda, within which snakes have secondarily lost their four limbs.

                • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 дней назад

                  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.

            • multifariace@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 дней назад

              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.

            • Akasazh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 дней назад

              Maybe we should base s podcast around the fact that, according to the Oxford dictionary, there is no such thing…

              And other inane trivia

            • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              11 дней назад

              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.

              • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 дней назад

                Same with peppers, zucchini, and all forms of squash.

                Also, strawberries aren’t fruit, botanically speaking because the seeds aren’t inside

        • Rug_Pisser@piefed.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 дней назад

          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?

          • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 дней назад

            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.

        • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 дней назад

          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.

          • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 дней назад

            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.

          • GreenBean@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 дней назад

            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?

          • blind3rdeye@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 дней назад

            “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.

      • Wolf314159@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 дней назад

        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.

    • gwl [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 дней назад

      Context is what matters, I agree, except in contexts where the difference is important (conservation, biology, ecology)

      • TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 дней назад

        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.

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    11 дней назад
    • 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.
      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 дней назад

        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
          ·
          11 дней назад

          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.

          • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 дней назад

            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
              ·
              9 дней назад

              “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
      ·
      11 дней назад

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

  • Lumisal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    11 дней назад

    Hmmmm… The guide didn’t say the mountain goat isn’t a mountain… So I guess I’ll go catch me me own mountain!

      • PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 дней назад

        I remember a pizza spot that came and went, made it a couple years in total, that sincerely offered rocky mountain oysters on pizza.

        They were trying to stand out in the most anciently-gentrified strip of a very culturally southern (but tryna do better! kinda! not really!) city.

        The number of lazy folks who ate cow nuts by accident, primarily the crowd of “I’m too boringly affluent to understand much of anything, but damn do I want to stand out, the cool new spots with the weird menu items make me cool, right?!”

        spoiler

        Overall a wildly problematic thing to do at all, but then again it points the finger back at all of us to say “do you know what you eat? Why is that a line when other things aren’t?” And etc., which makes for a less fun and judgmental take lol.

        The funny part for me is the way the place tried to succeed for the worst reasons, and the way the dude bros got mad after tryna be the cool guys. Angry dude bros and half-surprise testicles on your pizza is just a magical USian match made in…not heaven, but wherever we make them.

    • khannie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 дней назад

      That one’s to catch out foreigners. I’m convinced.

      Source: foreigner that will never be caught out but might very well have if he didn’t know a South Dakotan.

      Do they actually serve those anywhere?

  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 дней назад

    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.