I'm surprised to learn that it is surprising that eels are fish. I mean, they live in water, they have fins, they're generally fish-shaped... What's more surprising is their incredible life cycle and reproductive journey. I'm surprised the author didn't put that in the title.

▲ Vinnl 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's a brilliant title. I thought: huh, surely that's not a surprise? If that's a surprise, there must be more to eels than I know - which of course is what the article is actually about. If the title was just "eels have an interesting life cycle, actually", I probably wouldn't have realised how interesting it actually was.

▲ yohbho 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

QI said (roll podcast title) There is no such thing as a fish, since that group is unbelievably diverse.

Strange that birds are dinosaurs, while Pterosaurs are not. Where is the bipedal fish that looks like a reptile or mamal, but is secretely a fish, too?

▲

mutatio 6 days ago | parent [-]

I think it's not about diversity, but lineage. The phenotype for "fish" is so tight and well defined; a salmon is closer related to a human in the tree of life than to a coelacanth even though both are categorised as "fish".

	▲	Tagbert 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think you got that comparison backwards. A coelacanth is a lobe-finned fish which is the group from which tetrapods, and thus humans, evolved. A salmon is a ray-finned fish which is a very different group. These groups diverged sometime around 300MYA.

▲ rzzzt 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If not fish, why fish-shaped?

▲ Joker_vD 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oh, but you should not classify living beings according to their habitat and behaviour; classification based on the degree of the phylogenetical relationship is obviously superior and the only truly reasonble one.

▲ hatthew 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

You should classify living beings according to a system that is helpful to understand and discuss the livings beings in a given context. "Fish" isn't a specific taxon in the standard biological taxonomy, but is rather a description of a specific set of common physical attributes and behaviors that is helpful to differentiate some organisms from other organisms. Regardless of official taxonomy, for 99.99% of people it's helpful to describe eels as fish.

▲ klipt 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Phylogenetically, land vertebrates like us are fish too - we're descended from lobe finned fish.

So technically whales are fish, because all mammals are fish!

	▲	peanut-walrus 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Of course whales are fish. Just look at them.

▲ mkehrt 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I can't tell if you are being facetious or not.

▲ Joker_vD 6 days ago | parent [-]

I am; for a more serious take see [0].

    Now, there’s something wrong with saying “whales are phylogenetically just as closely related to bass, herring, and salmon as these three are related to each other.” What’s wrong with the statement is that it’s false. But saying “whales are a kind of fish” isn’t.

[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-ma...

▲ 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲ rayiner 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They also taste like fish lol.

▲

shawn_w 6 days ago | parent [-]

Japanese style grilled eel is tastier than most other fish.

(Now I want unagi, and there's no late night sushi options where I am...)

	▲	esseph 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Japanese grilled unagi is amazing!