• NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    In the tree of life, flounders are a sub-sub-…-sub-species of bilaterally symmetrical animals: https://www.onezoom.org/life/@Holozoa=5246131?otthome=%40_ozid%3D1&highlight=path%3A%40Apionichthys_finis%3D3640785&highlight=path%3A%40Bilateria%3D117569#x2913,y-2310,w8.2796

    Edit: let me preemptively be a pedant to myself and say that “sub-…-species” is wrong because “bilaterally symmetrical animals” is not a species. Flounder is itself a species AFAIK, not a sub-species of anything. It is a descendant of the common ancestor of all bilaterally symmetrical animals. There, now surely no one will find anything to be pedantic about :D

    • Drusas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I appreciate that information. However, flounders themselves are not bilaterally symmetrical. I have caught many dozens of them and it’s pretty easy to tell that they are not.

        • BreadOven@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Isn’t it referring to during development? Like as they’re forming, they are bilateral? I haven’t taken developmental biology in many years, so I’m maybe wrong.

          • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            They are born (or hatch too lazy to look up) and their eyes move later once they get larger.

            • BreadOven@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yeah. I just wasn’t sure at what point things are considered to be bilateral or otherwise.

              I thought it may have been during the development process, but can’t remember.

          • Drusas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            They’re only bilateral when they’re very young. And even then, everyone is just focusing on the eyes. The body of the fish is also not exactly bilateral. Just fillet a flounder of any age (or watch a video on it) and you’ll see.

            • BreadOven@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              Sorry, I’m talking about like when the fish first starts developing. Like how the initial cells orient themselves. I just have to look up what the definition actually is.

        • Drusas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Oh, I know. It’s very interesting. But when people imagine a flounder, they generally don’t imagine a juvenile unless juvenile has been specified.

    • azi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      Just like starfish!

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Forego the illusion of species and families. It’s taxa all the way down.