• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        TBF it had been a long standing problem for roughly a half century before this. Specifically birds were the thing researchers tried to identify first, which is probably the reference here.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              Or there’s fish and we are one, or there’s fish but hagfish, dogfish and lungfish are something else.

              I guess we could return to medieval and say it’s based on shape not taxonomy, too, so whales would be fish.

              • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                17 hours ago

                It’s why taxonomy uses latin for this… the definition of english words are based on common usage which isn’t going to line up to any kind of scientific categorization. English is always changing and scientific categorization is also always changing when there’s more empirical data. These changes are independent of each other so it was wisely decided long ago to not even try to make english words consistent with scientific taxonomy.

                So in common usage, yeah it’s based around the general shape but it isn’t a whale (big mammal) a dolphin (a relatively smaller mammal). A shark might be called a fish but more likely someone will just call it a shark instead of just using just “fish”. This is fine for communication among laypeople, if marine biologists are having a conversation about those same animals, they break out the latin and there’s no confusion.

                Also my understanding is that in medieval times, the word whale actually refereed to a specific species of whale… what we know call the Right Whale, which is nearly extinct. So a word for a species became a word for a group of species and then it was awkward how to refer to that original species. What kind of whale is that? “It’s a whale whale… you know the original whale… the proper whale… the right whale.” There’s actually a paragraph in Moby Dick about this.

                English is weird and changes in weird ways. Just use latin if you want to be scientifically precise.

                • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  16 hours ago

                  I mean, some of the taxanomic divisions do have common names as well - jawed fish and ray-finned fish might come up in that conversation. And don’t forget some of the formal names and roots are Greek as well.

                  What kind of whale is that? “It’s a whale whale… you know the original whale… the proper whale… the right whale.” There’s actually a paragraph in Moby Dick about this.

                  Was that the weird chapter that was just a biology lesson, but was also completely wrong?

                  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 hours ago

                    I mean, some of the taxanomic divisions do have common names as well - jawed fish and ray-finned fish

                    Searching for “jawed fish” takes me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnathostomata

                    But that’s jawed vertebrates. So I’m not sure which taxonomic group you’re referring to when you’re saying “jawed fish”. The wiki page indicates salamaders are in the Gnathostomata group. Are salamanders considered to be jawed fish?

                    I think this just goes to further prove that using english words for taxonomy just causes a lot of confusion. My search results for “jawed fish” also returns a lot of results from national park sites and yeah, that kind of terminology for a national park conversing with a layperson is fine. Close enough for a layperson, but for a biologist they probably should use Gnathostomata when that’s what they’re talking about.

                    Was that the weird chapter that was just a biology lesson, but was also completely wrong?

                    Probably, but it’s been awhile since I read it. But it would be insane to read Moby Dick expecting it to be a good biology text book. You have to read it as people’s understanding of biology and terminology in the past, which is why I referenced it in the context of the evolution of linguistics about ocean animals.

      • Susaga@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        55
        ·
        3 days ago

        Oh, yeah, the specific example listed was solved within roughly a month of the comic being posted. But the idea still applies, as seen with the twitter post above.

      • Rose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        3 days ago

        Well, sure, with an image classifier, the bird identification is doable. I’m sure I could implement that if I went looking for some open source thingamabob that does that. But it’s still not something I could actually understand. That part definitely hasn’t changed over the years.

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Having taken an ML class, with some of my college notes I could do this and “understand” it… but the weights would still be a black box. AI training is black (box) magic.