Seahorses aren't fish. You CANNOT change my mind on this one.

Seahorses aren't fish. You CANNOT change my mind on this one.

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They are a type of ray-finned fish. If you want to see an evolutionary intermediary between the common fish body plan and the seahorse, look at pipefish.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Neat little fuckers ain't they

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >cum all over the ocean in hopes of breeding a female
      They are far from neat.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Google says it's a fish so it's a fish.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    so what is it then?

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's actually a bit confusing to me, but in the way horses and gophers are both mammals, it seems to me like they are fish, but you can make up your own mind.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, you're right. Fish are edible things that are caught in the sea. Whales are fish because you can eat them and you catch them in the sea. Seals are not fish because, while edible, you mostly catch them on land.

    Seahorses are not fish because you can't eat them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Can you eat scorpionfish? Starfish? Spotted trunkfish? Silverfish?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >you can't eat them
      Says who?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There is no such thing as a fish. The word fish has no meaning.

    We call things that swim in the sea fish but biologically and evolutionarily speaking they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. If you're going to call something a fish you may as well call butterflies and bats 'birds' because they fly in the sky.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I hate homosexuals like you.
      "Fish" is a niche, the term didnt come about with scientific rigor because science as we know it didnt exist.
      Its a nin scientific term science coopted.
      Its like ssying trees dont exist.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Its like ssying trees dont exist
        >it's like saying something correct
        Woody plants exist as an abstract group, but in terms of phylogeny an oak and a yew are as distant as it gets.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Osteotraci and gnasthostomata?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >hurr stop thinking, just trust the science
      Fuck off you pedantic shit. All modern fishes share a common ancestor, common traits, and a common body plan. You may as well say "vertebrate" and "invertebrate" don't exist because of some phylogenetic tree bullshit. After all, cnidaria, mollusca, and arthropoda aren't "really" related, right? :^)

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Duh, they're horses

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They're not sea horses they were dumb fishes all along bro...

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *