Yeah, I’m not really arguing for or against the word fish technically fitting all land animals. I think that using it that way showcases the problem of trying to fit common terminology like “fish” into the scientific taxonomic system. The definition of fish has no use in that context.
Also, there are fish which are also arguably tetrapods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcopterygii
Hank Green went off about this recently. “Fish” just has no scientific meaning, and there are fish tetrapods.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but ultimately there is a problem in classifying “fish” in the modern scientific taxonomy system - it has no good phylum to fit in as its a term that’s a bit more broad than that, but not broad enough to make for a kingdom.
Birds are reptiles. Commonly, we wouldn’t say so, but they’re in the same clade. The avians are closer related to the crocadilians than the crocs are to other reptiles like the squamates - lizards and snakes.
Many IT people love computers. They hate computers that other people use.
Windows and Microsoft in general does things to a man.
Then the cyclists and marathon runners can actually get some respect to make up for the free time they lost to training.
Yeah, this is the distinction I’m trying to draw between “common” and “scientific” terminology. Scientific taxonomy is based on evolutionary history, rather than just superficial traits like “has gills, fins, and lives mostly in water.”