Fish that suckles its young discovered

ok then by definition this fish is a mammal.

ok then by definition this fish is a mammal. No it's still a fish, just like a bat is a mammal and not a bird, despite having wings. It's an example of convergent evolution; two different structures performing the same function.

No it's still a fish, just like a bat is a mammal and not a bird, despite having wings. It's an example of convergent evolution; two different structures performing the same function. Good post. You see, Daniel, mammals have mammary glands, and no matter how this fish feeds its young, it doesn't have those. It's feeding structures are different. It's a fish that has come up with a similar means of caring for its young, it could have happened to any species.

No it's still a fish, just like a bat is a mammal and not a bird, despite having wings. It's an example of convergent evolution; two different structures performing the same function. by definition any animal that suckles its young or produces milk is a mammal. no where does it say that any animal that flies is a bird. so if a bat had feathers it would still be a mammal.

Good post. You see, Daniel, mammals have mammary glands, and no matter how this fish feeds its young, it doesn't have those. It's feeding structures are different. It's a fish that has come up with a similar means of caring for its young, it could have happened to any species. actually it has only replaced the placenta. its young are probable still eating egg yolks, without sharing said yolk with unborn or undeveloped brothers or sisters.

by definition any animal that suckles its young or produces milk is a mammal. no where does it say that any animal that flies is a bird. so if a bat had feathers it would still be a mammal. No, this is not how it works, what you are going by is a very simplified version of the classification guidelines, it's not only about lactation, it's also about the structures that allow it to happen. As Druidos said, the fish does not have mammary glands (which is where the name 'mammal' comes from), the follicles are an analogous structure that allow the young fish to suckle in a mammal like way. Lets lo... [More]

No, this is not how it works, what you are going by is a very simplified version of the classification guidelines, it's not only about lactation, it's also about the structures that allow it to happen. As Druidos said, the fish does not have mammary glands (which is where the name 'mammal' comes from), the follicles are an analogous structure that allow the young fish to suckle in a mammal like way. Lets look at another example, the platypus. The platypus is classified as a mammal-although a rare order, but is still a mammal. By your definition, the platypus lays eggs and therefore cannot be a... [More]

Good post. You see, Daniel, mammals have mammary glands, and no matter how this fish feeds its young, it doesn't have those. It's feeding structures are different. It's a fish that has come up with a similar means of caring for its young, it could have happened to any species. That's probably for the best as I do have a hard time picturing a fish with nipples.