Comments on: Ichthyopod

By: Dell Adams

Dell Adams — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 06:42:12 +0000

I’m still trying to figure out why they didn’t call it Tiktaalichthys.

By: eudoxis

eudoxis — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 04:39:18 +0000

As I am reading the discussion, we’re not talking about a popular version of Tiktaalik, but that we’re looking for a broader term.
If you want to take this seriously, you really need to do this right. Tetrapods are a monophyletic clade that evolved after ‘fish’, so, technically, or cladistically, we are fish as well. However, fish are a broad, artificial category that includes many families in the evolutionary tree, even when the Latin or Greek word is used. Some are a lot like extant fishes, others don’t fit our popular perception of fish at all (lampreys). It’s important, however, to see that the muddy boundary in question does not exist between the broad category of fish and Tetrapods, but at a specific section of that category, the boundary between Tetrapods and their direct ancestors, in this case the Sarcopterygii. Along this lineage are found a number of already named genera, and now, also, Tiktaalik. Normally, the branch sections between nodes are not named, but, consistent with other naming systems, an arbitrary decision can change all that…

My point is that ‘fishopod’ is clear enough for the purpose of establishing an image of Tiktaalik in the public mind. Legfish would do too.

By: The Modesto Kid

The Modesto Kid — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 03:42:24 +0000

Jacob—This is why I like “legfish”. Way more euphonic (to my ear) than “fishopod”, and more descriptive.

By: jacob

jacob — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:39:32 +0000

Fair enough, Modesto Kid. You’re right. I misread the entry. But we’re still mixing roots with fishopod, no? Only instead of Latin and Greek, it’s Old Teutonic and Greek. Still militates for ichthyopod.

Is there a word for coined terms which combine roots from multiple languages?

And Eudoxis: As I am reading the discussion, we’re not talking about a popular version of Tiktaalik, but that we’re looking for a broader term. The Tiktaalik is a particular type of ichthyopod (or legfish), but one can imagine other, hypothetical ichthyopods that aren’t Tiktaaliks.

By: eudoxis

eudoxis — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:59:33 +0000

Derek, I understand. (And posted before I read your post.) Fishopod is meant for public consumption – really, Tiktaalik makes as much sense to the public as ichthyopod.

And John is just having fun. (much appreciated)

By: eudoxis

eudoxis — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:52:13 +0000

Tiktaalik is more innovative than a near tetrapod-like neighbor the Ichtyostega, or its nearest fishy neighbor Panderichthys. As more of these links are found we’ll run out of naming permutations for the between species.

With the fondness of cute names of late, Tiktaalik is really decent. But the description of fishopod is definitely sticky.

By: derek

derek — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:49:31 +0000

Nobody’s dissing Tiktaalik, it’s a perfectly good name for a genus (and if nobody liked it it wouldn’t matter; it’s now the official and unalterable scientific name). “Icthyopod” is only being proposed as an alternative to “fishapod” when someone wants to describe what makes this thing special. We’re arguing about the relative merits of the following two sentences:

“Tiktaalik, which we sometimes call a fishapod.”
“Tiktaalik, which we sometimes call an ichthyopod.”

By: eudoxis

eudoxis — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:38:27 +0000

What’s wrong with the genus Tiktaalik? It may not be very descriptive, but it’s a nice name.

By: The Modesto Kid

The Modesto Kid — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:25:17 +0000

On the contrary Jacob. “Fish” derives from Old Teutonic “fisko” which is cognate with “pisces”—meaning the two derive from a common Indo-European stem. But “pisces” is not in the etymological history of “fish”.

By: jacob

jacob — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:35:34 +0000

I’m with Chris Y in denouncing the combination of Latin and Greet roots in fishopod, since “fish,” according to the OED descends, rather circuitously, from “pisces.” Ichthyopod solves the problem rather nicely. Well done, John.

Huzzah for pedantry!

By: KCinDC

KCinDC — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 14:35:18 +0000

I suppose an ichthyopod would really be an organism with fish for feet.

So a saurischian would really be an organism with lizards for hips? And Ornithorhyncus anatinus would really be a ducklike organism with a bird for a nose? Seems to me an ichthypod could be an organism with feet like those a fish has. Perhaps it also has a bicycle like the one a fish has.

By: The Modesto Kid

The Modesto Kid — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 13:04:11 +0000

"fishapod" is certainly ludicrous. But why not a nice Germanic "legfish"? It is only getting 72 Google hits right now, of which the topmost is this nice mechanism.

By: chris y

chris y — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:25:53 +0000

Part of the reason this beastie is so cool is that its scientific name is in Inuktituk instead of pig Latin (“The word is half Latin and half Greek. no good will come of it” – C.P.Scott) What’s the Yanomami for a fish with legs: that’s the word we need.

By: Barry Freed

Barry Freed — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:24:59 +0000

Some really great missed marketing opportunities there. We could also abbreviate it and call it the I-Pod

By: David Moles

David Moles — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:13:15 +0000

I dno’t know, I think “Fishopod Crane” scans better.