Edit: let me preemptively be a pedant to myself and say that “sub-…-species” is wrong because “bilaterally symmetrical animals” is not a species. Flounder is itself a species AFAIK, not a sub-species of anything. It is a descendant of the common ancestor of all bilaterally symmetrical animals. There, now surely no one will find anything to be pedantic about :D
I appreciate that information. However, flounders themselves are not bilaterally symmetrical. I have caught many dozens of them and it’s pretty easy to tell that they are not.
Flounders are not bilaterally symmetrical.
Dafuq you say about me?
YOU’RE NOT BILATERALLY SYMMETRICAL
He can’t understand you, dude.
Hey,
Flounder!
You’
re no
t bila
terall
y sym
metri
cal!
Ah, thanks, I really don’t speak flounder too well. Really should learn considering how close to Norway I live
You speak flounder?
It’s a little hard to pick up, but it’s all about one rule: Everything has to be on one side of the page.
In the tree of life, flounders are a sub-sub-…-sub-species of bilaterally symmetrical animals: https://www.onezoom.org/life/@Holozoa=5246131?otthome=%40_ozid%3D1&highlight=path%3A%40Apionichthys_finis%3D3640785&highlight=path%3A%40Bilateria%3D117569#x2913,y-2310,w8.2796
Edit: let me preemptively be a pedant to myself and say that “sub-…-species” is wrong because “bilaterally symmetrical animals” is not a species. Flounder is itself a species AFAIK, not a sub-species of anything. It is a descendant of the common ancestor of all bilaterally symmetrical animals. There, now surely no one will find anything to be pedantic about :D
I appreciate that information. However, flounders themselves are not bilaterally symmetrical. I have caught many dozens of them and it’s pretty easy to tell that they are not.
Just like starfish!
Forego the illusion of species and families. It’s taxa all the way down.
It depends on whether it was a larvae or not.
They’re “differently symmetrical.”