You're Basically The Hagfish of Reptiles...

[@ClintsReptiles]

If this video has made you want to know more about Dimetrodon, you're welcome: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qpPGo4Wwlrpjjpo

[@glenyssmith8289]

When life first started we all had the same DNA type. The First Spore as it were. Just imagine what that must have looked like. Would it incredibly simple or be packed with 4 spiral code craziness?

[@Janeway1269]

We've come a long way from when Land of the Lost was taken seriously! LOL! Thanks Clint! Hooray science!

[@ScionStorm1]

Joke's on you. Bob and Joe's parents are reckless gene scientists. Joe is actually a clone of Bob.

[@megazillasaurus]

Guppies and mealworms are big enough eat blue whales

[@connorhaley3190]

Wait a minute, lampreys still are likely closer to hagfish than gnathostomes.

[@user-wb8iu1hl6i]

1500: Whales are big fish 1900: Whales are mammals 2024: Whales are mammals, which are fish

[@charlesunderwood6334]

Whales are hoofed animals without hooves

[@Emilio_Altovilla]

Whales 🐋 are Artiodactyla, within it they are more closely related to Cattle 🐄 than Camels 🐪

[@reydelmuerte]

​@@Emilio_Altovillaand even closer to hippos, which are more closely related to whales than they are to all other mammals

[@liamjohnston2000]

Whales are fish, but not for the reason you think

[@Appletank8]

@@charlesunderwood6334 0 toed hooves

[@mitch6254]

I can't believe I got tricked into taking a genealogy class by the funny reptile man

[@ClintsReptiles]

Ha ha, made you learn 😁

[@willowtabby4926]

Right? How cheeky of him! 😂

[@Borkomora]

@@ClintsReptileswhat a cute catchphrase lol

[@VoidHalo]

It's funny how he does that. Isn't it?

[@williamfowler8686]

I used to wonder why Clint loves talking about phylogenetic trees so much. Then I watched the reaction of a group of teenagers after I told them birds were dinosaurs. It was beautiful.

[@SaurianCYH]

Someone’s gotta put reactions of Clint’s phylogeny vids on KZbin.

[@Michelle_Mayo]

@@SaurianCYH Lol now that would be funny!

[@k2p104]

I love telling my friends that birds are reptiles.

[@Michelle_Mayo]

@@k2p104 same here lol

[@k2p104]

@@Michelle_Mayo the reactions are priceless, right?

[@Janeway1269]

I'll be sure to hold onto this video the next time someone argues with me over classification. Like when they say "Killer whales aren't whales! They're dolphins!" Meanwhile dolphins are just one group of whales. All dolphins are whales but not all whales are dolphins. When I said that though, oh boy! The remarks! LOL!.

[@elifia]

Yeah, just go to the comments section on any youtube video about orcas. So many people, so confidently incorrect...

[@andyjay729]

Just like how starfish and jellyfish aren't fish.

[@briantonkin7737]

More accurately, they are fish if the fish clade includes a whole bunch of things that others don't consider to be fish

[@DJFracus]

I watch some tortoise KZbin channels, and if you leave a comment calling them turtles, there will be SO many comments saying "it's not a turtle, it's a tortoise". Even though a tortoise is just a specific kind of turtle...

[@catpoke9557]

@@elifia It's like that in every video where taxonomical classifications are relevant. They never know which classifications are mutually exclusive. They understand that something can be both a mammal and a whale, or a mammal and a dolphin, but they draw a line at a dolphin and a whale. Because reasons.

[@sampagano205]

Reptile, mammal, when you get down to it, were all just very weird placoderms stuck in a situation way over our heads.

[@sampagano205]

Assuming you want to make placoderms monophyletic.

[@bannedwagoner69]

No. I’m a hagfish. Jawless, slimy, worm-eating fish

[@blazingtrs6348]

we're strange bilateral worms woth body cavities

[@thepigeonsofthepacificnort2268]

@@bannedwagoner69 “fish”

[@thetobyntr9540]

​​@@sampagano205 Why shouldn't it make more sense to consider bony fish as derived basal placoderms? Birds for example are dinosaurs and diverged from them very much like how bats did from other mammals, they don't have much of anything that other dinosaurs didn't already have. It was mostly tweaks and reductions, but they retain the defining characteristics of basal dinosaurs. We just appear to be a derived and early diverging branch of placoderms, who first had our particular geometry for the inner ear, and jaw bones. They even had teeth, the things that look like boney beaks were shown to actually be plates of dentine that had pulp cavities just like ours, only fixed to the bone like it was a giant root. I understand that placoderms are now defined as paraphyletic, but it just seems like drawing a line in the sand to me compared to how readily we accept birds as reptiles even though they have less in common with normal reptiles than mammals. I also consider all tetrapods as basically land adapted fish because we basically are. I consider it more important to make the words we say liken up with how thing went to produce what we are naming, like if there's a general group of things and one changes things a bit, its still descended from and part of that group just as the more conservative lineages are, so do with that as you wish.

[@PaleoAnalysis]

This has turned into quite the debate ever since you asked this question. I think the problem is most people use phylogony as a way to label organisms and don't really think about the fact that they would still belong to every previous grouping going back that led to them. So the true answer to your original question 'Is Dimetrodon a reptile?' comes down to one thing. If the Amneotes that branched into the diapsids and synapisids should be considered reptiles. Or maybe it's just easier to say that we're all fish.

[@Flufux]

Amphibians then?

[@kade-qt1zu]

@Dinosaur Wait, I thought reptiles were considered Sauropsids.

[@billyr2904]

@@kade-qt1zu diapsids are a later branch of the saurapsids.

[@IncogPollywog]

Maybe it's because when I've read this topic it's come from mostly a paleontological background, but I don't think most scientists would refer to more basal Synapsids as reptiles. There even seems to be a pretty big push in the community to do away with terms like "mammal like reptile" and instead refer to them as "stem-" or "proto-mammals" if a less technical term is to be used at all and I've never seen a modern paper refer to anything outside of Synapsids or Sauropsids as reptiles.

[@Exquailibur]

I was one of those people in that comment section, I personally dont think it matters what we call them so long as we acknowledge how they are all related. I mean I wouldn't mind being the monkey that shows up to the reptile family reunion.

[@stax6092]

Man, I Learned way more about Bob, Joe, Brian, and Stuart than I expected coming into a video about being the Hagfish of Reptiles.

[@mikekuppen6256]

And using them as an example is confusing me in one way: if you´re talking about individuals every generation (ideally) includes blood from "outside". So if Bob and Joe are nephews of Brian and Brian is a nephew of Stuart you can´t say that Stuart is equally related to Bob, Joe, and Brian, because more "strange" blood has been added to the lineage for Bob and Joe than for Brian. Right? Of course that isn´t true when you´re talking about whole species living at the same time because the same amount of time will have passed for mutations to pop up. Unless you´re comparing species with very short generation times to species with longer ones... Ok, I´m still confused about this specific example. I´ll just stick to the clades: those I can understand.

[@SonOfTheNorthe]

The worst part of the video, IMO. I've never skipped ahead bored in a Clint's Reptiles video until now.

[@ArinJager1]

Bob'n'Joe's sounds like a fastfood chain to me (also: blood for the blood god!)

[@pubuduyapa4159]

​@@mikekuppen6256In this specific example, Bob and Joe were brothers and Brian was a cousin. Stuart was more of an uncle. I guess you could say you are equally related to all of your nephews right? Ok now im confused 😂😂

[@brianvernon7754]

Brians are definitely hagfish

[@MireVale]

Clint in his red sweater should be the standard photo for “human” in every textbook

[@TheNightshadePrince]

I love Luna moths. :)

[@karlihannah1330]

I second this!

[@sylvestercat1898]

I saw Clint above the lepidosauria family and I was like, “nice job editing team, lol” then I realized he was actually beside mammalia

[@elderyear]

Yeah, that was my only critique of the video...that phylogeny had images that looked like they represented the names underneath them, instead of the (intended and correct) names next to them.

[@dorians2138]

What i learned today: "Wait, it's all fish?" - "Always has been. 🔫"

[@andyjay729]

Unless you're a honeybee, in which case you're a crustacean (or going further back, a stubby velvet worm with wings and a stinger).

[@dorians2138]

@@andyjay729 crustaceans didn't come from fish, did they?

[@andyjay729]

@@dorians2138 I was referring to Clint's "insects are crustaceans" videos.

[@dorians2138]

@@andyjay729 yeah, I know, I've seen em

[@archael7807]

Well, not really. Funny meme, but fish are not a clade and thus whales (and everything including mammals, reptiles, birds etc.) are not fish.

[@nitzan3782]

How many young minds are blown by the notion that their neighbor's parakeet is more of a dinosaur, and by extension a reptile, than that cool prehistoric creature with a massive sail on his back.

[@daniell1483]

I've found the synapsid/diapsid divide very fascinating since I started learning about natural history. When I was growing up, there was this implied idea that everything alive today could fit into these neat little boxes that describe all the animals in those groups. Birds make the perfect example, it wasn't well understood at the time that birds are dinosaurs, they were thought to be a unique branch of life. It is really amazing to see how far our understanding of life has progressed, even if it means I need to unlearn some old habits on animal classification.

[@carlosandleon]

The mammal reptile common ancestor should be classified as a reptile

[@markcobuzzi826]

Adding to your analysis, this is why it can also be important to clarify, whether one’s terminology is used to designate a “monophyletic”, “paraphyletic”, or “polyphyletic” grouping. Paraphyletic groups include a common ancestor and some of its descendants, while excluding other descendants. Meanwhile, a polyphyletic group categorizes unrelated organisms based on shared traits and excludes any common ancestors they have (like if winged insects, pterosaurs, birds, and bats were all grouped together as “flying creatures”). In that case, people’s common usage of the word “fish” would technically be paraphyletic, referring all vertebrates and their common ancestor except for the tetrapod sub-clade. Likewise, the only way “reptile” can refer to Dimetrodons and similar creatures, while excluding mammals, is if one is specifically using it as a paraphyletic label. It is the same thing for if someone defined monkeys, apes, and humans as three mutually exclusive categories.

[@rasmusn.e.m1064]

All of these thousands of years of human language naming things after phenotypes and functions really screw us over when trying to understand cladistic relationships 😂

[@StonedtotheBones13]

I mean naming the thing what it does HAS been useful so far 😂

[@yowtfputthemaskbackon9202]

the worst thing is, when medieval people looked at a duck and went "fishé" they were actually right, even though all they had in mind was cheating on god during lent without feeling bad about it.

[@valivali8104]

​@@StonedtotheBones13 only if a) everyone knows that "what it does" is base of naming, and b) agree that aspect which is used in naming is most important aspect. For example, if one group value voice of bird most when naming, other group value its style of flying most, and another group value taste of bird's meat and how it can be cooked, all three groups will have problems with communicating even if they talked same language.

[@debiesubaugher]

That was the most fun explanation of a complicated subject ever.

[@bashanhavothjairbashanhavo9475]

Clint, I was one of your students several years ago. This video randomly popped up on my feed. It's pretty cool to see you're doing KZbin videos now. Subbed.

[@ArinJager1]

small world

[@billyr2904]

Hagfish are actually more closely related to lampreys than to other vertebrates, but I see why you place them as the most basal, because though they are a craniate, meaning they have a skull, they don't have vertebrae, making them not vertebrates. But most phylogenies place them as closely related to lampreys, suggesting that they might have lost their vertebrae and not because they are the most distantly related vertebrates.

[@magentamonster]

Yes, hagfish and lampreys form the clade Cyclostomi. Lampreys are not sister to Gnathostomata, they are sister to hagfish. Hagfish are vertebrates that lost their vertebrae. And they are fish.

[@iapetusmccool]

Is that a recent discovery?

[@billyr2904]

What are you referring to?

[@iapetusmccool]

@@billyr2904 hagfish and lampreys forming a clade. I was taught that lampreys were more basal, but that was 20+ years ago so could be outdated.

[@billyr2904]

I need to look at when cyclostmata was made a group

[@deborahd2936]

I am so glad I found this channel! Animal loving communities are fun. Not many people around me in my life are interested in talking about these things, so this channel fills a little hole in my life. ❤️

[@kiernanfay8960]

the world makes a little more sense once you realize we're all mutant sponges

[@magentamonster]

While there has been controversy about the monophyly of Porifera, I feel it is monophyletic.

[@rustyshackleford1465]

I still identify as a monkey...

[@Kapnohuxi_folium]

Technically we're all just archaebacteria anyhow

[@theapexsurvivor9538]

@@Kapnohuxi_folium not really, those are Archaea, a whole different domain from both Bacteria (not us) and Eukaryota (us).

[@alfaseng]

@@theapexsurvivor9538 There is a theory with more concerete backing every day that Eukaryotes are descended from an Archaea (Proto-Eukaryote) phagocytosing a bacteria (Proto-Mitochondria)

[@frisbyart]

Thanks for this, but now I want you to make a WHOLE video on hagfish, because these are one of my Top 5 FAVORITE animals ever! For anyone who’d like a quick fun fact about them, they’re the only “fish” capable of sneezing, and that’s so that it doesn’t choke to death on the slime they produce.

[@natalieeuley1734]

I teach science and WOW is this some of the best explanation of phylogeny that I have ever heard. Definitely borrowing some of your techniques in the future.

[@StonedtotheBones13]

Making it ppl names is great, bc I often find ppl confused how they're related to each other as well. So it helps them figure smthn out, and then they go "ohh, I get it!" about the hagfish

[@squirrel_killer-]

I know this is old, but another thing I know would've helped my education and the understanding of evolution when younger was a different video on KZbin. Despite being more speculative and video game fan video, I also recommend stealing the evolution explanation from Oceanz "Monster Hunter Subspecies" video. He actually defines that "survival of the fittest" refers to fitness to reproduce, and how the tiny mutations that allow an animal to reproduce more effectively allows them to spread that gene through the gene pool further until it and others accumulate enough to allow speciation. It's a background noise video for me but that part is always so well explained for an amateur that it's incredible. It's the type of thing where you know it going in, but it never makes sense until it's explained the right way that you more than just know it. Having all the pieces concisely laid up in a row. Also, as somebody who hated biology during my education due to how awful it was taught as a science: Funnily enough, good spec evo, in my experience, is better for teaching evolution than actual evolution since it often gives a more complete picture of the progression. You also aren't bogged down in needing to fact check, find examples of ancestors, rage at our incomplete image of nature, or answer about other animals. It really helps wrap your head around it when you have fictional and easily understood stand-ins. It was reading about a project where somebody derived all life from frogs where I really started to understand how escaping competition in your niche is a driving factor of evolution, and not just the more commonly pointed to "evolutionary arms races" of animals preying upon each other. That's the type of thing that makes you realize why our ancestors crawled from the ocean upon the land. There was food here and nothing was eating it. In this case I am primarily referring to the invertebrates that our jaws were quite effective at crunching compared to other invertebrates. If you want some great speculative evolution and speculative biology to look over and help you find a good one to pick up I would recommend Curiosity Archive here on KZbin. He specializes in shining a light on interesting world building projects, including speculative evolution. The Unnatural History Channel also does so but is mostly Monster Hunter focused.

[@brfisher1123]

The fact that the lungfish for example is actually more closely related to non-fish vertebrates i.e., tetrapods (amphibians, non-avian reptiles, birds and mammals) than they are to any other "fish" including the fellow sarcopterygian "fish" the coelacanth is the reason why I find the lungfish as the most fascinating "fish" around!

[@dorkthrone]

I love explanations of phylogeny. Even though I think I have a solid grasp on it, it never ceases to be a fascinating topic

[@katnor4688]

The picture of Clint representing mammals was far too amusing. 🤣😁

[@cherylgraves7382]

Right? Him in his Mr. Rogers sweater? I laughed out loud. Love him!

[@frederickd.provoncha8671]

Yep. Got a good laugh out of that too. :-)

[@loractmay4240]

Videos like this are exactly why we're Super Rad fans.

[@rat_dragon]

You mean Stinkin' Rad?

[@Phone-eater]

I like this one cause it explains phylogeny really well but also I'd love to see a more expansive version of synapsida next to diapsida that shows more clades such as mammalia being a part of therapsida which is of course part of synapsida

[@Fancy_Bear]

Always love your phylogeny videos!

[@MrTrigun1]

I love everything about this video. The oddity of it all, the sheer confusing facts, the manic energy at the excitement of sharing this cursed information with us. This video encapsulates why I am subscribed to this channel.

[@SierraRomeoPapa]

Lampreys are truly nature’s freakiest creatures. I was once fly fishing the Gulkana River in Alaska for grayling on a rafting trip and suddenly was surrounded by countless pacific lamprey swimming upstream to spawn. Caught one in a net to examine it because I wasn’t quite sure what it was from over the top of the water and lo and behold it was straight out of Aliens.

[@DarthCiliatus]

Did you eat it?

[@kR-qj7rw]

That the thing that s lot of sci Fi forgets for something to be truly alien it should be weirder than some of the life forms we are family with And that's really hard for most artists and writers lol

[@johannageisel5390]

@@kR-qj7rw Very true! It's super difficult to come up with a life form that has reasonable characteristics but does not already exist or has existed on Earth. The only ones so far are my Venusian critters and I left their evolution relatively unexplained.

[@daviddegeorge2667]

Thank you Clint for this. I'm saving this video because it's literally the best explanation I've ever gotten.

[@Branda7712]

Thank you for such a great explanation of this concept. This video may have to be a new addition to my common ancestry lessons for my 9th graders. I never thought to explain it with human familial relationships first! 20 years in the classroom and I’m still learning myself.

[@ClintsReptiles]

I'd love updates about how it goes with your class!

[@cubinican1218]

I work in academic publishing, biology textbooks in particular, and this is a FANTASTIC resource. Thanks for posting!

[@peterjones819]

A phylogeny of crocodilians video would be awesome!

[@ClintsReptiles]

Might be on my schedule for this year 😉

[@peterjones819]

@@ClintsReptiles 😁👍

[@billyr2904]

I...Wanted...CARNIVORANS!!!!

[@stoatystoat174]

@@billyr2904 they did it ' Carnivora - In a World With Cats, How Do Dogs Survive? ' kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJO9pmBqbL6Hqtk

[@biomutarist6832]

I am in complete awe and amazement at how well and fun you explained cladistics! A shining example of science communication!

[@ClintsReptiles]

Thank you so much!

[@biomutarist6832]

@@ClintsReptiles 💚

[@davidtruong9367]

So confusing and complicated but yet….so intriguing and interesting. Great Job, Clint! Love your videos - keep up the great work!

[@karmatraining]

Grandpa was a bad-ass Dimetrodon gang checking in

[@usonumabeach300]

I really enjoy all of your videos, but the phylogenic ones are my favorite! And they need a playlist!

[@ClintsReptiles]

They have one! They're my favorites too :)

[@Michelle_Mayo]

@@ClintsReptiles lol I was just going to respond "I think he has one...? 🤔"

[@mattm1142]

I just watched this vid at 4.45AM and it has put me in a fantastic mood. Thanks Clint, love your work!

[@Fahrenheit4051]

I'm going to go with "considering synapsids to be reptiles isn't useful" because then we're calling all living amniotes (and most that have ever existed) "reptiles". Birds are a different story, because, like you said, there's no way to remove them without rendering the whole taxon invalid.

[@spidergregory3857]

If you don't mind, I would like to use your video for my students this summer.This is probably one of the most clear and concise discussions of cladistics/phylogenetics I've encountered on the web, and is more interesting than discussing termites and cockroaches. Well, more interesting to my students, anyway.

[@ClintsReptiles]

Absolutely! That's why we make videos like this :)

[@gckbowers411]

Last I heard, more recent molecular phylogenies supported the idea that hagfish and lampreys were sister taxa, implying that hagfish once had the vertebrate features of the lamprey but lost them. But that would firmly make them vertebrates, unless you wanted to count out lampreys as well.

[@jjoohhhnn]

You seem to be correct, weird.

[@gckbowers411]

@@jjoohhhnn >:)

[@TallGermanBoy]

This is the most concise and simple to understand explanation of phylogeny I know. This is great!

[@davidherberger8104]

This is a hard concept to fully understand but nice job with the animations to help with the understanding

[@wilhelmschmidt7240]

Your explanation of phylogeny is spot on, great job.

[@sampagano205]

I will continue to argue the plastic dimetrodon in the dinosaur pack along with all the other toys in the packs closest relative is the plankton that died millions of years ago and was transformed into oil by the deep magics of the earth.

[@LimeyLassen]

A trace of the true self, exists in the false self...

[@victornoname7269]

I've been so happy ever since you started making phylogeny videos. It's been a subject that I've always found super fun and having a channel that makes great videos on it is the best! I just love looking at all the groups of animals and learning cool things about how they're related to one another. Side note, speaking of not quite/barely vertebrate things like hagfish. I recently learned lancelets are a thing. They're super primitive chordates that resemble the kind of vertebrate ancestors we find in places like the Burgess Shale, but they're _still around today!_ It blew my mind that I only learned they existed a few months ago.

[@dolphinboi-playmonsterranc9668]

Wow, how interesting. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get prepared for the next Clade get-together.

[@ClintsReptiles]

Just make sure that you invite you common ancestor and ALL of their descendents 😉

[@venn2001ad]

@@ClintsReptiles That's going to be a HUGE gathering. It's gonna be tough to remember each and every name... lol. 😆

[@Sgrunterundt]

@@venn2001ad Depends on which of your clades you throw the party for. My mother once threw a party for the clade of her paternal grandparents (my great grandparents). That couple had 12 children. It was a big party. The clade of just my parents, me and my brother and my two nephews is much more manageble. We get together rather more often.

[@lexslate2476]

Well, I'll be a lizard's weird and extremely distant uncle.

[@madlycan]

personally I love the idea that we're all just an amalgamation of various slime molds with delusions of grandeur. this however just taught me that I can call myself a fish and technically not be wrong. ^^

[@jeremiejonscher3166]

one of my favourite channels on YT

[@Max88188]

That small Clint face smiling at me from the mammalia branch made my day

[@salt-emoji]

First time viewer, hag fish are insane, and I'm so fascinated with them. Also the video title is great because it isn't clickbait, it is, but it isn't 🫡

[@MiloTheDumb]

"You sir are a fish" - a smart man

[@Shehzain]

I love how you explain phylogenetic trees so perfectly to a lay audience! I love phylogeny!

[@fij715]

So you are telling me that Kanye didn’t have to jump into the ocean to become a gay fish because he was a fish all along?

[@schwindsichtigaderechte5293]

Learning this felt so good, it solved so much confusion for me. Thank you!

[@NotJamy]

I wish they had this when I was in elementary science this is a much better way of teaching this.

[@zakiyamauchi9106]

I must say that this is a very great video for a short lunch break. Great video, subbed!

[@HansLemurson]

I have a sudden urge to chew on whale bones while oozing slime.

[@ArinJager1]

_I wouldn't want it any other way_

[@DaveM86]

Loving your videos, Clint; I started pulling them up for my daughter (who loves reptiles), then kept getting completely wrapped up them myself. You're like a cross between Mr. Rogers, Steve Irwin, and Carl Sagan, and I mean that in the best way.

[@jjoohhhnn]

Thank you for making this video. I definitely include synapsids as reptiles, their LCA with sauropsids was a linnaean reptile. 3 chambered heart, scales, eggs with hard shells, terrapod respiratory system, monodontomorph etc. etc. It seems very strange to use the term reptile to exclude archaic reptiles. Especially because their LCA was basically called reptile body/shape (reptiliomorpha).

[@JosephSolotov]

I used to exclude synapsids, and refer only to sauropsids as "true reptiles". That was until I saw a paper published by the Texas Heart Institute Journal about a case of "Snake Heart". It was a man born with an atavism in which his heart resembled a basal reptile's heart. I love reptiles and the idea of basically being a human reptile/human Dinosaur is completely awesome.

[@jjoohhhnn]

@@JosephSolotov isn't it? I didn't know about the snake heart man, that's so cool! Thanks for sharing the source, too.

[@JosephSolotov]

@Pistolita221 No problem! I figured I should share it, since it backs up your point. I'll post the link. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21224948/

[@gavturgoose1427]

Such a brilliant way of educating people!

[@carrieseymour5197]

If Clint ever disappears leaving only a lingering smell of banana, we'll know why.

[@merlinambrosius4398]

I love the way you explain things. I come away both, more educated, and just as discombobulated.

[@Michelle_Mayo]

LOL right?! It's like... well, I understood everything 3 seconds ago, but don't ask me to explain! 😳🤣😂

[@merlinambrosius4398]

@@Michelle_Mayo I resemble that remark. 🤣🤣🤣

[@lesterfalcon1350]

I think Clint should make a video with the Square Hole girl (where all the shapes have holes, but they still all fit in the square hole) and he asks "where should I but the bird?" and she says "the bird hole", and Clint replies "That's right, the fish hole' and so on.

[@jeremiahfreitag5242]

This was very well thought out and exceptionally descriptive. Thank you. I appreciate this..

[@gauchegreyhound]

It makes more sense to say Dimetrodon *aren't* reptiles than to say Mammals *are.* "Non-mammalian synapsids" is what my mammalogy professor called them. Pre-mammals. The reptile clade is already hugely broad, I don't think we need to broaden it further by adding synapsids 😂

[@blandp11]

That was so very good. Never thought about that *and* it helps make the concepts clearer and more memorable. Love it.

[@ShepStevVidEOs]

I need a shirt that says “I’m the hagfish of reptiles!”

[@ruthlesace]

I finally found the video that explains the damned hagfish reference. Been looking for this for like 4 months since i found your channel and you kept saying "X I'd the hagfish of Y-clade"

[@objective_psychology]

What a lot of people don't get about taxonomy and phylogeny is that they're two different things. Phylogeny was largely a theoretical construct for most of the history of biology. Only after the genetics revolution did evolutionary relationships start to become really _provable_ as you could see the code itself, as opposed to falling back on often subjective guesswork as to which morphologies are shared innovations, retentions, or just convergent evolution. For example we had no idea the large subgroups of placental mammals (Xenarthra, Afrotheria, Boreoeutheria with its branches Laurasiatheria and Euarchontoglires) were even a thing. There's literally nothing known on a macroscopic level of phenotype that can be used to classify them. It was thought that all shrews were a monophyletic group, but now we know elephant shrews are closer to elephants. Genetics also taught us that we're closer to chimps than to gorillas and closer to gorillas than to orangutans and lesser apes. And there are countless more examples of genetics leading to revolutionary reinterpretation of relationships, especially in botany. In that time there have also been big advances made in microscopy that allow for more accurate insights on morphology, which like genetics has led to some major changes. Both have also had the result of phylogenetic trees with far more branches and nesting of clades, which called some basic traditions of taxonomy into question, like why there are “genera” of vastly different sizes and ages, or “orders” of one group that turned out to be older than “classes” of another or younger than “families” of another. Meanwhile, taxonomy is still a thing as a matter of tradition and communication, frankly. People want big taxonomic names to have a straightforward hierarchy and be easy to remember based on common knowledge. As such, it's biased towards trying to fit organisms into a small number of neat, roughly equally sized boxes on the same apparent level-like infamously the “classes” of vertebrates: Aves, Reptilia, Mammalia etc.-when the reality is that clades branch at thousands of levels and are constantly being updated and overturned by new research, to the point that naming them all is often impossible or just futile. This is something that modern biologists are well aware of, but the first generations of biologists weren't. Not to mention, sometimes it's just more convenient to define things by morphology even if that means excluding a known subgroup. Taxonomy is the dumbed-down, surface-level representation of what biology is which makes explaining it to laypeople simpler, but it does not accurately represent what biologists do nowadays at all.

[@mpk6664]

This is why I said in the original poll that there were no correct answers. It's all open to interpretation. Thank you for the phylogenetic class. ❤️

[@dukas54]

I'm not sure why, but I was going into the video thinking you were doing a "Is the hagfish right pet for you." Very cool video otherwise, but know I must seek more knowledge about hagfish (and lamprays they be cool too.)

[@jredmane]

Such a good explanation of the basics of how animals are related! Commenting to boost so more people get a chance to enjoy this vid 😄

[@diolordedodrip6044]

Suggestion: Australian emus, the best big dinosaur ? (I love your videos and I hope your channel grows a lot ! 💚)

[@Amy_the_Lizard]

While they are one of the largest living dinosaurs, if we include their extinct relatives, I'd say emus are more mid-sized...

[@Trombone_vibz]

Thanks! Hagfish are some of the most interesting creatures! Thanks for all you do Clint!

[@conlon4332]

This could also be called "Why Whales Are Fish".

[@msamak3905]

Beautifully explained phylogeny! 🐒

[@dorians2138]

So techically everything on Earth, that has a vertebra, is a fish.

[@ClintsReptiles]

Only arguably.

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

Yes, only arguably! And I'd be the one rolling my sleeves up yelling 'being a sarcopterygian isn't being a fish! (the point being, even within Sarcopterygii, we aren't fish)

[@bruhmingo]

⁠@@Dr.Ian-Plectbeing a sarcopterygian absolutely makes you a fish. Monophyly is the standard.

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

@@bruhmingo No, it makes you a member of the group with those primitive traits originating therein, it does not make you a fish.

[@Ealais76]

@@bruhmingono it doesn’t, because fish is a paraphyletic term, which needs certain criteria to be included.

[@alicecain4851]

That gave me a headache, and I loved every minute of it!

[@asdfasdf-dd9lk]

Actually recently it's been shown that hagfish are in a monophyletic group with lampreys. The crux of the video still stands though :)

[@fubberpish3614]

wait really? so Agnatha is monophyletic now? very cool!!

[@ItsAthe]

Honestly the most fun I've had watching one of your videos!

[@Nikki8242-d1ck]

I love hagfish. They so bizarringly awesome! Edit: I know “bizarringly” is not a real word but I like it.

[@lindsyfish6704]

Oh this was DELIGHTFUL! Thank you Clint!

[@vindik8or]

This video will be very helpful the next time I have to explain to someone that apes (and therefore humans) ARE monkeys.

[@ClintsReptiles]

This one should help too: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZyyaZ5nZ7Z2hpI

[@vindik8or]

@@ClintsReptiles perfect!

[@annekeener4119]

A wonderful example of how cladistics is different from traditional taxonomy and the issues that arise when you are comparing the two since many of the traditional taxonomic groupings are paraphyletic or polyphyletic while clades are monophyletic by design.

[@markkeviniquin3119]

but the real question is... are we all just multicellular archaea?

[@ClintsReptiles]

Yes

[@MeanBeanComedy]

2:58 Brian is equally-related to Bob and Joe as he is to Stewart, though! Bob and Joe are his nephews, Stuart is his uncle. 25% DNA. It's the same.

[@joaopedroalmeidacaetano1619]

I LOVE phylogeny. It's a shame I'm on a ecology laboratory at my uni (which I love, and the people there are awesome). But DAMN did I want to major in zoology

[@Em4gdn1m]

I've watch this video like 6 times over the course of a few months, I finally think I have a good grasp on it now.

[@thomastakesatollforthedark2231]

So what you're saying is... Dimetrodons should be named Stuart

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Wow! This is the best demonstration of phytogenic tree I've seen so far.

[@technoraptor7778]

Haha yeah I see that. I called a little boy a hagfish when I was in kindergarten once because he always had snot hanging from his nose...I knew it would come full circle eventually. Sorry dude..turns out we are all hagfish.

[@hypergalacticnoodles]

I love this type of content

[@xandyhubbard3754]

Hey Clint, what about the cyclostome hypothesis? As far as I'm aware, a lot of recent studies have favoured the cyclostome hypothesis, where lampreys are closer to hagfish than to the jawed fish. If this hypothesis is shown to be accurate, would we instead be the cyclostomes of reptiles?

[@matyaskassay4346]

well I don't think anyone would say that lampreys aren't vertebrates, so no, not really. Unless the question is whether cyclostomes are fish or not, in which case yeah, we're the same thing to reptiles that cyclostomes are to fish.

[@edwardhisse2687]

Internet brain is knowing during first poll that Dimetrodon isn't a reptile from all fun facts/ trick questions you've seen in your dinosaur media. Actual intelligence is being always certain how clades work.

[@cadenlikespigs]

Did anyone notice at 0:47 Clint is on the tree of life for mammals?

[@Michelle_Mayo]

Yes lol his pic is always included in the charts that include humans. Cracks me up every time!

[@sjzara]

This was SUPERB!

[@timeshark8727]

To really understand relatedness you need to add all the extinct groups to the tree. There were many groups of "reptiles" that don't appear on the chart you have, some of which were really, really strange and interesting.