Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Who decides when a species becomes naturalized / stops being invasive? As an example, the European Starling has been living in North America since 1890 and are still considered invasive. They have natural predators. The ecosystem is adapting around them. Just let them have citizenship already!
Another thing: Taxonomy. Just all taxonomy. If a shark and a trout are both fish then we must also be fish because both of those animals are closer relatives to us than they are to each other. Obviously the way we define a fish has to change. Why has nobody done this? There are a TON of things like this in taxonomy and that all make me absurdly angry.
Invasive is just a slur for things people don't like. Same thing for weed.
If they weren’t known for taking a single bite out of every fruit on the tree/vine/bush and ruining entire crops/gardens they would be more welcome. * Shakes fist at starlings in the tomato garden *
Also, isn’t the taxonomy thing being addressed with clades and what not?
Yes and no. Clades still have issues with things like hag fish.
Well, fish doesn't really have a scientific meaning... https://youtu.be/uhwcEvMJz1Y
That doesn’t really make it less agitating though. There is a group of birds called jays (like blue jay) and the word jay is scientifically meaningless. It is still infuriating to me that these birds aren’t even vaguely related to each other in many cases. Just name them something else. Make it make sense. Koalas are not bears; just call them koalas. Guinea pigs are not from Guinea and they aren’t pigs. Horned toads are lizards. There are many examples of this. The names of animals don’t have to describe what they are, but they should not be accepted when describing the animal as something it is not. Animals should not have names that conflict with their taxonomy.