You must log in or # to comment.
Feel like a good sponge costume would allow you to pee right where you are.
Flounders are not bilaterally symmetrical.
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.
Flounders are born symmetrical; eye migration happens as they transition to the juvenile stage of growth.
Isn’t it referring to during development? Like as they’re forming, they are bilateral? I haven’t taken developmental biology in many years, so I’m maybe wrong.
They’re only bilateral when they’re very young. And even then, everyone is just focusing on the eyes. The body of the fish is also not exactly bilateral. Just fillet a flounder of any age (or watch a video on it) and you’ll see.
Sorry, I’m talking about like when the fish first starts developing. Like how the initial cells orient themselves. I just have to look up what the definition actually is.
They are born (or hatch too lazy to look up) and their eyes move later once they get larger.
