It was only in 1969 (nice) that fungi officially became its own separate kingdom.

  • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 个月前

    Similarly, “a planet” can be understood in technical or colloquial context which changes the meaning. It can have a specific meaning or a vague flexible meaning, just like with berries.

    BTW raspberries are my favorite berries… sort of. Watermelons are pretty good too.

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 个月前

      Actually planet doesn’t have any hard set definition, we kind of just do it case by case because its damn near impossible to come up with a rigid definition that doesn’t suddenly classify some planets as moons or some moons as planets or create weird situations in which an object can switch between the two.

        • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 个月前

          And in that same article:

          It has been argued that the definition is problematic because it depends on the location of the body: if a Mars-sized body were discovered in the inner Oort cloud, it would not have enough mass to clear out a neighbourhood that size and meet criterion 3. The requirement for hydrostatic equilibrium (criterion 2) is also universally treated loosely as simply a requirement for roundedness; Mercury is not actually in hydrostatic equilibrium, but is explicitly included by the IAU definition as a planet

          • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 个月前

            That’s not even addressing the issue of rogue planets which were ejected from their star system. Many estimates say they outnumber the stars. Obviously when a planet is ejected it doesn’t just disintegrate but by that poor definition it’s no longer a ““planet””, so it’s clearly a problematic definition.