@@oldmech619seems that you actually don't get it, as the title says, there are no animals scientifically classified as mantas anymore. Both of the species are now considered Mobulas. Honestly, I think it would have made more sense to start calling all the mobulas mantas instead of the other way around. People probably were already making that mistake anyway.
I agree with you because I am never going to call it a Mobula Ray if it is really a Manta Ray. Official opinion is that Manta Rays exist and this new “Mobula” ray does NOT
Yeeaaah I gotta go with the first on this. While moving a Dino genus to an OG category is normally done, exceptions have been made with extremely popular names even adding a Latin suffix on the end. Even little children know “Manta Ray”, very few have heard of Mobulas. It’s like the Triceratops …. Which was only part of a large group of herbaceous horned animals with a huge frill and different numbers of horns.
Their mouths are different...."this had EVERYONE thinking they Weren't too closely related"???????? My question is are these "EVERYONEs" blind idiots or ocean scientists? Because having a single, simple, small difference like that be the only difference doesn't register at all to me. If one was a fish with feathers and the other one was a bird with fur.......😅
@@rw28ks2012well it is those small difference that allow us to classify animals differently. For example an artiodactyl (an animal with an even number of toes) like a sheep is more closely related to cetaceans like dolphins and whales than they would be to perrisodactyls, which are animals with odd numbered toes like a horse or donkey. So a mouth being in a different location could actually say a lot, however in this case the DNA is far more conclusive.
It's just some midwit nerds that sit around changing things so they can feel important, when in reality they're all just man-made names used to classify things based on the very limited knowledge that we have.
“Most are probably going to go right on calling them Manta Rays.” You better believe we are. Edit: I feel like a war has started in the reply section with people arguing about something to do with crustaceans and Pluto being a planet or not. I’m literally just watching this.
@@AmonTheWitch Okay, but fun fact, pill bugs, aka rolly pollies, are actually crustaceans, and closely related to shrimp. They have gills, but they live on land, which is why you only find them in damp areas so they can still breath their water. In some parts of Africa they eat pill bugs, and in local dialects are often called "wood shrimp" because they often live near trees and taste like shrimp.
I remember seeing one going to Washington DC in 1993 on the bridge that's on the Ocean it not only was fast enough to keep up with the traffic it was big as a bus amazing to see
I would have been EXTREMELY disappointed in humanity if the flappy sea pancakes went extinct. But no, they're still out there flapping and living their best lives. All is well in the world.
Scientists really saw that one's mouth was slightly lower then the other's and went "These two animals that look damn near identical can't be too closely related"
It's a phenomenon called Convergent Evolution. A good example of this is Red Pandas and Giant Pandas. Giant Pandas aren't actual pandas, but look and eat like them.
They blew their load early with Tyrannosaurus Rex. T-Rex is such a cool name that it’s the only animal mostly known from its scientific name. “Great White Shark” is a cool name but equally cool is its scientific name, “Carcharadon Carcharias” another cool name is “Architeuthis,” commonly known as the giant squid.
@@appledrawss1353 This is a Science channel. 90% of viewers, me included, are Sci nerds who when younger wanted and maybe still want to be Scientists haha
Taxonomy is on a first come first serve basis. Mobula came first, so it they find the genetic makeup is too similar to be considered different species, they get rolled over into the older naming scheme.
Like we used to with krakens only to find out they exist The giant and colossal squids And colossal squids still attack small ships and boats just like fisherman and sea captains said they did centuries ago
Imagine Aquaman's sequel, where Aquaman addresses his nemesis as Black Manta, and the guy goes on to explain in detail how his name is now Black Mobula.
Spoken like someone with no clue about how evolutionary biology works. And to the other guy, no scientist makes “big bucks” it’s a thankless profession.
Yep, a common thing in science because as the researchers learn more, they have to change the definitions of things to fit reality, or sometimes just out of convenience. We don’t make the rules. Nature makes the rules. All we can do is struggle to describe what we see. Sometimes that means drawing an arbitrary line. Example. If Pluto is one of hundreds of objects of similar shape, size, and material, in that part of the solar system, then EITHER we have hundreds of planets which would all need names all of which kids would need to memorize, OR we can call all of those things planetoids, making the one we know, Pluto, not a planet anymore. But still the most famous planetoid. Pluto has gotten more play since the controversy than it ever had before. Because it’s boring.
Pluto should be a planet the same way he should be an Olympian. Also, anyone else find that tidbit interesting? Hades (Pluto) used to be an Olympian, then became a Major God after being shunned by the others, just like the planet going from…well, planet to dwarf planet
@@makaylaforbes6719Right? Taught my entire life that Pluto is a PLANET,the last,and smallest one,yes,but STILL,A PLANET. Then,all of the sudden,they decide,DECLARE,that it isn't,when I'm in my 30's or 40's. Nonsense.
All existing manta rays held a summit meeting and unanimously voted to remain manta rays. Their paper will soon be published and a copy will be sent under bonded courier to the scientists.
These scientists are strait up dumb. Menta rays are menta rays regardless of what some scientist decide to call them. Even if they had similar genes to the other it's the other rays that looks like menta rays so all of them should be named menta rays instead of nebula rays. Nebula rays makes no logic sense as they are not stars.
These scientists are strait up dumb. Menta rays are menta rays regardless of what some scientist decide to call them. Even if they had similar genes to the other it's the other rays that looks like menta rays so all of them should be named menta rays instead of nebula rays. Nebula rays makes no logic sense as they are not stars.
It has to do with adherence of scientific names to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, first adopted in 1905. If you read up on it, you'll not find any reference to such names being used based on popularity among laypersons. Note that this does not apply to common names. You are free to continue calling them manta rays if you like. It simply won't agree with the generic (genus) name, that's all. But at least scientists will be able to talk about these fish and know which ones they're talking amongst themselves about.
@@Lokiip no it doesn't. There are pretty strict rules when it comes to taxonomy and naming species. In this case the mobula genus was named before the manta genus, so manta is folded into mobula. Also due to taxonomic rules we can no longer use the genus name manta. Feel free to keep calling them manta rays as a common term though
When it comes to taxonomic naming, the genus whose family is named after it gets precedence. So, manta rays are part of the Mobulidae family, named after the _Mobula_ genus of rays. Manta rays were once part of the genus _Manta_ but their entire genus has been merged into _Mobula_ because of this rule after genetic tests found that it belonged to _Mobula_
The amount of dread I felt at "Manta Rays don't exist anymore", and the relief at knowing they're just renamed... went through 5 stages of grief in under a minute!!
@@TragoudistrosMPH well of course it's accurate, I'm speaking from experience. Steve Irwin's death probably came as even more of a shock to me then most people because in my mind stingrays are one of the least threatening things imaginable.
You can still call them that, it's just the genus name has changed. Unless the rules for biological classification are different to iupac chemical nomenclature, as long as there is one unique name assigned to everything to prevent confusion, those other names can still be used.
wait, so in conclusion... they found that these two groups of manta species were, in fact, relatively closely related, and therefore changed both their names???
I still think there's generally more utility to classifying animals based more on traits than genes. Idk, I just feel like there's room for both in the world; having two systems that you can pick which one you wanna use based on what you need
One of the greatest moments of my childhood was in Florida when a giant manta ray decided it was bored and wanted to be mischievous, it ended up giving us rides on its back allowing us to grab onto the inside of the fin. Crazy experience 🤯
Frequently it s they want to show they are smarter than everybody else by having a different word. Many decades ago medical science in particular insisted on trying to use common words whenever possible, even in journal articles. The thinking was at the more people could understand science, the better the world would be. However, the need of scientists to feel superior has triumphed over that intention.
@@gerardmichaelburnsjr. Not always. A similar case happened when it was discovered that triceratops were just juvenile torasourus. Torusurus was the older of the two names so traditionally they would keep it but they opted to keep triceratops instead as vastly more people wanted it
I love how non scientists don't understand the difference between common names and species names. manta is still the common name, the scientific name is the one that changed. call it mobula or manta, it literally doesn't matter in a non scientific context. this happens constantly with a bunch of different animals. you find new information and change the names to show the relationship between species. the way changing names in science works is by keeping the older name, when we change the names. that's all there is to it, it's a rule we use so we can keep track of the changes being made by different teams around the world, and to keep everything consistent. call it a manta ray if you want, that's what common names are for.
@@gerardmichaelburnsjr. If we are talking about taxonomy, it doesn't make sense to use "common words". 1. Some organisms don't even have common names. Like when two species of insects are closely related, so people use the same common name for them. And what about microorganisms, which were discovered just 400 years ago. They don't have common names. 2. It is less confusing than having to translate all the names accross different languages.
I know you are going to say you were just joking, but it's sad that so many people actually think of "science" as some kind of entity. "Science said eggs good, then eggs bad, then eggs good. I know eggs good, stupid science."
Saw a video of The Sphere presentation on my buddies phone the other day. Those manta rays are magnificent. Life sized video of them swimming right in front of you.
Sometimes the best names sound weird, but when you see the thing it makes perfect sense lol. String-tailed blanket fish would probably the English name of we didn't pick up common names for things from everyone else. Manta Ray sounds so much cooler, but it's just blanket, lol.
I had a national geographic book in the 90s. the manta ray was at the bottom of the ocean floor in complete darkness, then standing upwards with glowing eyes.
