They are mammal but with body of fish

Chloe is very... obviously a mammal.

​@@Marconius6 *Argonians have entered the chat*

Actually both are correct, since the term "fish" has no biological definition. It's similar to tomatoes that are vegetables from a culinary point of view and fruit from a biological view.

@@SkepticalCaveman By what categorization is an orca a fish? I guess Biblical... Or if you want to get technical, in cladistics fish could be a synonym for vertebrates, in which case we're all fish too.

@@Marconius6 culinary

Nobody thinks Orca are taxonomically classed as Actinopterygii, which is the classic "fish" excluding Sharks and Rays. Of course they are Sarcopterygii if you take a cladistic view of the term since all tetrapods are descendent from Sarcoptergii. But ultimately fish is a meaningless term if you are being a pedant, and even more so once you start thinking about multiple languages

Not whale but dolphin

The word "fish" has no biological meaning, just like the word "vegetable" so it's no more wrong to say that orcas are fish than to say tomatoes are vegetables.

Yeah, but the general definition of the word _fish_ includes the respective animal having gills. So cetaceans are not fish.

@@Patte-chan that is a modern ad hoc solution to try to save the term fish from a biological perspective even though it doesn't make sense. It's time to completely abandon the use of the *biological* term fish completely. The traditional use of the word fish can still be used, because it's not biological, just like the word "vegetable"'. In summary it is just as correct to call a whale a fish as it is to call a tomato a vegetable. In summary tomatoes are both vegetables and fruit, and whales are both fish and mammals.

Lol, I summarized my last post twice, I blame it on waking up from a nap, just now.