While not specifically research related, this new development in wildlife law is certainly noteworthy. California court of appeals has decided that "fish" isn't just a term relegated to the aquatic creatures that pescatarians love to eat, but also to bees.
At first, this appears to be a weird series of events, but is actually good news on the environmental and animal preservation front, as this case hinged on the California Endangered Species Act. For the readers who may not be familiar with this, the CESA is an Act created to offer special protections to species which are Endangered, so as to stop them from becoming extinct. Obvious, I know, but some people truly might not know.
The issue arose with the Fish and Game Code, Division 3, Chapter 1.5, Article 1, section 2062, which reads: " 'Endangered species' means a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct" (1). Bees, and insects in general, do not fall under any of the categories listed. Because of this, they cannot be given protection under CESA.
Hence a discussion was started about the true definition of fish. Reportedly this legal definition was changed in 2019 to include a "wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals" (2). I say reportedly as this was quoted in many news articles but as of right now, I couldn't find the official case that included this definition.
This brings us to the case at hand: are bees considered fish under this updated definition? As our local biologists can tell us, bees are invertebrate, meaning they don't have a spine, and therefore fall under the definition of fish so long as we aren't only considering aquatic invertebrates. Of course, as you know already, the court ruled that they weren't and now we have three lovely species of bumblebee fish.
My thoughts:
Honestly, the definition of bees and fish aren't something that truly affect my day-to-day life, and therefore, I don't have much of an opinion. I more so found this to be interesting because of the way that it showcases the difference between legal definitions and other definitions. For example, the Brittanica definition of a fish is "any of approximately 34,000 species of vertebrate animals (phylum Chordata) found in the fresh and salt waters of the world." (3).
Obviously, this wouldn't allow bees to be considered fish, but a legal definition can. When talking about subjects that contain statutes and laws, we need to consider whether the definition being used is from a dictionary, law, or scientific background. Each one can provide a separate definition, none of which are explicitly wrong, but will lead you to an incorrect conclusion for a particular context.
And also; it's bees and fish. What's not to love about that?