{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreifl6zb7xoj3urvwht56xaubxa7hk6z2uf4cfedmeazipy455rdzki",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:ppux22qhhdx7idaxeihqanji/app.bsky.feed.post/3mgxa7dqmou52"
  },
  "path": "/post/48844666",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-13T15:19:38.000Z",
  "site": "https://mander.xyz",
  "tags": [
    "Biodiversity",
    "solo",
    "0 comments",
    "https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00594-w",
    "Archive link"
  ],
  "textContent": "submitted by solo to biodiversity\n3 points | 0 comments\nhttps://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00594-w\n\nArchive link\n\n> Sharks might not be a natural biological group, with most species potentially closer kin to rays than to an oddball group of sharks.\n\n> The results, which haven’t been peer reviewed, suggest that most animals that people call sharks are more closely related to rays and skates than to hexanchiform shark species — just as Gould pointed was the case for some species called fishes. Biologists call such groups paraphyletic.",
  "title": "No such thing as a shark? Genomes shake up ocean predator’s family tree"
}