# Rabbits are considered fish?!? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 11, 2002, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508 "2002-06-11T19:07:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Brave\_Sir\_Robin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Brave\_Sir\_Robin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brave_Sir_Robin)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2002, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/1 "2002-06-11T19:07:01Z")
I read on [FoodReference.com](http://FoodReference.com) that French monks considered rabbits to be fish and could eat them whenever they weren’t supposed to eat meat. Is this the case? If so, how did they ever justify considering rabbits to be fish? [http://www.foodreference.com/html/frabbit.html](http://www.foodreference.com/html/frabbit.html) A Google search of combinations of French, monk, rabbit, and fish turned up a lot of recipe sites but no references to back up [FoodReference.com](http://FoodReference.com). Thanks for your assistance. Brave Sir Robin ---
**Author:** ![Swampwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Swampwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swampwolf)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2002, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/2 "2002-06-11T20:48:05Z")
Of course this could explain the Monty Python bit (in "Dead Bishop on the Landing/Church Police) > [@](#): > > “What fish’ve yer got that isn’t jugged?” > “Rabbit” > “Wot? Rabbit _fish?_” > “Errrr…it’s got fins.” Doesn’t much help the OP though. Sorry 'bout that. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2002, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/3 "2002-06-11T21:01:18Z")
If any French monks ever did this, they were playing games (or they were _really_ ignorant about the RCC dietary rules). The descriptions of meat from which one should abstain on Fridays and ember days has always pretty clearly identified what we would consider mammals and birds (warm blooded) even long before the Linnaean categories were established. There is no way that rabbits could be considered cold-blooded by anyone who has actually held one. While the story _might_ be true, it sounds like the sort of thing that was written as a joke and lost its humor connection along the way. ---
**Author:** ![Belrix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed655f/32.png) [@Belrix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belrix)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2002, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/4 "2002-06-11T21:08:10Z")
There used to be all sort of attempts to thwart the rules for meatless days. While I can’t comment on rabbit=fish, I do remember the “barnacle goose” a goose that was born of barnacles on a pier, then grew to adulthood completely on the water. That belief made the beastie a fish, by medieval definition (since it lived entirely on the water) and you could eat it on meatless days. I’m sure there was a lot of winking at each other on the days the goose was served. ---
**Author:** ![Wonko\_The\_Sane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/258eb7/32.png) [@Wonko\_The\_Sane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wonko_The_Sane)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2002, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/5 "2002-06-11T21:09:34Z")
I thought this was some kind of troll-type thread until I read the link. Now I’m just confused. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2002, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/6 "2002-06-11T21:12:55Z")
What I’ve heard is that they considered _fetal_ rabbits to be “not meat.” However, this is not believed everywhere; some believe that rabbit is always an acceptable substitute when fish is not available. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2002, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/7 "2002-06-11T22:06:09Z")
[Barnacle Geese](http://cyborganic.com/People/feathersite/Poultry/NDG/BillBernice.JPEG) were believed to grow from [Goose Barnacles](http://www.wildlifetrust.org.uk/cornwall/jpegs/goose2s.jpg); - they do look quite similar (superficially). Part of the reason that this belief persisted is that geese migrate, so it was not easy to observe them at every stage of their development. ---
**Author:** ![Belrix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed655f/32.png) [@Belrix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belrix)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2002, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/8 "2002-06-11T22:25:51Z")
Perhaps rabbit -\> meatless -\> fish is a confusion of Welsh _rarebit_ often written as Welsh _rabbit_. Rarebit is a cheese, ale, etc. mixture poured over or baked onto bread slices. It is meatless and appropriate for lenten days. [Recipe](http://www.cuisinedumonde.com/rarebit.html) The MW dictionary has it as [Rabbit](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=welsh+rabbit) with the etymology of [“rarebit”](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=welsh+rarebit) as an alteration from “rabbit”. My OED is out for an oil-change so the Mirriam Webster might have to do… ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2002, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/9 "2002-06-11T22:29:22Z")
Perhaps the monks were ahead of their time with respect to taxonomy 😛 To explain: The clade Osteichthyes (bony fish) contains the clades Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes, which includes all of what most people consider to be “fish”) and Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned, or fleshy-finned, fishes). All terrestrial vertebrates are included within Sarcopterygii. By cladistic standards, each clade represents all of the descendents of a given common ancestor. Thus, everything within Sarcopterygii is a fleshy-finned fish, and everything within Osteichthyes is a bony fish. Thus, rabbits are fish. But then, so are moose… ---
**Author:** ![drhess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/94ad74/32.png) [@drhess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drhess)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2002, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/10 "2002-06-11T23:47:48Z")
What’s a clade? ---
**Author:** ![capybara](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/capybara/32/202_2.png) [@capybara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capybara)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2002, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/11 "2002-06-11T23:57:08Z")
I have also heard something like this, but involving (well) capybaras in light of Lent/ Friday foods. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/12 "2002-06-12T00:29:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by drhess \* > \*\*What’s a clade? \*\* My apologies! Put simply, a clade is any ancestral species and all of its descendents (cladistics is a method of classifying organisms based upon relationships between clades). To further clarify my previous example, if a rabbit is ultimately descended from an early fish (the ancestral Osteichthyes), then it, too, is a fish. Note, however, that it is rather unlikey that this is what the French monks had in mind; it was simply the first thing I thought of upon reading the thread title. ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/13 "2002-06-12T00:33:20Z")
Dang. Didya ever have something on the tip of your brain, but couldn’t grab it? There was a story in the last year about some place where the locals eat (something) and believe it’s OK for lent. The local clergy, and of course, the fishmongers, were hoping for a clarification from the Pope that (aforementioned something) was meat and non-lenten. ---
**Author:** ![dqa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dqa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dqa)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/14 "2002-06-12T00:56:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capybara \* > \*\*I have also heard something like this, but involving (well) capybaras in light of Lent/ Friday foods. \*\* Likewise, I’d heard of this regarding muskrats and other aquatic mammals. Perhaps they’re referring to the rabbit that attacked Jimmy Carter. In fact, most cases like this involve a misunderstanding of canon law. The law, written in Latin, prohibits _carnes_, which refers to bird and mammal meat, not fish. This is a cultural concept more than a scientific one, so I suspect that Flipper and Shamu would be ok despite being mammals. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/15 "2002-06-12T04:59:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > > Note, however, that it is rather unlikey that this is what the French monks had in mind; it was simply the first thing I thought of upon reading the thread title. You and me both :). I am disappointed you got here first :p. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/16 "2002-06-12T05:32:55Z")
**Tamerlane** : 😃 And now, for some plot-thickening: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nametag \* > \*\*What I’ve heard is that they considered _fetal_ rabbits to be “not meat.” However, this is not believed everywhere; some believe that rabbit is always an acceptable substitute when fish is not available. \*\* It appears that this is the case with the French monks. From [this site](http://www.fonz.org/zoogoer/zg2000/29(4)rabbittale.htm): > [@](#): > > Medieval French monks are credited with domesticating rabbits between A.D. 500 and 1000. The monks had very special needs, apart from a taste for rabbit meat. At a time in Catholic Europe when even lay people had more fast days on the calendar than not, fetal or newborn rabbits—long a delicacy—were deemed “fish” by the Church authorities. Thus, monks could eat quite well on “laurices.” For the monks to monitor pregnant females and be on hand at the moment of birth, the laissez-faire Roman style of keeping rabbits had to go. The monks instead kept their rabbits in smaller, high-walled and paved courtyards, forcing the rabbits to breed and give birth on the grounds. And from [here](http://www.earthdogrunningdog.com/articles/dbp19_shefam.htm): > [@](#): > > Rabbit meat was considered a gourmet’s dish, but the unborn foetuses of the animal - called laurices - were considered a delicacy and one that could be eaten during Lent, when traditional meat was prohibited. The evisceration of a pregnant rabbit to extract the foetus is disgusting by any standards, but it is believed that the necessity of keeping does in cages before the process lead to the introduction of new breeds of domesticated rabbit. As for why the church might have made that distinction (particularly for rabbits, but not other animals), I have no idea. And for **blessedwolf** : perhaps [this](http://www.wetwebmedia.com/rabbitfi.htm) might better explain the sketch (or perhaps not…those Pythoners were an odd lot). ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/17 "2002-06-12T07:13:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > It appears that this is the case with the French monks. From [this site](http://www.fonz.org/zoogoer/zg2000/29(4)rabbittale.htm): > And from [here](http://www.earthdogrunningdog.com/articles/dbp19_shefam.htm): Wow. That’s a new one to me. Freakish. And people complain about veal and pate :D. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Brave\_Sir\_Robin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Brave\_Sir\_Robin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brave_Sir_Robin)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/18 "2002-06-12T14:17:59Z")
Thanks Darwin’s Finch! You cleared up the question quite well. Those French monks were certainly a strange lot. I was pretty convinced that the only biological similarities that would allow a rabbit to be considered a fish would also apply to all mammals. Brave Sir Robin ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/19 "2002-06-12T15:16:25Z")
Indeed, capybaras are eaten during Lent in Venezuela as they are also classified by the Vatican as a fish. Apparently, the rationale was because the guys have webbed feet and swim around… though they spend most of their time on the land. However, eating Capybaras on fast days does not extend beyond the borders of Venezuela, from what I’ve read. Interesting research question: Does the Vatican say that capybaras are only fish in Venezuela, or are they also fish in, say, Columbia? ---
**Author:** ![Cap\_n\_Crude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Cap\_n\_Crude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cap_n_Crude)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2002, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508/20 "2002-06-12T15:23:01Z")
My **guess** about fetal rabbits counting as fish: inside the bunny-womb, they are in an aqueous medium and don’t breathe air. Thus, a medieval scientist could make the claim that it’s a fish. After all, it’s breathing “water.” Of course, the logical extension of that line of reasoning is that all unborn animals (including humans) are fish, and therefore edible during lent. This, from the same people who accused us Jews of using babies’ blood to make matzoh… :rolleyes: [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rabbits-are-considered-fish/113508.md?page=2)