Your Honor, I wanna present evidence in defense of OP:
Exhibit A: In Dutch language the creature is called “walvis”, in which the syllable “vis” translates directly to “fish” in English.
Exhibit B: The scientist Stephen Jay Gould concluded, after a lifetime studying marine life, that “fish” do not form a single genus, nor are they all closely related to one another, and that there is no single evolutionary ancestor exclusive to all species traditionally called fish. This implies that the term “fish” is not a scientifically coherent category, and therefore any aquatic creature could, in principle, be labeled a “fish”.
Your Honor, I wanna present evidence in defense of OP:
Exhibit A: In Dutch language the creature is called “walvis”, in which the syllable “vis” translates directly to “fish” in English.
Exhibit B: The scientist Stephen Jay Gould concluded, after a lifetime studying marine life, that “fish” do not form a single genus, nor are they all closely related to one another, and that there is no single evolutionary ancestor exclusive to all species traditionally called fish. This implies that the term “fish” is not a scientifically coherent category, and therefore any aquatic creature could, in principle, be labeled a “fish”.
I rest my case.