There are many kinds of fish in nature, and because of their different physiological structures, some fish have fewer thorns, while others have more. Among many kinds of fish, it's hard to say exactly which fish has the least thorns and which one has the most thorns. I'm afraid it's only relatively more or less. Let's talk about several kinds of fish with fewer thorns and more thorns in freshwater fish and see if everyone agrees:
Fish with fewer bones tread on fire. Personally, I think that eel, catfish, such as catfish, pond angle fish, mud pond fish, and snakehead (snakehead) are almost the same, all of which are just a spine bone, and there are almost no small spines with a few big spines, especially eel, whose body structure is so simple that there are no dorsal fins and ventral fins, which is virtually missing.
The fish with more fishbones, such as silver carp, local crucian carp and tilapia, are the upper fish in the row, and there are relatively many small bones in the meat, which is why crucian carp is usually used to make soup, while silver carp and tilapia are mostly used to make fish balls.
Of course, the number and number of fishbones are also related to the size of the fish. If the individual of the same species is relatively large, there will be many fewer small fishbones. For example, compared with a grass carp weighing more than 20 kg and a grass carp weighing 3 kg, it is certain that the former will have many fewer small fishbones, because these fishbones also grow up with the growth of the fish. When the fish reaches a certain weight, the previous small fishbones may also grow into big ones (. This kind of big fish tastes, in fact, you rarely eat small fishbones.
The above is only my personal opinion, my friends, which fish do you think have more or less spines?