Originally posted by amolv06You are confusing species with larger groupings. A species is defined largely based on the ability to interbreed. Larger groupings are based on shared characteristics, and common ancestry.
Surely a distinction must be drawn between the dinosaurs and their descendants, if for no other reason for classification purposes alone. Or am I wrong. I know we descended from the Australopithicines (sp?), but are we Australopithicines as well? From my understanding, our classification system doesn't work this way. I was under the impression that at so ...[text shortened]... saurs. But I am not well-versed in this subject, and should read up before posting probably.
I think another problem, is your understanding of 'dinosaur' is based on picture books.
If there was a tyrannosaurus in a zoo, that was descended from the dinosaurs, you would have no problem calling it a dinosaur. Birds to this day, still share most of the features that made dinosaurs different from other reptiles. As such they are in the dinosaur sub-group of reptiles. They are not tyrannosaurus', but that is why dinosaurs are divided into sub-groups, one of which is the birds.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you claiming dinosaurs had feathers over their bodies and could fly? Is so,
You are confusing species with larger groupings. A species is defined largely based on the ability to interbreed. Larger groupings are based on shared characteristics, and common ancestry.
I think another problem, is your understanding of 'dinosaur' is based on picture books.
If there was a tyrannosaurus in a zoo, that was descended from the dinosaurs, ...[text shortened]... nnosaurus', but that is why dinosaurs are divided into sub-groups, one of which is the birds.
I am sure you must have been reading to many science fiction books or maybe
you saw it on the cartoons and other animated movies and videos for children.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThank you so much for informing me where my understanding of dinosaurs comes from! Up until this point I was under the impression that my knowledge of dinosaurs came from the Land Before Time, and the Dinosaurs TV series.
I think another problem, is your understanding of 'dinosaur' is based on picture books.
[/b]
I was ill-informed. My picture books gave me the impression that dinosaurs formed a paraphyletic group. My confusion had nothing to do with the inconsistency between classical Linnaean taxonomy, which was emphasized in school, and the more modern phylogenetic-driven nomenclature which borrows some terminology from the old model, but replaces it with a more modern definition. It also had nothing to do with the modern concept of paraphyletic taxa -- a classification I thought the dinosaurs fit. My misunderstanding had everything to do with my picture books. I would look down and see the T-Rex: a lean, mean limb-tearing, destruction machine, and think to myself "Hmm, this looks nothing like a bird so birds can't possibly be dinosaurs!" I was simply too incredulous to see the truth. But I have been corrected now. I humbly apologize for my confusion, and thank you profusely for setting me straight.
Originally posted by amolv06Were there any bird-like dinosaurs in that?
Actually, it's mostly based on the Land Before Time series.
Note also that birds are descended from Theropods, a suborder of dinosaurs. This suggests that they are closer to some Theropod dinosaurs, than some other dinosaurs. For example Theropods (including birds) were/are bipedal and have three toes. There were dinosaurs that were four legged and did not have three toes.
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is evidence suggesting feathers were a lot more widespread among the dinosaurs than is commonly believed:
Are you claiming dinosaurs had feathers over their bodies and could fly? Is so,
I am sure you must have been reading to many science fiction books or maybe
you saw it on the cartoons and other animated movies and videos for children.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5845/1721.short
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/abs/nature01342.html
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo it has nothing to do with the feathers and wings, but the toes that make
Were there any bird-like dinosaurs in that?
Note also that birds are descended from Theropods, a suborder of dinosaurs. This suggests that they are closer to some Theropod dinosaurs, than some other dinosaurs. For example Theropods (including birds) were/are bipedal and have three toes. There were dinosaurs that were four legged and did not have three toes.
birds dinosaurs?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadPetri was a baller, and was very bird-like. Except he could talk. And kicked major ass.
Were there any bird-like dinosaurs in that?
Note also that birds are descended from Theropods, a suborder of dinosaurs. This suggests that they are closer to some Theropod dinosaurs, than some other dinosaurs. For example Theropods (including birds) were/are bipedal and have three toes. There were dinosaurs that were four legged and did not have three toes.
I understand the evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs -- at least at an interested amateur's level. My question's were more oriented at the naming schemes we use.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWhere does he say that?!
So it has nothing to do with the feathers and wings, but the toes that make
birds dinosaurs?
He was trying to explain the intricate relationship between birds and the (other) dinosaurs to me. He used the toes to make a point -- but said nothing even remotely close to what you said. Why do you post here?
Originally posted by amolv06Sorry, I thought you wanted to learn the truth. I wasn't aware that you liked science fiction, too.
Where does he say that?!
He was trying to explain the intricate relationship between birds and the (other) dinosaurs to me. He used the toes to make a point -- but said nothing even remotely close to what you said. Why do you post here?
Originally posted by amolv06And my point is that modern birds are closer anatomically to the T-Rex, than some other dinosaurs were.
I understand the evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs -- at least at an interested amateur's level. My question's were more oriented at the naming schemes we use.
I realize that historically, 'dinosaur' has referred a group of animals in the past, but that was mostly due to the fact that it was not known at the time that birds were descents of that group. Amphibians, reptiles and mammals from that period do not have one name for the historical species and another for modern ones.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by utherpendragonAre you truly this stupid and ignorant or are you trolling?
If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes ?
Genes are like IP. Stealing it from another species doesn't destroy their copy. If it did, there wouldn't be both plants and animals, so mention of "apes" in this context is misleading to say the least.
Richard