Crocodiles More Bird Than Reptile...

[Serpentess]

Is what I recently heard being told on a children's tv show.

In fact, it was presented as such:
"Did you know that crocodiles are more closely related to birds than reptiles?

 

[kawasakirider]

I think reptiles are closely related to birds.

 

[reptilesrkool]

yeah it`s true i think it cause they both have a 4 chamberd heart but don`t quote me on that

 

[Serpentess]

Dinosaurs were closely related to birds.
But crocs actually are a reptile... You can't get more closely related than that, right?
I can understand if they said that they are more related to birds than other species of reptiles, but they didn't.

 

[Snakeluvver2]

What actually denotes a reptile is pretty hard to explain, check out the last few Scales and Tails there is some good info on it about "what is a reptile"

 

[guzzo]

Yes! they are closely related to the crocatoo!!!

 

[saximus]

There was a funny XKCD comic I saw kinda referring to this topic. I didn't really get it until I just (as in this morning) read the chapter in The Greatest Show on Earth where Dawkins explains that many biologists are uncomfortable with reptiles being in a class on their own that they should actually be an order of the class Aves (birds). Since crocs are considered "living fossils" (ie they haven't evolved as much as other species), their closest ancestors would actually be the common ancestors that reptiles share with birds...if you get what I mean

 

[lace90]

Birds and crocodiles both share a more recent common ancestor than do other reptiles and crocodiles, so crocs are more closely related to birds. I think people get confused because they think dinosaurs are reptiles, but they are distinct from each other - birds are also reptilian in many ways as they evolved from dinosaurs before mammals etc (who diverged from birds), and still share a lot of (mostly) internal characteristics that link them to this. Other reptiles are a more recent occurence in the phylogeny. There have been some nice fossils found in qld and nsw that link dinosaurs and birds; some of the people I work with do studies on this and it is quite interesting.

 

[guzzo]

well the babies sort of make a bird like chirp!!!

 

[saximus]

There have been some nice fossils found in qld and nsw that link dinosaurs and birds; some of the people I work with do studies on this and it is quite interesting.

Archaeopteryx, although not found in Aus, is arguably the best example. However some say it is a poor example because it means stooping down to the level of people to talk about "missing links"

 

[lace90]

Haha, I agree - everything is a 'missing link' - as unless you have a fossil from every generation from the beginning of life to now, how do we know for sure that the sequence we are predicting is correct? We can only say that these morphological characters link neatly, and molecular dating and sequencing can give it a little more support - but we can just give our best estimates and hypotheses. But I suppose that is science, right?

 

[saximus]

Haha and also if we had an unending list of these "missing links" from every generation it would be impossible to classify anything as any particular species because it would not be possible to identify when a particular class, genus, species ends and another starts

PS Sorry for stealing the thread a little there Chantelle. I hope between us, Lace and I kinda answered what you were talking about...

 

[lace90]

We could take the molecular mutations to account for differences in spp. (though this would be a LOT more ambiguous than genus) and again it would just be an estimate of how many mutations is needed down the generations (ei. from F3 - F10) and whether the accumulation of these mutations caused enough differences to be an individual species. Aaaah I can't even imagine how much work that would take - not to mention the difficulty in extracting any sort of viable genetic information from a fossil millions of years old!!

So I think that any one who dosen't take what has been found so far and give it the benefit of the doubt should remember that they prob don't have anything any more viable than this evidence to contribute lol.

 

[Darlyn]

I'm pretty sure one theory is that way way back crocs were
probably bipedal but I think we're pretty lucky they don't fly.

 

[Serpentess]

Haha and also if we had an unending list of these "missing links" from every generation it would be impossible to classify anything as any particular species because it would not be possible to identify when a particular class, genus, species ends and another starts

PS Sorry for stealing the thread a little there Chantelle. I hope between us, Lace and I kinda answered what you were talking about...

Haha, no worries.

I understand what you're both saying. I know that birds and reptiles are more closely related then some might think, but when it comes down to it what would you tell a kid what a croc is? A bird or a reptile? This kids show just put it too bluntly for my liking.

 

[saximus]

Haha well technically it is true. So maybe the confusing nature of such a statement would cause the children to question their parents and encourage the parents to pick up a biology book and do some research

 

[Serpentess]

Haha well technically it is true. So maybe the confusing nature of such a statement would cause the children to question their parents and encourage the parents to pick up a biology book and do some research

One can only hope. Haha.
I'm just not a fan of being too blunt with children without a valid explanation... It always ends up with confused children, etc.
I have many younger siblings so I have experienced this first hand. Haha.

 

[lace90]

Interesting that a kids show taught that kind of information...I think it is good to teach kids facts rather than to simplify it too much that they grow up thinking the wrong thing, though I agree that some information must be confusing. So from the kids you experienced this with, did they end up learning anything at all or just stayed confused?

 

[Serpentess]

Interesting that a kids show taught that kind of information...I think it is good to teach kids facts rather than to simplify it too much that they grow up thinking the wrong thing, though I agree that some information must be confusing. So from the kids you experienced this with, did they end up learning anything at all or just stayed confused?

Well it would be good if they taught facts. This was just a statement without any back up information.
Like I've said earlier (though my sentence structure looks a bit off when I said it), I would have preferred it even if it simply just said that they were more closely related to birds than they are to other reptiles, but crocs are still typically classified as a reptile, although that is a very complex and completely different reptile. I reckon that they should just get their own family to fix all this confusion. Haha. Birtiles sounds good to me.

 

[Australis]

This thread would make Kirk cry.
He wants his crocoduck..