Fuscus
Almost Legendary
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 7,897
- Reaction score
- 5
Reptile fossil
- Thread starter Fuscus
- Start date
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
G
Guest
Guest
how cool would that be to find something like THAT. do u think they will get to name it?
_popp_
Well-Known Member
Very interesting story that one,would be a blast to find a new species of dinosaur,you would think they should get it named after them. cheers popp
SnakeWrangler
Very Well-Known Member
As the article say's, it can't be a dinosaur because dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, this creature died 60 million years ago?? :shock:
jimmy_the_kid
Very Well-Known Member
come on only five million years dont get tecnical ha ha ha
G
Guest
Guest
so are reptiles.
Fuscus
Almost Legendary
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 7,897
- Reaction score
- 5
Strictly speaking birds are a linage that are derived from some dinosaurs, the Dromaeosauridae. The big difference is that dromaeosaurs have teeth, modern birds don't.
Incedently, are you aware of the terro bird http://harve9.tripod.com/id27.htm , a bird that evoled back towards a raptor style of living?
Incedently, are you aware of the terro bird http://harve9.tripod.com/id27.htm , a bird that evoled back towards a raptor style of living?
No, not all reptiles. Birds are the only extant reptiles which are dinosaurs. Birds can't be said to 'have evolved from dinosaurs but are no longer dinosaurs' because they are in the middle of the clade. If you wanted to exclude birds from being dinosaurs you'd also have to eliminate half of the 'typically well known as dinosaur' dinosaurs.
Hmm... must read this terro bird link
Sdaji said:
That's your opinion (and the opinion of other disciples of Willie Hennig).
Those of us that still believe in evolutionary taxonomy (asnd say 'Pffft' at cladistics) still reckon that a bird is a bird, and not a reptile, although it did evolve from reptiles.
Hix
Well, yes, it's my opinion. In this case, you're in the minority aren't you??? By convention, doesn't what the majority of people think constitute what is 'correct'?
Anyway, I suppose since we agree on the process of what happened, arguing isn't too productive, and someone like me who disagrees with so much of what is considered 'fact' should be particularly keen to consider alternate viewpoints
Don't you think cladistics is a much clearer way of categorising things? If you can call a bird a non dinosaur the whole system becomes arbitrary and muddied. Even with cladistics you can say that a bird is a bird, and nothing else is a bird, but if a dinosaur is not a bird it's extremely difficult to define 'dinosaur'.
By convention, doesn't what the majority of people think constitute what is 'correct'?Anyway, I suppose since we agree on the process of what happened, arguing isn't too productive, and someone like me who disagrees with so much of what is considered 'fact' should be particularly keen to consider alternate viewpoints
Don't you think cladistics is a much clearer way of categorising things? If you can call a bird a non dinosaur the whole system becomes arbitrary and muddied. Even with cladistics you can say that a bird is a bird, and nothing else is a bird, but if a dinosaur is not a bird it's extremely difficult to define 'dinosaur'.
Sdaji said:In this case, you're in the minority aren't you???
Am I? I thought most people believed that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but are not themselves dinosaurs. Anyway, even if I am in the minority, it doesn't make me wrong, just a holder of an alternative belief.
Sdaji said:
Nope, just what is popular at the time. A new synthesis/philosophy/fad will come along later - or more evidence - and the views will change. Look at what happened to Alfred Wegener and his theories.
Sdaji said:
Yes and no. I think it complements taxonomy, but has it's limitations.
Sdaji said:
Well, I define dinosaur as being a group of (usually) medium sized to large reptiles that existed during a certain period in the planets history. I don't see the word dinosaur as a taxa, more a vernacular term for a specific group during a specific time.
If you wish to believe that birds are dinosaurs, then you can, but it may get confusing for people who don't understand your arguments, or who follow the popular belief that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million yrs ago.
<insert lots of smileys here to show I am enjoying discussion>
Sdaji: Do you consider Tyrannosaurus to be a ratite?
Hix
No, most people don't realise that birds are in any way related to dinosaurs. But obviously I was refering to people who have a reasonable idea about what is going on, the majority of whom believe birds to be dinosaurs (or so I currently believe).
Yeah, and thus what is considered to be correct changes.
Well even in that case your definition doesn't hold, as it would have to include crocodiles, which are not extinct either. This is just one example of many which clearly show that 'dinosaur' is used as a taxonomic term, and that term can only be used if you include birds or remove half of what everyone currently calls dinosaurs.
Well, yes, I will continue to consider birds to be dinosaurs and more and more people are agreeing. Anyone who thinks dinosaurs became extinct millions of years ago should be confused because they didn't! Similarly, anyone who thinks that dinosaur means "all the big reptiles that lived millions of years ago" should be confused, because they weren't!
good to see all your smilies! Sometimes when you're only communicating in text and someone disagrees it can seem like a fight, even though one or both people are intending to come across as being friendly. I'll glad to see you're having fun. Here are some smilies of my own!
Was Mr rex a ratite? Depends on your definition of ratite doesn't it?
Go ask an ostrich how it feels about the issue Seriously though, if ratites are a group of birds and birds are a group of dinosaurs to which the 'non feathered members' ( ) don't belong, how could it be part of it? I'm no expert on ratites, is there somethnig else you meant or am I missing something? Have I just missed a joke and am now looking stupid? Or am I just looking stupid? 
Sdaji said:
I should have seen that one coming, my bad. In my original post I was going to say "large reptiles that existed from 220 million years to 65 million years ago", but I couldn't remember exactly when the first dinosaurs were thought to have arrived. So instead of going off an looking it up, I simply said "existed during a certian period of the planets history".
Had I stuck with my original statement, you would have seen that crocodiles don't fall into that category, as they are still extant. Albeit, not the same species, but close enough.
So let me be more specific: Hix considers dinosaurs to be any of the Saurischian or Ornithischian reptiles that existed during the mesozoic era.
I don't consider the term to be a taxa, just refering to two specific orders of archosaurs.
Sdaji said:Was Mr rex a ratite? Depends on your definition of ratite doesn't it?
You haven't missed anything, and you aren't looking stupid. I just threw that into the pot to see what you would say. You passed.
Hix
Yeah, well you didn't!
Seems like a pretty screwy definition to me A test to see if I was completely clueless? Thought it may have been
Taxonomy is a complete bitch of a thing to find a system for which will work well, it'll be debated until well after we're both dead, and for that long anyone who takes a side of any taxonomic fence will be disagreeing with many others.
I still say they're dinosaurs
- Status
Similar threads
