Are birds reptilian?

Are birds reptilian?

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Humans and bananas share 50% of thie DNA. (Seriously, look it up).
    That makes OP a fruit.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    No. Cladistics is dumb

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Cladistics is dumb
      Cladistics *ARE* dumb

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cladistics is a singular noun

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Cladistics is dumb
          Cladistics *ARE* dumb

          No. Cladistics is dumb

          Regardless of whether it’s a singular or plural noun, it’s a retarded way to categorize anything because of this kind of thing

          this
          if you go by the common ancestor approach, birds must be reptiles since they are more closely related to crocodiles than crocs are to lizards yet both crocs and lizards are reptiles.
          With humans, we're got a closer common ancestor to trout than trout do to sharks, so if trout and shark are both fish then we should be too.
          Basically, grouping by common ancestor (aka how far back two species's ancestry branched) is very useful for studying evolution and natural history, but not very useful if the goal is to group animals by common traits.
          So it's context dependent. Reptiles are a group of mostly scaled mostly ectothermic land vertebrates that aren't necessarily closely related, fish are a group of gilled ectothermic aquatic vertebrates that aren't amphibians even though trait-wise some amphibians kinda should qualify. But the terms are good shorthand for most purposes that aren't evolution or biogeograpy.

          >lol every vertebrate is a fish

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>lol every vertebrate is a fish
            Fish are not a valid clade.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    yes

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      LEAVE THAT bro ALONE

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I showed my mom a potoo and she refused to believe it was a bird and insisted it was a lizard or something

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Under basic cladistics, yes.
    In a practical sense, not really. Birds are extremely derived compared to other diapsids, and even compared to crocodilians.
    I think part of the issue is just a vocabulary issue. Scientifically, "reptile" doesn't hold up well, but under the basic rules, we must consider birds reptiles. In practical, every day conversation, however, we don't consider them reptiles. We refer to crocodilians, Testudines, and lepidosaurs as reptilians because they all share certain characteristics which are easy to lump together.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      this
      if you go by the common ancestor approach, birds must be reptiles since they are more closely related to crocodiles than crocs are to lizards yet both crocs and lizards are reptiles.
      With humans, we're got a closer common ancestor to trout than trout do to sharks, so if trout and shark are both fish then we should be too.
      Basically, grouping by common ancestor (aka how far back two species's ancestry branched) is very useful for studying evolution and natural history, but not very useful if the goal is to group animals by common traits.
      So it's context dependent. Reptiles are a group of mostly scaled mostly ectothermic land vertebrates that aren't necessarily closely related, fish are a group of gilled ectothermic aquatic vertebrates that aren't amphibians even though trait-wise some amphibians kinda should qualify. But the terms are good shorthand for most purposes that aren't evolution or biogeograpy.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >because they all share certain characteristics which are easy to lump together.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        what a beautiful dog. I would spend $20k on it in a heartbeat

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    not really
    i mean sure they're the closest thing to dinosaurs today but that doesn't make em the same thing as a lizard

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >giant reptiles evolved into tiny little feathered flying birds
    >people believe this

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, the small reptiles got feathers, branched into big reptiles, and then branched into birds on a different branch.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      it's the little dinosaurs that evolved into birds, the big ones died off

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Retard

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Ugly

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    yes
    snakes are also lizards and you're a bony fish

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    They are archosaurs. If birds aren't reptiles, neither are crocodiles.

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    yeah

Your email address will not be published.