Feel free to browse through five years of dino-discussion here in the Version 1 Archive! And then join in the ongoing discussion at The Dinosaur Toy Forum: Version 2
If by "raptors", you mean Manioraptorans, then yes, they are descended from "raptors". I also dislike how you say "were more closely related", as if they stop being related over time.
When people say 'raptors' they normally mean dromaeosaurs, in which case yes, they were closely related!
Birds. Are. Dinosaurs. Simple. As. That. @ Foxillized: Not if the study is bogus, which I don't think it is.
They were more closer to the raptors then the other dinosaurs.
Isn't this like saying you're more closely related to your parents than to your grandparents? It's true but what's the point? You're still related to all of them, and more importantly, descended from all of them.
It's more correct to say that birds are dinosaurs and birds descended from other dinosaurs, not that birds are related to dinosaurs. Humans are related to dinosaurs too, as are trees. Just at varying distances.
Example: Let's say your name is Henry Jones. I could say, "Henry is descended from the Joneses." Or I could say "Henry is a Jones." Both are correct, but which is more accurate? Obviously the second one. Same for "birds are descended from dinosaurs" vs. "birds are dinosaurs." You're just adding an extra word for no reason, not to mention making things needlessly complicated.
If by "raptors", you mean Manioraptorans, then yes, they are descended from "raptors". I also dislike how you say "were more closely related", as if they stop being related over time.
When people say 'raptors' they normally mean dromaeosaurs, in which case yes, they were closely related!
Grrr! Will people stopp saying that things stop being related over time! And yes, they were, I just get pissed off when people refer to Manioraptorans in general, and Deinonychosaurs specifically, as "raptors". Curse you Jurassic Park!
I just get pissed off when people refer to Manioraptorans in general, and Deinonychosaurs specifically, as "raptors". Curse you Jurassic Park!
I've never seen "raptor" being referred to all maniraptorans. Mononykus, Therizinosaurus, Troodon, Archaeopteryx.. all of them are Maniraptorans but they are not generally called "raptors".
I've never seen "raptor" being referred to all maniraptorans. Mononykus, Therizinosaurus, Troodon, Archaeopteryx.. all of them are Maniraptorans but they are not generally called "raptors".
And this all ignores the fact that the term "raptor" already has a relatively set definition in biology. There's got to be at least one kid out there who was horribly disappointed upon opening a book titled "Raptors of the World."
Grrr! Will people stopp saying that things stop being related over time!
But degrees of relatedness do decrease over time. You, my sister, and I all share a very recent common ancestor; is she not more closely related to me than you are? If I say that humans are more closely related to chimps than they are to gorillas, why would you think that I have to be committed to the idea that humans and gorillas aren't related at all? Not all quantities have to decrease to zero.
Joined: Aug 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 1,399 Location: Tasmania
Re: T-rex had feathers! « Reply #108 on Feb 19, 2011, 4:40am »
I know what you're getting at, and thanks Horridus for clearing up what you meant, but it's just that people keep thinking that as time goes on, and using your example, you, your sister and I would keep getting less and less related, for want of a better term.
I just get pissed off when people refer to Manioraptorans in general, and Deinonychosaurs specifically, as "raptors". Curse you Jurassic Park!
I've never seen "raptor" being referred to all maniraptorans. Mononykus, Therizinosaurus, Troodon, Archaeopteryx.. all of them are Maniraptorans but they are not generally called "raptors".
Mainly because hardly any true laymen know what the first two are, and the last two are that close to being Dromaeosaurs, and the public's that ignorant that they don't care anyway.
Joined: Aug 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 3,929 Location: New Jersey
Re: T-rex had feathers! « Reply #112 on Feb 23, 2011, 5:19am »
I gotta admit, when talking about actual dinosaurs that actually existed like dromaeosaurus, deinonychus...i use "dromaeosaur". If I'm referring to the velociraptors from jurassic park i will sometimes use the phrase "raptor" for short.
I gotta admit, when talking about actual dinosaurs that actually existed like dromaeosaurus, deinonychus...i use "dromaeosaur". If I'm referring to the velociraptors from jurassic park i will sometimes use the phrase "raptor" for short.
Same again. I'll refer to the JP 'raptor' or Papo 'raptor' simply because it's a fictitious creature. (Er, if that makes sense....)
Naah, i use the term "Raptor" both for the fictional JP critters and the real ones
Raptor is traditionally used to mean any bird of prey. Owls, hawks, and eagles, etc. are related to each other only to various degrees. Modern "raptors" aren't a natural group, just a term for any predatory bird.
So calling Deinonychus, bald eagles, vultures and great horned owls all "raptors" in the traditional sense is no problem. A raptor is a predatory bird. Velociraptor is a predatory bird. Therefore Velociraptor is a raptor!
That use of the word "obviously" is surprising, because you have a peculiar, personal, minority opinion on this subject. My impression is that the vast majority of experts don't call dromaeosaurs "birds". Dromaeosaurs, and troodontids, were non avian, non bird dinosaurs.
Quote:
A raptor is a predatory bird. Velociraptor is a predatory bird. Therefore Velociraptor is a raptor!
The logic fails at the second sentence. In fact, Velociraptor is called a "raptor" because a totally new meaning of the word "raptor" became popularized. "Raptor" is an abbreviation of Velociraptor that was later generalized to dinosaurs similar or closely related to this genus.
Re: T-rex had feathers! « Reply #119 on Feb 25, 2011, 1:44pm »
They are closer to birds that to other dinosaurs.
Also, the painful truth, is that cladistics have done some damage here. Had Sinornithosaurus been found in 1980, Dromaeosauridae would become a synonim of Archaeopterygidae, and raptors would be birds, and there won't be any bickering of people not getting the meaning. Also, had Archaeopteryx been discovered after Dromaeosaurs, it would be classified as a dromaeosaur.
Plus, they have exactly the same avian characters as Archaeopteryx. And the concept of "bird" is a quite difuse one. If bird is "the descendants of the last common ancestor of all modern birds", then it is a common word for Neornithes, and Archaeopteryx is not a bird.
Then there is the possibility of Archaeopteryx being more basal than Deinonychosaurs.
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/1109/avatar2gr.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
Logged![[avatar]](http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1892/triceratopspainting.jpg "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://img19.imageshack.us/i/unenlagiapaintingcopy.jpg/ "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/699/dinos038.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/3601/freakmr.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs071.snc4/34915_450725322501_730197501_6071284_3946319_n.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://avatar.hq-picture.com/avatars/img16/dinosaur_angry_avatar_picture_78882.gif "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[image]](http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x333/lio99/bbb.jpg "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://i483.photobucket.com/albums/rr192/EternalPan/green_t_rex_close-285x300.jpg "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://i483.photobucket.com/albums/rr192/EternalPan/edmontonia123124.jpg "[image]")