|
Post by Horridus on Feb 16, 2011 17:27:22 GMT
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!
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Feb 16, 2011 21:23:34 GMT
So this thread goes from a feather debate right into a birdsaredinosaurs debate. Nice. At least its on topic this time.
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 17, 2011 5:40:21 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by Megaraptor on Feb 17, 2011 8:47:54 GMT
Dinoguy, just to be pedantic, it's two extra words, and I already covered that.
|
|
|
Post by Megaraptor on Feb 17, 2011 8:50:02 GMT
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!
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Feb 17, 2011 10:16:02 GMT
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".
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 17, 2011 17:16:12 GMT
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! I didn't mean to imply that, I just used the past tense as dromaeosaurs are all dead. Sorry for the confusion.
|
|
Tyrannosauron
Junior Member
Science cannot move forward without heaps!
Posts: 92
|
Post by Tyrannosauron on Feb 17, 2011 20:18:32 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by Megaraptor on Feb 19, 2011 4:40:04 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by Megaraptor on Feb 19, 2011 4:43:13 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Feb 20, 2011 20:32:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Megaraptor on Feb 23, 2011 5:08:34 GMT
Read back a few posts. Not that hard.
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Feb 23, 2011 5:19:26 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by Megaraptor on Feb 23, 2011 8:32:52 GMT
Same.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 23, 2011 14:48:28 GMT
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....)
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Feb 23, 2011 18:57:28 GMT
It totally makes sense don't worry. Well at least to me it does.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 24, 2011 18:30:52 GMT
Naah, i use the term "Raptor" both for the fictional JP critters and the real ones
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 25, 2011 4:39:13 GMT
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. Dromaeosaurs are obviously predatory, and obviously birds, as I wrote here: knol.google.com/k/the-first-birdsSo 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!
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Feb 25, 2011 8:00:55 GMT
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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 25, 2011 13:44:22 GMT
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.
|
|