|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 28, 2011 0:40:16 GMT
Why is it so important to decide how to name the thing? What does it change? --It's not a retoric question, I am actually asking that for real--. Is it because the debate to decide if birds are direct theropod descendants is still active? Really? Thought that was a consensus actually. If so, why is it so important to decide if velociraptor is "a bird" or "a dinosaur", what's the point in practical terms? Yes, it is just semantics. but from a public relations standpoint, it can be an important distinction. Look at all the outlandish debates on this board alone that are sparked by ignorance of evolution coupled with misunderstanding of how classification works, which would never happen is Velociraptor was simply classified as both a dinosaur and a bird, rather than a "bird-like dinosaur". Nothing changes about the animal itself. It doesn't change the science one lick. But it helps create a change in people's outdated perceptions. The fact is that there is literally no perceivable difference between Velociraptor and Archaeopteryx other than size. I know we need to draw an arbitrary line, but this would be like drawing the line between apes and non-ape primates at the Gorilla/Chimp split. Using an obvious, easy to understand divider (feathered wings in birds, lack of tails in apes) is still arbitrary, but at least it follows some kind of logic, rather than being literally random. (Literally because Archaeopteryx was the first found Mesozoic winged animal simply by random chance. Again, if they'd found Microraptor in 1860, this conversation wouldn't exist.) Why not? It's more than we use to label both Hagfish and humans as Chordates. (Erect limbs is not the sole unique character uniting dinosaurs. There's also the enlarged crest on the upper arm bone for muscle attachment, the shelf at the back of the hip bone, a lower leg bone with a broad, flared end, and the unique process of the ankle which locks it in to the leg).
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 28, 2011 0:43:07 GMT
which would never happen is Velociraptor was simply classified as both a dinosaur and a bird, rather than a "bird-like dinosaur". Nothing changes about the animal itself. It doesn't change the science one lick. But it helps create a change in people's outdated perceptions. Exactly, it's dogma.
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 28, 2011 0:45:43 GMT
which would never happen is Velociraptor was simply classified as both a dinosaur and a bird, rather than a "bird-like dinosaur". Nothing changes about the animal itself. It doesn't change the science one lick. But it helps create a change in people's outdated perceptions. Exactly, it's dogma. There's a big difference between dogma and semantics. If you think this is dogma, maybe dogmatic words like "bird" and "dinosaur" should both be totally abandoned and replaced by something new.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 28, 2011 0:46:35 GMT
There's a big difference between dogma and semantics. Alright, I've had a few beers. But it's an entrenched perception that isn't displaced easily. People have a hard time accepting the dino-bird relationship because 'birds are special'. In an ideal world the word 'bird' wouldn't be replaced, but people would appreciate birds as being part of the larger Dinosauria.
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 28, 2011 8:15:42 GMT
Still, one thing I wouldn't be eager to would be not incluiding things that would basically be deemed members of the family of "the first bird" as not part of its own group. The similarity is far too great to not call any Paravian bird.
And then, if we find Archaeopteryx to be more basal that previously though, I'm going to laugh.
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Feb 28, 2011 9:19:00 GMT
The fact is that there is literally no perceivable difference between Velociraptor and Archaeopteryx other than size Fact... literally... I think this kind of exaggerations are not very advisable. Anyone could list quite a lot of other perceivable differences between those genera.
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 28, 2011 15:40:59 GMT
A casual observer would readily place Archaeopteryx alongside deinonychosaurs rather that with other birds if unlabeled but accurate restorations are present.
Archaeopteryx is mostly a deinonychosaur, with some avian characters.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 28, 2011 15:51:10 GMT
A casual observer would readily place Archaeopteryx alongside deinonychosaurs rather that with other birds if unlabeled but accurate restorations are present. Archaeopteryx is mostly a deinonychosaur, with some avian characters. Thought I might add this Hartman skeletal by way of illustration. Archaeopteryx had long feathers on its legs too, rather like Microraptor, which a lot of people seem to be unaware of.
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Feb 28, 2011 16:21:34 GMT
A casual observer would readily place Archaeopteryx alongside deinonychosaurs rather that with other birds if unlabeled but accurate restorations are present. A casual observer would readily misplace a lot of fossils. Not a very good argument I'm interested in how experts place things. Archaeopteryx shares a lot of characters with the deinonychosaurs because it is closely related to them (toghether belonging to the clade Paraves). Primitive members of both groups (Aves and Deinonychosauria) are quite similar because they didn't diverge much from their last common ancestor.
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Feb 28, 2011 16:30:22 GMT
Archaeopteryx had long feathers on its legs too, rather like Microraptor, which a lot of people seem to be unaware of Microraptor had very long feathers on their tarsometatarsus (feet). There is no evidence of these "complete hind wings" in Archaeopteryx. Its long feathers were restricted to the femur and the tibia.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 28, 2011 21:57:00 GMT
That's true. That's why I said "rather like" as opposed to "the same as" Microraptor
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Mar 1, 2011 3:18:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Mar 1, 2011 9:42:41 GMT
That was the most weirdest thing i'v ever seen, good stuff though.
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Mar 1, 2011 10:12:19 GMT
Haha!
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Mar 1, 2011 20:15:34 GMT
Haha! seriously!
|
|
|
Post by Pangolinmoth on Mar 1, 2011 20:33:33 GMT
Well, that is now stuck in my head forever.
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Mar 2, 2011 0:13:56 GMT
I think I'm definitely returning to that video next time I'm a little depressed. ;D
|
|
|
Post by haretrinity on Mar 9, 2011 19:19:07 GMT
Griffin; cute vid! Okay, just read/skim-read through all of this and I'm not sure when the argument slid to "are dinosaurs (more like) birds" but... Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's some debate in the land of Biology about whether or not reptiles and birds shouldn't be ONE category anyway? We can all speculate on how a crocodile doesn't look like a pigeon but then they're most certainly closer to each other than some fish (which are all in the category "fish" regardless). To be fair, a gallimimus doesn't look much like a crocodile either unless you give it that skin texture! Anywho, my original plan was to respond to... ... I'm not saying an animal couldn't have had both scales and fuzz on its body. Birds do today. I'm saying that looking at what we know about animal physiology its really not known for any animal to replace one with the other in the same place on the body. Its something that a lot of people just jump on the bandwagon for when there is really no evidence for it and proceeds to treat it like its a fact. I said on the other thread that i wouldn't say anything about a tyrannosaurus adult depicted with fuzz. Its plausible. Its the transition from one to the other in one animal's lifespan that makes no sense. Grey seal pups are born with fur, and lose it as they get older.Baby dolphins have whiskers that they then lose. A fair step away from a feather-scale switch yes, but certainly seems to be present in animals carrying traits of a species that specialised in a different environment. I'm for the more feathery T-rex myself... Was sure I'd heard of a fossil found "covered in" proto-feathers (but that was a while ago when I was little and my dad might well have exaggerated)... ...Hee, a long-haired T-rex (think persian cat) would be awesome!
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Mar 9, 2011 20:27:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by haretrinity on Mar 9, 2011 21:05:19 GMT
MOTHMAN! But yeah, adorable!
|
|