ShinCzilla

[summers @ontgotic]

i think this person puts it really well the issue i have w violet

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly Dinosaurs also had feathers, guess dinosaurs aren't reptiles either. While we are at it, we should probably put these feathered animals together in the same group :).

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly Anything that would seperate birds from reptiles(which is a paraphyletic term anyway) would also seperate dinosaurs and arguably crocodilians, so no, you can't say they are 'unlike reptiles in every single way'

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly That's arbitrary, and a symptom of the fact that dinosaur books tend to focus on the mesozoic for scope. Any up to date dinosaur book will differentiate dinosaurs from pterosaurs and call prehistoric avians a type of dinosaur.

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly True, birds are different than the reptiles that Herpatologists study, but so are dinosaurs. The point was Herpatology is only known as the study of reptiles and not the study of cold blooded terrestrial vertebrates because it predates our understanding of birds being reptiles.

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when talking about common language but no, you can not understand any circumstance evolve out of a clade, birds evolved before many famous dinosaurs, under our current understanding it is fact that birds are dinosaurs.

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly Language is tied to our understanding of our world and utility of the words being used. Birds being dinosaurs is a scientific fact and calling birds dinosaurs doesnt cause any issue with either terms so the utility is preserved.

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly 2. I dont see any irony unless you are going to argue that language evolving is equivalent to restructuring an entire field of academia that also included amphibians anyway.

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly Hell, if you want an example, this isn't a book but the recent documentary 'The Dinosaurs' covered several bird species and didnt make a distinction from dinosaurs, and that is more layperson friendly than any scientific book 2/2

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly 1. Anecdotal, the fact that you dont have any books that cover common topics such as Hesperornis doesn't mean they dont exist. 1/2

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly So are you trying to actually insinuate that language doesn't evolve as our understanding of the world changes? Because early societies used to consider and call whales fish before we knew they were mammals, it wouldn't make sense for us to call them mammals now.

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly A book about dinosaurs would typically include birds actually. Herpetology predates our understanding that birds are dinosaurs and its easier to keep it and Ornithology separate since Herpetology focuses on cold blooded animals and not just reptiles.

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly The linnaean system is only actively in use in very specific circumstances such as rank alongside cladistics, not replacing it. The linnaean system is no longer used for grouping lineages together and would not seriously be used by any scientist to separate dinosaurs and birds.

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly What context could including birds as dinosaurs be a negative when referring to dinosaurs that including other dinosaurs already wouldnt?

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly That's because Timmy is misinformed. If Timmy knew that birds were dinosaurs and Timmy really liked parrots, he may answer parrots. Your issue is you aren't factoring in the fact that birds being accepted as dinosaurs is relatively new and the language hasn't had time to catch up

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@SaffronOlive @StanCifka In fairness chess was historically iterated on. While what we play today is old age wise it is technically the newest version of chess.

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly There's a contradiction because calling whales fish would also be calling every mammal a fish, which would make the term redundant in colloquial use. Calling birds dinosaurs is just calling birds dinosaurs, there is no redundancy unless your only idea of dinosaurs is 'big lizard'

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly Can you provide an example to disprove my claim and prove yours? Since honestly your language is confusing me by alluding to some separate 'class' of dinosauria even though dinosauria isnt a class, I'm genuinely wondering what you are referring to when you say that.

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly The only real distinction the term non-avian dinosaurs makes is the fact that the avians survived the extinction and every other group of dinosaurs didn't. There is no unique trait of birds that makes them inconvenient to talk about compared to any other 'tradtional' dinosaur.

[ShinCzilla @Czilla1000]

@daeartes @Urart3 @BreadlySteadly Except the only reason birds being dinosaurs isn't commonly used in language is people not completely understanding the connection. There is no contradiction calling birds dinosaurs just like there is no contradiction calling bats mammals.