urzu_seven t1_iwlq3xe wrote on November 16, 2022 at 4:00 PM

Reply to comment by FillRevolutionary900 in Why are saurischians (lizard-hipped) and ornithiscians (bird-hipped) named as such when literally all birds (and the things they are closely related to) are saurischians and herbivorous dinosaurs that are anything but bird-like are considered bird-hipped? by [deleted]

The separation of dinosaurs into two groups (saurischia and ornithischia) occurred long before the modern idea of birds being considered dinosaurs was contemplated. Current evidence suggests birds are descendants of a subset of therapods, which were saurischia. Obviously their characteristics changed over hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

Basically they aren’t saurischian because THEY have lizard like hips but because their distant ancestors did.

The fact they are so different from their ancestors is why I, frankly, think calling them dinosaurs is grossly misleading, and scientific pedantry. It leads to exactly the kind of confusion you are experiencing.

FillRevolutionary900 t1_iwlrvun wrote on November 16, 2022 at 4:12 PM

I was with you till the last couple of paragraphs where I was like nope. Birds aren't just descendants of theropods. They are theropods. And even going by what you are saying, many of the animals that anyone in their right mind would unequivocally and definitely categorise as both dinosaurs and theropods (such as raptors, T-Rex etc) had hips that were definitely not like lizards, but very much resembling those of modern birds. So they shouldn't be called saurischians either, but according to you it would be scientific pedantry to call them dinosaurs as well, because it was really their distant ancestors that actually had lizard like hips. No, I'm pretty sure that's not the correct way to approach it.

I think your understanding of cladistics is a bit erroneous, and what I'm gathering is that the saurischian and ornithiscian distinction might be dated (or based on superficial similarities). But I have studied enough about the question of birds being dinosaurs or not (by "not", I mean if it's really pedantry to call them that), and I can tell you it's not pedantry in any way shape or form unless you want to bring into question the whole group of animals called dinosaurs in general. Birds aren't distant descendants of dinosaurs, nor is it misleading to call them dinosaurs. They are dinosaurs.