That’s not the general scientific consensus. Birds are a group of theropods which evolved in the Jurassic and have changed relatively little since the Cretaceous and basically not at all since the Palaeogene (in relative terms of course- birds have diversified obviously into the various modern groupings, but the basic blueprint remains mostly unchanged as far as I am aware).
Whales are still artiodactyls though. You cant evolve out of a clade.
Birds are dinosaurs the same way humans are mammals, therians, cynodonts, etc.
Dinosaurs are not extinct because birds exist. If a clade has descendants, then the clade is not extinct. Theropod dinosaurs still exist because birds are their direct descendants.
I like the second definition anyway because there are multiple issues with “reptiles” existing as a taxonomic entity anyway. If you remove birds, then crocodiles arent reptiles either, but then that would mean that Snakes, lizards and turtles are which would still be paraphyletic. You could then remove turtles and argue that “reptilia” is strictly synonymous with Squamata, but i feel like most herpers would not like that idea.
Edit: Tuataras and turtles make all this way more confusing than the original question that birds are reptiles.
Except for air sack and carpometacarpus (not sure about those) all these characteristics evolved in theropod dinosaurs before the divergence of birds in the Jurassic.
LUCA refers to a single individual, rather than a taxonomic group. The taxonomic and phylogenetic group which contains LUCA and all its descendants is stateofmatter “life” (which we as well as every other organism do fall into).
Additionally, in phylogeny, a species (in name) ceases to exist when it splits. Sp. 1 always splits into sp. A and sp. B, new species never “bud off” of the line. (If the phylogenetic tree was an actual plant, it would exhibit apical branching). So referring to an extant species by the name of a species on its stem line is incorrect.
If we say “birds are reptiles” or “all tetrapods are fish” then we are treating these non-monophyletic groups like monophyletic ones, which isn’t technically correct (or at least doesn’t line up with the common perception of “reptiles” or “fish”). That’s another problem I have with non-monophyletic groups: They often are treated as if they were monophyla.
Related to what I said in the reply to oksanaetal, I think “reptiles” is commonly perceived of meaning all sauropsids except for birds. I think, including birds into reptiles may seem more unreasonable for the non-biologists than just splitting reptiles into Lepidosauria, Turtles, and Crocodiles. Though, as I said above, I’m not arguing against using para- and polyphyla on iNat as iconic taxa. I just think that reptilia should not be a class (whether it includes birds or not) in formal taxonomy.
Is the taxonomy on iNaturalist meant to FOLLOW the established convention or LEAD us into a new taxonomy. Given that we only add taxon splits when a new species is added or revised, the existing practice seems to be iNat FOLLOWS the taxonomy. As I’ve said before, there does not appear to be a serious movement in the scientific community to get rid of Class Reptilia as a rank. Of course, “reptiles” as a taxon are problematic because of the non-monophyly issue at the rank of Class. But regardless of what we want, the usage of “Reptiles” appears as convention and to get rid of it would imposing a new taxonomy. So what’s the solution? Even just putting “Reptilia” in quotes to indicate it’s non-monophyletic would be better than getting rid of it, in my opinion. That is, regardless of what we want, Class Reptilia will probably remain as a Class of equal rank to Class Aves within the scientific community because of the utility of the name despite the problems evolutionarily. In answer to the original question, are birds reptiles, I think one could easily argue both yes and no. They’re Schrodingers taxon.
Which is not really much of a problem in application in conservation or outreach situations like iNat (even if myself or others don’t really agree with), since it does make classification simpler, especially since the actual evolutionary history behind both groups and their relationships to each other is relatively well known. The problem I have with it is that science on a philosophical level necessarily assumes that there is an objective truth and always strives to understand it, and therefore it should assume there is a truth to the relationships between birds and non-avian reptiles, and attempt to further our understanding of it. Ignoring these facts is fine in situations like iNat, but not in taxonomy itself.
I was strictly referring to iconic taxa (the icons in the filter box) not the overall taxonomy iNat follows. There has been a request a while ago to split plantae into several iconic taxa (though it has been declined, sadly). Using monophyla here may not be that useful, but polyphyletic iconic taxa such as “trees” may be helpful.
I kind of disagree. Phylogenies are abstract results of scientific study and we should stick with the most accurate ones we can produce, regardless of how we like the the results. Taxonomy is, I think, more an applied science. We take real variation and try to parse it into units that we consider worth naming. I’m fine with reptiles and birds being treated as their own things.
This is the reason why we still have “Dicots.”
It is also the reason why we have so many kingdom disagreements in Phaeophycan seaweeds, which to the non-phycologist look like plants.
That’s a bit harder to define, since many people use the term “tree” for plants which a strict scientific protocol would define as a “tall shrub” – more than one trunk. I had a bit of a dispute in one of my early field jobs when I was about to record a snag (standing dead tree) on a transect and was told no, that isn’t a snag, because it was a species which our protocol put in the tall shrub category. As if snag-dependent wildlife cared about that.
At the end of the day, communication is about speaking in language understandable to those to whom we are trying to convey something. I speak differently to a scientist than to a non-scientist. And it seems to me that this thread well illustrates why there is such a rift between the scientific community and the population at large. In another thread, someone commented, “I just can’t get past the misuse of the term.” Well, that can be a problem if you are trying to communicate with someone outside your specialty.
If someone refers to the “thorns” on a rose bush, which is more constructive:
- To comment, “Rosa is thornless”
- To respond to what was said, but use the term “prickles” the way you naturally would
I thought this observation of a fence lizard inside a bird nest box (previously used by a House Wren) was support for that proposition! https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/83162916
Looks like a Gumbysaurus, a now-extinct non-avian reptile.
Nice summary!
If birds are reptiles (Sauropsid) then we are reptiles, too (Theropsid)
It is interesting that dinosaurs had bone structure evolved to allow small animals to fly. That’s why T-Rex looks like a giant chicken with teeth.
Just watched a cool new show on PBS Nova on “Dino Birds.” Catch it if you can.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/dino-birds/
My hot take as a non-scientist is that traditional taxonomy is much more practical to the average person than modern “cladistic” taxonomy. The push towards prioritizing molecular data and theoretical evolutionary relationships over observable characteristics makes taxonomy much more confusing to the average wildlife enthusiast. For lack of a better way to put it, Aves and Reptilia as separate classes “just makes sense” more than lumping them together, given the obvious differences observable to even casual observers. Even apart from the whole “birds are reptiles” thing, a good example of this is how species are constantly being revised and split based on molecular studies, resulting in multiple practically identical species which can often not be identified outside of a lab. Again not a scientist, but this has always been a pet peeve of mine
No, under no circumstances in any sort of phylogeny would mammals be considered reptiles. Therapsids were synapsids, and had many of the same features as some reptiles, but they were not reptiles. If you included Synapsids under Reptiles then that would mean that Amniota is synonymous with Reptilia and that just isnt the case. Reptilia is roughly synonymous with Sauropsida, but that does not include Synapsida.
I see reptile as a form, like crab.
Synapsid reptiles gone extinct and some Sauropsid reptiles are extant. This does not mean that birds are reptiles.
I do agree with your taxonomic reasoning.
I think it does because birds have not changed exponentially. As far as I know, most significant anatomical differences (like feathers and being endothermic) between birds and non-avian reptiles evolved before birds diverged.