Avialae

go up untill you hit Avialae

then look what its under

dinosauria

click that and see what its under

eventually Archosaur

wich is under reptilia (sauria)

i have a text clasification of many species of extinct membders of sauria

im having a bit of problem with pantestudines

I know birds evolved from Dinos

birds are still dinosaurs

But to call them reptiles is needlessly pendantic, and at worst a little disingenuous

under phylogenic clasifification

its not pendantic

its deffinitional

under phylogenic clasification

If you say "birds are lizards" you ignore what differentiates birds from lizards

just like how in science the word theory means something else

i never said birds are lizards

lizards are a subclade of reptile

Apologies

"birds are reptiles"

ye

their features all average out to it being a reptile

being warmblooded was the only reason they got feathers

That's a reach

That's a huge reach

geting feathers and being warm blooded is a strong difrence and would make it effected by difrent natural selective forces

you are bound to get something that looks quite difrent

We don't know why Dino's got feathers yet, but we have a few theories as to why they started flying

ye

teh feather is quite complex

it can only really evolve once

That's not quite true

Eyes in their complexity have evolved several different ways

other dinosaurs had things what weren't really feathers but more like spikes of protofeathers (basicly what baby chicks have)

feathers in there structure

eyes can evolve difrent ways but they are essentially difrent

in the topology and structure

feathers are more unlikely

what i mean is the exact structure

this is not a lizard

its the only remaining line of a sister group of lizards

its also a single genus

it is also the only surviving TRUE diapsid

Yeah I know Henry the Tuatara

ye

I've got a zoology degree from NZ so I know my native species quite well

tuatara scull

clearly a diapsid

(diapsid means it has 2 temporal holes on each side)

Yes

I know

komoto dragon

it lost the bottom bridge of the bottom apsid

Yeah I know, this change was also present in transition species from lizard to mammals

true

As well as a change in gait

And tooth changes

turtles are strictly anapsids but they evolved from diapsids

the 2 apsids closed

in the fossil records of turtles we see signs of one of the apsids

But you can't use a single retained feature to classify the species as being one thing or the other

You can use them to trace origins

wich is the point i made

turtles arent strictly diapsids but are still clasified as one in phylogenic clasification

You said birds are reptiles, that's not true. Birds are birds, birds evolved from dinos, but they are birds.

yes

they are also reptiles

They are reptiles in the same way we are

false

not in phylogenic clasifification

it was a few more branches earlier where you get mamals and a goup that has reptiles

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions/birds-dinosaurs-reptiles

Read the whole thing

"while the Linnaean system is more useful for understanding how animals live."

im guessing your going to point to that

yes i agree

in ways

but that was never my point

it literaly says what i was saying

It also says what I was saying

false

well yes

<:why:492975944445853696>

<:smart:484956754489376781>

but its a false look at phyletic clasification

thats not what phylogenic clasification says

Practically speaking the phylogenic classification has issues, which is why it's often suplimented

birds reptiles and mamals are in amniota

phylogenic clasification has problems in where you should put teh roadsigns

but its a similar problem in taxonomic clasification

Which is why we use DNA now

yes wich only helps tell you what the tree looks like

but dosent tell you where to put teh ropadsigns