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

the roadsigns are arbitrary but based on linean clasification

I'm gonna do a debate sin, but I'm gonna argue from status or whatever it's called. But I have a zoology degree I know how all this works.

so far it dosent seem like it

Oof

Bit rude

lol

anyway i have a wierd reptile i want to show yu

(if i can find it)

But you are being needlessly pendantic, i will also call Mammals reptiles as there is a clear line of descendance

pedantic*

Ironic

lol

I'm on my phone so I can't spell

that sounds like an argument that trees are mamals because they have a common ancestor

altho its more likely you are going by

that the ancestor of them was reptilian

Well no, because you can track reptiles forwards to mammals.