Are birds reptiles?

[@dinosoid2000]

The classification system taught in elementary school is wholly inaccurate. For example bony fish are more closely related to amphibians than they are to cartilagenous fish. Classification is far more intricate that most schools teach you.

[@stephenherbertson4544]

US K-12 is really only good for learning the absolute basics of any subject. Just enough to hopefully not have blithering idiots killing themselves as soon as they are adults on their own. Practice has shown it is inadequate.

[@thespookyvaginosisnut5984]

All vertabrates are closer to bony fish. An amphibian is closer to a reptile or mammal than a fish though

[@matthewtenorioduenas202]

dinosoid2000 yes

[@thefisherking78]

That doesn't make it *wholly* inaccurate. Evo history is a tangled tree of trial and error, with more convergent evolution appearing all the time. The more we know, the harder it is to summarize it at a level kids can understand. Doing so pretty much requires a degree of inaccuracy, but it's still worth imparting the basic principles. Those like us who care to dig deeper later in life generally won't be mad to learn that there's more to it.

[@f.u.m.o.5669]

If they are saying catfish then they right

[@obiwahndagobah9543]

Birds are dinosaurs, which are reptiles, which are amniotes, which are tetrapods, which are bony fish, which are placoderms, which are gnathostomates, which are vertebrates, which are chordates, which are deuterostomes, which are bilaterians, which are animals, which are opisthokonts, which are protists, which are fused prokaryotes, which are living beings.

[@archive2500]

Period.

[@varanidguy]

Everything is bacteria! lol

[@obiwahndagobah9543]

@@varanidguy Exactly! :D

[@archive2500]

@@varanidguy I am skeptical about that. Is bacteria not a monophyletic taxon then? I also saw that Eukaryotes are Archaeans. What? Taxonomy is really changing our lives.

[@archive2500]

@@TheMeanGirlz ?

[@crunchyfrog63]

In the grand scheme of things, we're all just colonies of highly derived prokaryotes.

[@matthewtenorioduenas202]

crunchyfrog63 so basically we are just a bunch of clustered microorganisms hehe

[@luism8612]

But don’t hormones and emotions change things up?

[@AnnaKuznetzova88]

In the grand scheme of thing, everything is made up of small particles

[@dingodog5677]

@@luism8612 hormones too are highly derived prokaryotic proteins. And therefore the emotions are evolved prokaryotic behavioural traits. It’s turtles all the way down.

[@mr.coffee5220]

But we’re Eukaryotes.

[@saxoman1]

I LOVE how you broke this down logically and systematically. Please make more!

[@jjoohhhnn]

He's misusing terms to make a point which isn't true.

[@jjoohhhnn]

@da erf Lol, the first amniotes were Linnaean reptiles. Scales, lungs, single tooth type, semi-prehensile tale, lizard hipped, quadruped. In every way, they were Linnaean reptiles. imo, Sauropsida should just be Sauropsida, not synonymous with reptile, because Sauropsida doesn't include all reptiles. Sure, mammals don't really resemble Sauropsida today, but they came from the same ancestor who was a lizard by Linnaean classification.

[@pierre-samuelroux9364]

​@@jjoohhhnnmammals are synapsids not sauropods

[@pierre-samuelroux9364]

​@@jjoohhhnnsauropsids*

[@jjoohhhnn]

@@pierre-samuelroux9364 you must have trouble reading, I didn't call mammals sauropsids (it's spelled sauropsid not sauropod, sauropods are a group of dinosaurs, the largest land animals ever and also closest related to therapods). But I appreciate the effort, kid.

[@ominous-omnipresent-they]

All birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs were birds.

[@user-xq4py3fq2y]

But they were all reptiles

[@idenmajeed1396]

Birds I mean Dinosaurs are Maniraptora theropods from the sub group Avialae simples 😝

[@Jeffron27]

I think when people think about birds being reptiles, they feel bothered cause they think "lizard" I don't know about that, but instead of thinking of of birds vs lizards, think of birds vs crocs. Birds, crocodillians, and dinos all fall under the archosaurian class of reptile. Snakes, lizards, mosasaurus, etc. Belong in the Lipedasaurs group. Both very different classes of reptiles. Modern reptiles are indeed cold blooded but there are some cases that we've had warm blooded crocs to, though I must admit that's fairly debatable. What an awesome vid, thanks for sharing.

[@LaramidiaWX]

Great point! Birds are warm-blooded and there's lots of evidence that non-avian dinosaurs were as well. The question is when did warm-bloodedness evolve? We used to assume that the transition occurred between birds and the bird/crocodilian common ancestor, but the discovery of early crocodilians with very active looking bodies suggests that the common ancestor may have been warm-blooded and that trait has been lost in modern crocodilians. This is further supported by the fact that crocodilians, like birds and mammals and unlike other reptiles, have a 4-chambered heart.

[@bkjeong4302]

Another thing is that people don't like to think of birds as being simple, stupid reptiles, except that lizards, turtles and crocs are actually quite behaviourally sophisticated and a lot smarter than people give credit for.

[@yjustin4557]

Humans came from reptiles too

[@AnhHoang-cx8es]

This comment section is surprisingly calm and understanding. When I tried to claim that either birds are reptiles or archosaurs, such as crocodiles, are not reptiles, on reddit, people go berserk.

[@thespookyvaginosisnut5984]

Birds are warm blooded though I think you mean non avian reptiles are cold blooded

[@janzizka9963]

Usually we say Sauropsids as Reptilia are paraphyletic if Aves are excluded. But yeah, birds are by all means reptiles. People frequently say that mammals too evolved from reptiles but that is not the case. Mammals never were diapsids and term "mammal-like reptile" is an abomination.

[@markoproduction]

So then are mammals Amphibians? ! We have a common ancestor.

[@arekka4440]

@@markoproduction There comes a point a species diverge so much from their ancestors that they separate almost completely from them, one of our ancestors was an amphibian, but we diverged so much, we are a complete different specimen now. The thing with birds, is that they evolved so much from dinosaurs and common ancestors from reptiles that they may not seem like reptiles, but they still are close to them, much more than we are to amphibians, so it's not wrong to call them birds, but they haven't diverged as much as us to be called a completely separate taxonomy

[@ridleyroid9060]

I don't see what the issue is with saying that Dimetrodon is reptilian in its appearance and biology. Diapsida and Sauropsida did split off a long darn time ago, but earliest Diapsids were basically still reptiles.

[@bjd1980]

You are amazing! That breakdown using cladistics is the best use of that tool I've seen. You built skills within your explanation. Just so dang good.

[@Agonarch50]

I knew a lot prior to watching this video. But you did a great job explaining how it really breaks down. Video deserves a lot more views!

[@anonyarena]

Wow, was this a complex explanation. Thanks for being so thorough, it's so refreshing to hear a good explanation for a change. Other people who have tried to explain this to me, have failed to make it as clear as you did.

[@danielirvin4420]

One of the clearest explanations I've heard of a sometimes confusing concept. Thank you.

[@venth6]

that thumbnail makes me look a birds differently now. every time I see a bird I imagine it with a snout then think. bruh that's a literal dinosaur. birds are obviously dinosaurs

[@Raphael041]

Linnean classification is now redundant.

[@marumiyuhime]

not redundant but obsolete

[@markoproduction]

I actually agree more with the argument presented here now. Birds are not just descended from dinosaurs, they actually are avian dinosaurs when considering Clade classification, which redefines the old classification developed before Darwin. Dinosaurs including birds are sauropsids. Mammals are sinapsids. Sinapsids might have evolved from Sauropsids.

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

s(y)napsids Current understanding has sauropsids and synapsids diverging from a common amniote ancestor. Therefore each group evolved along those respective lineages, not synapsids from sauropsids.

[@snakesaremissunderstood4374]

ok so birds actually are dinosaurs but the thing is.. not a lot of people believe it and it really annoys me I mean YOU CANT CHANGE REALITY...BIRDS ARE DINOSAURS!

[@archive2500]

Dinosaurs are culturally depicted as big and monstrous and the smaller and feathered dinosaurs are underrepresented, could be because of the hype and the obsession behind bigness and monstrosity of prehistoric animals or could be because of preservation bias, in which, smaller dossils are really hard to find because they erode easily and quickly than the larger fossils even though smaller dinosaurs should be more abundant than the larger dinosaurs, in turn, we only know a lot more about the larger ones.

[@Theonetrueerenyeager]

Yes. Birds are dinosaurs, so they are reptiles.

[@venumbra1177]

This video was *extremely* informative and well thought out, you my friend are very intelligent! Also I really like your voice, it's very calming:)

[@LaramidiaWX]

Thank you!

[@swiftstreak98]

I'm glad that Dinosaurs are still considered reptiles (rather than them being completely birdlike despite the fact that predatorial Dinosaurs had teeth and large snouts)

[@SP-mz4md]

you explain things so well bro

[@LaramidiaWX]

@SP-mz4md thanks!

[@ronaldbotswana2673]

Birds are reptiles because dinosaurs are reptiles so birds are reptiles

[@chieckenman4432]

Short answer: yes Longer answer: yeeeseeeeesssssssss Even longer answer: 0:00

[@morpheuslaughing]

Thats exactly how I've always viewed birds. Reptiles with wings and feathers in a way

[@capercancer6629]

They are way more intelligent and evoluted in some ways. Most do even sing so...

[@vicpaine3102]

Very informative video, thank you. I absolutely love how birds are now considered reptiles.

[@slimkickens]

Better than reptiles. Dinosaurs. Fucking dinosaurs, man.

[@toxicsquid6249]

I own 3 birds/ reptiles lol I love birds and now I see why I take an interest in bearded dragons

[@trezapoioiuy]

@Noah Smith That's what he said, birds are dinosaurs. And reptiles of course, since dinosaurs are.

[@WhiteLightning777]

@Noah Smith The error was classifying dinosaurs as reptiles in the first place. Birds (& dinosaurs) are a thing onto themselves.

[@WhiteLightning777]

@@trezapoioiuy Dinosaurs are NOT reptiles. Hollywood lies. Dinosaurs are simply birds that never evolved to fly and went other directions. The underlying structure is the same. The closest living relative to dinosaurs is the cassowary. Birds all have the recessive genes for the long tail, 3 fingered hands teeth etc.

[@firegator6853]

next time someone says that birds are not dinosaurs and what are the proofs and stuff.....show them this video

[@amn2760]

What you should say is “Next time if someone says birds aren't dinosaurs, just introduce them to a cassowary”

[@firegator6853]

@@amn2760 that normally would work too but i dont think they will think so far out when their opinion has the control of their minds

[@smugreptile6695]

Only thing I can point out is that feathers developed BEFORE flight. So no. Deinonychus's ancestors more than likely did no flying at all. Rather feathers later were used by modern bird ancestors to achieve flight as secondary function. It is also the third time flight was achieved. And the second time in reptiles. Once in insects. Once in Pterosaurs. And again in Birds. All done by different means.

[@xFuuw]

dude are you like a teacher or something. you teached us this stuff and it came out so fluemntly and was easy to understand. thank you

[@kutkuknight]

Love the style of the video and your way of talking!

[@TheSaNdMaN5000]

If I had a teacher that taught like you I would have probably studied paleontology instead of engineering

[@DavidLopez-en6el]

In terms of analyizing the feasibility of things like skeletal sturctures and optimizing a species ability to survive, it has similarities

[@goldstarchoice]

I buy a bearded dragon and now I'm fascinated with birds and reptiles lol. I was taught early that birds and reptiles were closely related, but it's a different understand when you are able to look at how similar they are up close, behavior, etc.

[@manichaean1888]

Great video, it is now clear to me why the birds are called modern dinosaurs. But also, at some point in the past the crocodilians were almost indistinguishable from the dinosaurs, that's why they are the closest relatives nowadays with the birds.

[@user-xq4py3fq2y]

So the simple answer to this question is yes, dinosaurs and birds are reptiles

[@matc87]

loved this style..literally back of the envelope haha. thanks learnt alot and was a really good breakdown of the hazzy between the lines transitions..that evolution is all about

[@alkismavridis1]

Hey man, AWESOME video. I would really like to add greek captions to your video so that I can share it in greek speaking fb groups and such. Could you make it open for translations? Thanks a lot!

[@amn2760]

The dislikes are from the flat-earthers who evolved from fish

[@Violetstorm2024]

I have a question, I know that all mammals have a neocortex which gives us the capacity for emotion and memory, but why does it seem like birds also have the capacity for compassion and fun but reptiles don’t?

[@LaramidiaWX]

I suspect it has something to do with the fact that birds and mammals both have extended periods of parental care for their young while non-bird reptiles generally don't. Perhaps compassion for their young bleeds out to other individuals. Given the evidence for parental care in some non-avian dinosaurs like Maiasaura I suspect that many dinosaurs might have been capable of the sort of compassion, playfulness and bonding seen in birds.

[@Jegrygerfede]

This video is amazing. Thank you! Please make more videos

[@amberkat8147]

Can't we just call modern birds avian reptiles? I don't see the problem in the first place. I mean, if evolution never gave rise to new types of creatures we'd have to call ourselves flatworms or something. Wait, I didn't know flight feathers were that old. That means flightless dinosaurs evolved after some big pre-existing predators died out just like large flightless birds did after the K-T extinction. That's kinda cool, but it does make me wonder why it worked so well for the dinosaurs but we don't have any massive flightless predatory birds alive today. I guess mammals just out-competed them for the large predator niche? Also, just how old ARE feathers and how did they evolve?

[@spatrk6634]

yea but "flatworms" is not a taxonomical clade. nephrozoa is a clade, in which flatworms sit in. also in nephrozoa sit humans. its a clade of bilaterians that divided into the protostomes and the deuterostomes, flatworms are protostomes. because during their development, mouth forms first in an embryo. in deuterostomes, anus forms first in a embryo so there was point in time during your embryiological development, when you were nothing a but an asshole so we didnt evolve from flatworms, flatworms evolved from same nephrozoan that human ancestors evolved from

[@fubberpish3614]

fantastic video! this is perhaps the clearest explanation of this topic I've seen!

[@olivialea2223]

What textbook is that and can you learn about paleontology and taxonomy without going to college? I really wanna learn about this stuff

[@LaramidiaWX]

Ironically, the texbook with the Linnaean taxonomy was a creationist "science" textbook called "Science: Order and Reality" published by Abeka. They list the diagnostic features of mammals, all of which are present in humans, and classify mammals as a subset of animals. But later they contradict themselves by insisting humans are not animals. When they hit the chapter purportedly on evolution they go completely off the rails with all sorts of nonsense without once explaining how common ancestry uniquely explains the nested hierarchy of taxonomy that they presented in the earlier chapter. On one page they claim there are no transitional fossils linking birds and reptiless, yet just a couple pages later they show Archaeopteryx and Troodon, both transitional between modern birds and ancient reptiles. The opportunity to exploit creationist material to teach real science was irresistible.

[@olivialea2223]

Graham Christensen lol thank you!

[@armwrestlingprofessor]

This is an awesome video! Thanks for the great explaination

[@dingodog5677]

Really great video. Nice and simple with Great examples.👍

[@Darth-Nihilus1]

To sum it up. Birds are dinosaurs that have been around since the mid Jurassic 🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳 it’s really awesome thanks you for the video

[@AbrasionUK]

Great video. Really take your time to illustrate the point.

[@latheofheaven1017]

Great explanation Graham. And did you do all that in one take? (I didn't notice any edits).

[@1locust1]

Our preoccupation with size and dominance precluded our acceptance of birds as dinosaurs.

[@noeldiattara2075]

Good ass video. Easy to understand, well researched. Probs to you man.

[@kevinbarron1796]

Thanks for this. I watch a lot of these types of videos, and superficially yours seems super amateur, but it’s actually great. I’ve never seen this bird/dinosaur/lizard subject approached from this angle. This is a great great video.

[@pierre-samuelroux9364]

Birds are dinosaurs but not lizards,lizards are squamates

[@slaanamatic2505]

BIRDS ARE LIKE FEATHERED WARM BLOODED REPTILES

[@prosimian]

They are dinosaurs

[@vermillion8249]

@@prosimian And dinosaurs are reptiles.

[@archive2500]

Highly specialized and highly diversed ones.

[@CelestialPopCollectiveOfficial]

So what happens when the parrot is examined and has 2 toes facing front and 2 toes facing back?

[@marumiyuhime]

have you ever sen a chameleons foot

[@markoproduction]

Interesting presentation. Dinosaurs by the Jurassic already had many evolutionary steps to separate them from reptiles. Theropods like Deinonychus were warm blooded and had many bird like features, and could no longer be considered reptiles. Dinosaurs branched off of Reptiles. Birds Branched off of Dinosaurs. Characteristics of reptiles may remain but I don't think they can be still considered reptiles, just like later dinosaurs were no longer reptiles, unless classical classification is removed all together.

[@tjarkschweizer]

Please do some research before posting. What you wrote there is complete and utter nonsense.

[@markoproduction]

@@tjarkschweizer My uncle was the one who discovered the connection between birds and Dinosaurs soo.... You do your research ;) If Birds are reptiles because they have a common ancestor, then we are all amphibians because we all branched off amphibians. The new extension of classification doesn't work.

[@tjarkschweizer]

@@markoproduction So instead of even considering my advice and at least fact checking yourself, you continue to be confidently incorrect. Of course birds are not reptiles because of *common* ancestry, they are reptiles because of *direct* ancestry! Birds directly descended from a reptilian ancestor but they never stopped being reptiles because you can't outgrow your ancestry. See, it is incredibly simple. The amphibian thing shows how outdated your understanding of the matter is. We did not descend from amphibians. Amphibians are a separate clade of tetrapods. We are reptiliomorphs, a sister clade to amphibians. This means that we have a common ancestor, which doesn't make us part of the other clade but it makes us both part of the larger clade Tetrapoda. Cladistics works, is easy to understand and the only classification system that accounts for the fossil record and genetics. You seem to have trouble understanding it though, which is the reason why I recommended you to do some research. It is incredibly easy to look all of this up.

[@markoproduction]

@@tjarkschweizer OK Then Clades don't mix with the old class system. Also it shows direct ancestry, It doesn't mean we never outgrow our "direct" ancestry. At some point One species becomes two. At some point one Classification merges with another classification. Birds are a separate Classification that merges with Dinosaurs, which merges with Reptiles. That's evolution. Have a nice day ;)

[@user-xq4py3fq2y]

@@markoproduction we mammals split off from dinosaurs millions of years ago.

[@theqdie]

i’m not expert but i know a lot. the more i learn about birds and reptiles the more birds become reptiles. they do have lots of difference but the basal similarities are too strong

[@donlynch8285]

Hi! Great content!! Btw could you please make a video on your bookshelf? I can see some really cool ones there!

[@thomascorbett2936]

The development of life appears to very complex to say the least..

[@jpn_119]

So they used to almost the same, now though they've become more distinct. But it makes sense birds used to be like dinosaurs/reptiles.

[@rathosalpha]

Raptor has feathers

[@cozygoblin]

Thank you so much for this detailed video!

[@jerlee620]

I’ve noticed that the “mammal” in your illustration is a naked woman. Not complaining, just observing.

[@SanRafaelSwell]

55 people have denied reality watching this video.

[@WayneAnonymous]

I mean, in the end, isn't the general problem that nature does not classify or organize itself into neat seperate categories/clades etc.? I mean, the seperation of animals into different classes is man-made to simplify and help to grasp the whole concept of evolution. In reality it should be seen more as a "multidimensional" spectrum.

[@nickq8093]

100%, people don't understand that taxonomy as a whole is an entirely man made system that only has loose relations to the actual biological mechanisms of dna and evolution. it doesn't mean it's wrong, just that any attempt to classify organisms besides refering to them by their DNA will inherently have issues.

[@archive2500]

@@nickq8093 Actually, no. Contrary to classifying animals by morphology, classifying animals by DNA would make a whole lot more sense because we would know their phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary history. Classifying animals by morphology is one thing and it is traditional, but classifying animals by DNA is scientific and more technical and objectively correct.

[@nickq8093]

@@archive2500 dna is used in taxonomy, genetic studies are generally considered to be the strongest evidence for relations and stuff. What i meant about it being a "loose relation" to dna is that dna is far too granular a thing to base any sort of method of classification of. You still need to draw the line somewhere as to when speciation has occured. Also you can't really use dna for most extinct species as it degrades after death. Morphology is all we have to go on there.

[@archive2500]

@@nickq8093 DNA refers to genetic studies. Do you not mean fossil evidence? Both genetic and fossil evidence are the strongest evidence, not morphology.

[@nerdcuddles7731]

You should of mentioned velociraptors quill knobs

[@joakos1122]

Reptile means nothing by Linnaeus’s definition mammals also evolved from reptiles.

[@wasekaug]

I have a parrot, and I always say he reminds me of a cobra the way he poses.

[@danoudeliserdemorsain340]

no we could extend birds to add all dinosaurus and rename it suggestions are needed (i am bad with names) or we could keep a mis-nomer

[@ghostoperationswithcheukgu9844]

I actually made the assumption birds were reptiles ever since I was 1 years old

[@jfive9664]

You have a very soothing voice

[@jayrharris21]

Great work - this was very educational.

[@rosado3D]

hell, anyone who's eaten crocodile meat will tell ya they taste like tough chicken

[@regisdumoulin]

So now we know what T-Rexes tasted like they tasted like chicken! 😃

[@nesslig2025]

Should do a similar video on fish and tetrapods (We are lobe finned fish people!!).

[@sanstheblaster2626]

that's why cladistics is the objectively better way of classifying organisms. However, it does have some problems. Not because of how it works, but because of how we named things before adopting it. The first thing that a classification system has to do is being intuitive and easy to work with. If it causes misconceptions, it might need a revision. You can see what I'm talking about even in this video: when someone says the word "reptile", they don't think about birds, because they are too different. It is totally correct to call them reptiles, but you have to admit that it sounds kinda wrong. The most extreme example is known by everyone: if we are what we descend from, all land animals are boney fishes. This is an absolutely correct deduction, but it's confusing. And the problem is clearly in the word "boney fish": it creates a precise expectation in our mind that if contradicted (by showing a chicken, for example) causes confusion. This problem was clearly created intentionally: by giving the same names used in taxonomy to various clades, we can create similarities between the two approaches and make the "transition" easier. However, if you ask me, these two methods of classification are way too distinct. So we should use only cladistic terms when talking about this specific approach to biological classification. The overlap causes more problems than it solves.

[@marumiyuhime]

ok grandpa

[@lilhaxxor]

This has to be the best explanation I have ever seen on the topic. Although, I am unsure whether the term "reptile" is correctly used here, or not. It seems "dinosaur" is the more general term, with "reptile" referring to modern non-avian dinosaurs, and "bird" to modern avian dinosaurs.

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

"I am unsure whether the term "reptile" is correctly used here, or not. It seems "dinosaur" is the more general term, with "reptile" referring to modern non-avian dinosaurs, and "bird" to modern avian dinosaurs." - what is an example of a modern non-avian dinosaur?

[@lilhaxxor]

@@Dr.Ian-Plect Hmm, the terminology confuses me. Okay, so if I got this right, all non-avian dinosaurs are extinct. Therefore, I made a mistake. Yet, you can't use the term "reptile" for birds. The whole title of the video makes no sense to me. A reptile is a lizard, a crocodile or a snake. They have nothing to do with birds... but they might still be related to dinosaurs. That's why the title should be "Are birds dinosaurs ?" Then we can discuss the distinction between birds and reptiles, by which I mean the point when their evolution diverges. Asking "is a cat a dog ?" is nonsensical in the same way. That's what troubles me with the title.

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

@@lilhaxxor Hi, the first thing you need to do is erase the phylogeny at 3:59, the reptile and bird part, from your head! That is misleading, it shows reptiles as one group diverged from 2 common ancestors, and birds as another group on another lineage from the 2nd of those common ancestors. No wonder one would have the idea that birds are not reptiles or dinosaurs going on that! ---------------- "so if I got this right, all non-avian dinosaurs are extinct. Therefore, I made a mistake." - The term dinosaur originally referred to a group of reptiles of the past (yes, dinosaurs _are_ reptiles) that went extinct 66mya. Later when birds were determined to have evolved from dinosaurs and details of their genetic relationships with other groups emerged, they were deemed to be dinosaurs. As such, the terms avian and non-avian dinosaurs came into use to distinguish birds from all other dinosaurs. So yes, all non-avian dinosaurs are extinct and birds, the avian dinosaurs, are extant. "Yet, you can't use the term "reptile" for birds. A reptile is a lizard, a crocodile or a snake." - It seems from your wording (I've bolded the 2 instances of it below) that you are unaware that dinosaurs are reptiles. They are another group of reptiles, just as lizards, crocs and snakes are (among other major groups). Given that, together with my first point above about birds evolving from dinosaurs, birds are indeed reptiles. And that outcome isn't just because they evolved from dinosaurs; birds retain the traits that diagnose a reptile. Now, you may well think that reptiles are supposed to be 'cold-blooded' or in technical terms, ectothermic, so how can birds, as 'warm-blooded' (endothermic) be reptiles? Well the fact there is that the traditional thinking of reptiles all being ectotherms is simply wrong. In the early days dinosaurs were all thought to be ectotherms, but now they are known to have had a spectrum of internal physiologies from ectothermic to mesothermic to endothermic. The point here being that the type of thermoregulation is not a diagnostic trait of a reptile. *"They have nothing to do with birds... but they might still be related to dinosaurs."* - well, I've addressed both aspects; dinosaurs are reptiles, birds are dinosaurs, birds are reptiles. "That's why the title should be "Are birds dinosaurs ?" & "Asking "is a cat a dog ?" is nonsensical in the same way." - ok, so now that you aware that dinosaurs are reptiles, that changes this perspective you have. Taking the fresh information that dinosaurs are reptiles allows you to then note what I wrote above about birds evolving from dinosaurs and having the traits that define reptiles to conclude that birds are reptiles. "Then we can discuss the distinction between birds and reptiles" - there isn't, they have the traits of reptiles "by which I mean the point when their evolution diverges." - right, as I wrote at the top, get that 3:59 notion out of your head. Now, go to this video on YT "The Bird Family Tree: How all the Major Bird Groups are Related to Each Other." the channel is Eric Ray. Go to 3:02 Do you see something that appears odd to you (assuming you know how to read phylogenetic trees)? Notice where the squamates are (lizards and snakes as he labels them), crocs and birds. Notice that crocs and birds share a more recent common ancestor with each other than they do to squamates. That is an indication of relatedness...but how can crocs be closer to birds than to squamates when crocs and squamates are reptiles and birds are not? 2+2= birds are reptiles. Now, if that phylogeny was to zoom in on the bird side, you would actually have dinosaurs appearing first and splitting into their various groups...one of which, the theropods, further splits into aves, the birds. Actually, here's a zoomed in portion of the theropod dinosaurs from a video "Theropoda" the channel is by Jackson Wheat (just type in "theropoda Jackson Wheat"). Go to 12:28 and look at the top right; 'aves', which are birds. That phylogeny helps you to see that birds emerged from within theropod dinosaurs.

[@lilhaxxor]

@@Dr.Ian-Plect Wow... I am speechless. Such detailed information and analysis. Thank you so much for taking the time to go deeper with me, and provide extra information from various sources. I don't often come across people like you in the comment section, and I appreciate the help. Coming back to you after I reviewed everything (might take a couple days).

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

@@lilhaxxor I'll wait til after the review...

[@mmneander1316]

Very nice video indeed. Well done. Keep up the good work.

[@iamzoone]

You're talking about "Missing Links" but keep in mind that Not all creatures leave fossils. The conditions under which fossils are made are very limited. Especially fossils of land animals are scarcer than those of plants. In order to become fossilized, animals must die in a watery environment and become buried in the mud and silt. Because of this requirement most land creatures never get the chance to become fossilized unless they die next to a lake or stream. Indeed there may be whole species of land animals in which no fossil record has been discovered. We may never know how many and diverse these animals were.

[@shayneyates6707]

So I’m just a fish

[@tjarkschweizer]

You may be a fish but you are not *just* a fish.

[@spatrk6634]

fish isnt actually anything in taxonomy. you are a chordate same as fish are

[@tjarkschweizer]

@@spatrk6634 Indeed, my fellow fish.

[@archive2500]

Cladisitically, yes. Traditionally, no.

[@Dr.IanPlect]

@@archive2500 no and no

[@scottthesmartape9151]

Doesn’t cropmilk from birds like pigeons also comes from specific glands in the mouth sorta like mammals but more mouth kissy

[@CrypticlyEncrypted]

I agree! But where do we stop? Don’t mammals derive from early reptiles? So does this make us reptiles? How do we know when to stop extending classes or combining classes 🤔

[@trezapoioiuy]

no, reptiles and synapsids (the only synapsids currently existing are mammalians) are two different branches of amniota. Mammalians didn't come from reptiles.

[@CrypticlyEncrypted]

trezapoioiuy synapsids are reptiles though. We split from diapsids and anapsids.

[@obiwahndagobah9543]

@@CrypticlyEncrypted Only anapsids and diapsids are called reptiles. Synapsids have many traits, that distinginguish them from other amniotes and are the sister group to them, so they are no longer called reptiles. The common ancestor of all of them was a basal amniote. Amniotes did arise from a group of amphibian tetrapods that are called reptiliomorphs.

[@CrypticlyEncrypted]

@@obiwahndagobah9543 True. but anapsids aren't reptiles? And all reptiles are diapsids, but not all diapsids are reptiles?

[@obiwahndagobah9543]

@@CrypticlyEncrypted Every diapsid is a reptile. and also anapsids are reptiles. Diapsids and anapsids are part of the group Sauropsida (reptiles). Sauropsida is the sister group to Synapsida. There is also a group called Captorhynids, which are basal reptiles outside of Anapsida and Diapsida, but I tried to to stay simple in my previous comment in order not to complicate things. Also some new cladistic analyses indicate that the so called "microsaurs", which are thought of to be part of the reptiliomorph lepospondyls, could be in fact be a paraphyletic grouping of the basalmost radiation of reptiles.

[@jamesbailey9007]

Crocodile could also be amphibious because they can survive on land and water

[@richardblazer8070]

Being amphibious and being an amphibian are two different things.

[@archive2500]

😄

[@thefisherking78]

7:15 gonna write a song about this situation and call it Bird Lines

[@rebeccakruse7089]

Thank you man, make some more please!

[@gecko8621]

Reptiles were before mammals

[@annafreitag9498]

I find the whole process of taxonomy rather artificial to begin with. It just goes to show that a rigid classification into closed groups cannot really account for life on earth which is evolving and therefore can never be clearly separated into groups. But the classification of birds as reptiles does in fact not revise that group classification pattern but simply extends it which I think is still kind of 'illogical'. If we apply the method you explained in the video, well wouldn't we all be amphibians or fish since we also share a common ancestor with them? If you would just extend the ancestry chart and simply widen your list of features you want to look at you could practically define everything the way you want. But maybe you would say come on we are clearly not amphibians or fish but the same way I could say come on birds are clearly not reptiles. It just depends on how wide or narrow you define your groups and which features you include and in how far certain features strike you as "different". It just depends on the methodology or perspective you apply which strikes me as kind of arbitrary. Depending on the parameters we choose we can classify animals as either different (mammals/reptiles f.ex.) or similar (vertebrae). Not to criticize your video or biology or something, but I just think that taxonomy depends pretty much on perspective and the parameters you choose with which to look at fossils/modern living animals but there is nothing in nature itself which is inherently already "classified". Rather, we project classifications upon what we observe. So I mean, rather than saying taxonomical systems can be "illogical" I would simply say that the limits we see with our classification systems are due to the fact that they are simply arbitrary systems that help us to order and make sense of the heterogenous accumulation of things we see in the world. All of our classification systems will in some way turn out to be illogical depending on the angle you approach them from.

[@LaramidiaWX]

"There is nothing in nature itself which is inherently already "classified". Everything in nature IS inherently classified. It's classified by its evolutionary history. This is the point of cladistic taxonomy. There is one and only one actual correct tree of relationships between every living thing that represents the actual evolutionary history of life. The goal of cladistic taxonomy is to uncover that tree and categorize everything so that all the descendants of any ancestor always remain in the same parent taxonomic category as their ancestors. For example, we might decide that a person born without limbs should be classified as a snake because they share the feature of limblessness with them. But that classification would be objectively wrong. That person is not a snake. They are human because they are descended from humans. They are not descended from snakes. No matter what traits their descendants gain or lose and how many sub-categories we create to categorize them, they will all still be human. Ancestry is a fact of nature that exists independently of our attempts at classification. Cladistic taxonomy attempts to bring our classification in line with the way things really are related. As such, some classifications are right and some are wrong. The fossil and genetic evidence strongly indicates that the classification of birds outside the group that includes crocodiles and lizards (reptiles) is wrong. If the evolutionary history we've reconstructed from the fossil and genetic data is correct, then birds are absolutely, objectively reptiles. You suggested that we could be classified as amphibians. But if amphibians are all more closely related to each other than they are to amniotes like ourselves then we absolutely cannot be considered part of that group because we are not descended from them. We could be considered amphibians if we include primitive fossil forms like icthyostega which are more distantly related to us than lissamphibians (modern "true" amphibians), but those are more properly known as basal tetrapods. Since we are descended from tetrapods we are indeed correctly classified as tetrapods along with amphibians. We are definitely fish, though. You'll notice in my diagram at the beginning of the video there are two lines leading to fish. This is illustrating that some fish are more closely related to everything else on that tree than to other fish. That means all the other vertebrate classes (the tetrapods) are actually a subset of fish for the same reason that birds were a subset of reptile because one branch of reptile is closer to birds than another. My diagram is actually oversimplified. There should be more fish lines. We are members of several different sub-categories of fish. We are chordates (all fish), gnathostomes (jawed fish), osteichthyans (bony fish) and sarcopterygiians (lobe-finned fish). We are fish many times over. You can't make a cladistic group that includes lungfish and goldfish that doesn't also include us because lungfish are more closely related to us than they are to goldfish.

[@Wingedwolfstar67]

But you can't just say black and white "birds are reptiles" while saying mammals and amphibians are separated because we are not closely related but also say we share in-between common ancestors. At what point a group of animals is so far distant from anther that they belong in two separate classification systems is debatable and there is no absolute. The branches from amphibians to reptiles clearly share many common ancestors but there is still a point at witch we draw a line and the grey areas are simply just that; grey areas. Everything in nature is NOT inherently classified because they are all connected and intertwined. Nature don't know it has classifications nor does it intend to do so, nature simply does what is best from the survival of the spices. classification is a measurement we use to decipher the world.

[@annafreitag9498]

Exactly what I mean, Winged Wolf Star67. For you to say where a "split" in the ancestrial tree occurs, you also need to refer to certain criteria, and it is not objective, which criteria you choose or which split you choose as the beginning of a new species, family etc. It is a tool science uses to make sens of the world.

[@madha4826]

Just think of it as Amphibians and Amniotes are two lineages derived from Fish; our ancestors were not amphibians but fish

[@denisekira5996]

Just saying, every human child wich is growing in the mothers belly has gills and a tail. Just like fish

[@zainabgazali2507]

This is very help ful for some extra knowledge in palaentology🤗

[@darth856]

I think we need a new name for the class Reptilia which includes birds, crocodilians, turtles, snakes etc. Calling a bird a reptile goes against ingrained thinking for most people; it just feels weird.

[@archive2500]

I agree and but still disagree. Because you have to consider that there are people who argues to push the definition of the term instead, which tells you to be open-minded about a certain term and avoid stereotyping a group and having connotations about it. Besides there is actually a monophyletic term that is equivalent to the paraphyletic "Reptilia", it is called "Sauropsida", but you guessed it, over time, the term is just highly overshadowed by the pre-existing term again "Reptilia", that many people now considers to include birds to remain consistent in logic. I just stick to the fact to push the definition and that a term is a term and you should not stereotype it. Because just like mammals, obviously not all are terrestrial, hairy, have legs, and have nails, claws, or hooves because there are cetaceans which includes whales and dolphins and porpoises.

[@archive2500]

You just have to accept that birds, the avian dinosaurs, are highly evolved and highly advanced group of reptiles. And that they are also the most diverse group (10,000 species) and the most abundant group of reptiles living today.

[@frostbitetheannunakiiceind6574]

Yes

[@davids.8509]

You are great at explaining things, are you a teacher?. Also very informative video this is what I really wanted to learn in school.

[@daniell1483]

Going in, I knew birds are dinosaur descendants. What surprised me was the idea that the dinosaur raptors were like modern-day birds that became flightless, ala the ostrich. This makes me wonder then, are all theropods descended from a flight-capable common ancestor?

[@bloodswan]

The simple answer is yes. Great video by the way.

[@travisbickle3835]

What is the book?

[@gatecharb8384]

Thank you for this wonderful video.

[@Leon-zs3di]

very informative vid I subscribed

[@LaramidiaWX]

Thanks :)

[@Leon-zs3di]

omg others r like talk crap but every single word from was full of information hope u will be a popular youtuber

[@abrvalg321]

Those who scream "birds are dinosaurs" are nothing more than attention seekers and should be ignored. The same way that putting humans in a group of amphibians would be a useless classification. There are too many differences and too few similarities.

[@Scrinwaipwr]

All birds are dinosaurs. If you count dinosaurs as reptiles then birds are reptiles. If you consider the warm or at least not-cold blood and feathering most of them had enough to make dinosaurs not reptiles then birds and all other dinosaurs are their own thing.

[@santosa01]

What is this book name. I need to buy.

[@heroiam4067]

Are sauropods still more closer to reptiles than birds?

[@LaramidiaWX]

All dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than they are to any living non-bird reptile. There has been some disagreement recently about whether sauropods or ornithischian dinosaurs are more closely related to theropods (including birds) but either way they're still closer to birds than anything else alive.

[@amn2760]

Birds are reptiles but yes, though the dinosaurs that are mostly related to birds are of course, Theropods

[@robertgotschall1246]

Excellent. Graphics a little crude but homey. love it.

[@nathanmatzke2962]

Birds of the same feet as lizards do, if not worse. They have scales on

[@rosemaryjimenez6836]

birds are dinosaurs silly

[@minolarosario5549]

so how big do differences have to be to think of it as a different group?

[@GeeVanderplas]

In the end it's one big continuum of changing life forms, so making groups is always slightly arbitrary. But you can classify each closely related group, and those nest together in bigger groups. So you can definitely identify a group "birds", just as well as you can classify "dromaeosaurids" or "snakes". Birds and dromaeosaurids can be grouped together again as the video shows, and finally you can go up to reptiles which includes all of them. You cannot make a class called reptiles that excludes the birds because the whole group nest within the reptile class.

[@archive2500]

It is not the matter of differences by morphology but a matter of different lineage provided by their genetics and overall structure. Basically, just like whales...no matter how much they evolved and change from their hairy, hoofed, terrestrial mammalian ancestors...guess what? They are still mammals. Huh. People just have a habit of finding common characteristics and grouping organisms together, which is true to an extent but not completely. The genome tells the truth and a look more to what links different groups together is the best evidence. It is a matter of staying true to the fact and pushing the traditional definition but sound stupid or staying traditional and keeping the definition the same but illogical. Or in short, keep the lineage or keep the traditional definition.

[@unstoppableExodia]

This clarifies it in a really easy to understand way. Birds are reptiles, there's no doubt about it. To get my head around it tho all I have to do is expand the definition of what constitutes a reptile. Really fascinating video, I glad that I clicked and watched it

[@archive2500]

That is the spirit.

[@segerneijzen7846]

Hey, I was wondering. If mammals evolved from reptiles, then are we reptiles too?

[@LaramidiaWX]

Great question! In the cladistic sense where "reptile" is a synonym for "sauropsid" we are not in fact descended from reptiles. We are descended from synapsids which are commonly referred to as "mammal-like-reptiles" but they are not true reptiles in the sauropsid sense. The more inclusive group that includes both sauropsids and synapsids is called the amniotes. So we are descended from amniotes and we are amniotes, but we are not sauropsids which is the clade I'm referring to as "reptiles" in this video.

[@segerneijzen7846]

Graham Christensen thanks for the information sir!

[@thespookyvaginosisnut5984]

They didn't evolve from reptiles they had a same common ancestor as reptiles. Mammals evolved from amphibian like amminoites like reptiles did. Reptiles are sauraspidia and mammals don't fall under sauraspidia they fall under synapsidia.

[@donaldlawrance5933]

^ thankyou

[@Superstardark]

CRAY CRAY!!?? You win man