5

This came up in an argument with some friends. I know that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs, shown pretty clearly through the fossil record. However, is it proper to say that birds are dinosaurs, or is there an actual distinction?

stochastic13
  • 4,679
  • 5
  • 26
  • 48
zergsomg
  • 53
  • 1
  • 3
  • 1
    Do you know the concept of monophyly? – Remi.b Feb 06 '14 at 11:10
  • 3
    To comment on common scientific usage, I definitely hear paleontologists refer to "non-avian dinosaurs" when they want to exclude birds. Which implies that they would refer to birds as dinosaurs. – seaotternerd Feb 09 '14 at 08:21

1 Answers1

9

I bet you'll be interested about the concept monophyly. Any human-made group of species (or taxon) like birds dinosaurs, primate, bacteria, angiosperm, reptiles, … are either monophyletic, polyphyletic or paraphyletic. This picture explain the concept When the taxon is monophyletic it is called a clade.

enter image description here

Monophyletic taxon are those groups of species that can be considered to be objective in the sense that it represents a group of species where each species in the taxon is more related (in terms of time to common ancestor, not according to their genetic similarity) to any other species within the same taxon than to any other species outside this taxon. This is obviously not the case for paraphyletic or polyphyletic taxon.

Typically, we do not consider a parrot or a deer to be reptiles. Therefore, the ususal understanding of "reptiles" makes this taxon paraphyletic. Now, one should not confound the common understanding (what is a reptile in our everyday life) with the strict definition of the taxon Reptilia, which is a monophyletic taxon (or a clade in other words). Probably the best source for exploring the tree of life is tolweb.org. Here, you will find the clade Reptilia (who include birds, snakes, turtles and lizards). Note: Mammals are within the Reptiliomorpha, not the Reptilia.

It is exactly the same issue with the dinosaurs. When we talk about dinosaurs in our everyday life we do not mean birds. But there is a clade called Dinosauria, which include both dinosaurs and birds.

In short, I would say that a bird is a Dinosauria (monophyletic taxon) but is not a dinosaur (paraphyletic taxon). But this little play on word is not a scientific issue but an issue of english usage.

You will also find in this post an introduction to phylogeny

Community
  • 1
Remi.b
  • 68,088
  • 11
  • 141
  • 234
  • 2
    Some comments: 1) "paraphyletic clade" is an oxymoron; 2) "Monophyletic clades are those clades": again, clades can be only monophyletic by definition; 3) "clades ... can be considered to be objective": clades exist or do not exist irrespective of our considerations; 4) "more related" is very dubious term in this context, which could be here incorrectly understood as "more (genetically) similar"; 5) Reptilia doesn't include mammals on tolweb. – alephreish Feb 06 '14 at 11:51
  • 2
    @har-wradim Indeed there were many corrections to do. I hope I fixed the problems. I confused the words taxon and clade. Thank you for your comments. Please feel free to edit the answer yourself in order to improve it. – Remi.b Feb 06 '14 at 12:25
  • 1
    English usage is definitely evolving on this one. I'd say "Birds are dinosaurs" is the new "spiders aren't insects" - it's getting into the repertoire of the annoying know-it-all who has learned cool scientific facts and insists on sharing them with the world. Some references : https://xkcd.com/1211/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds (notice "birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs"...) – Oosaka Mar 07 '17 at 16:16
  • @RozennKeribin Except that insects (not counting spiders) are a monophyletic group. Dinosaurs (not counting birds) are not monophyletic (as your xkcd comic indicates). – Remi.b Mar 07 '17 at 16:21
  • 1
    @RozennKeribin I strongly disagree - the distinction between birds and dinosaurs is much muddier (@Remi.b's mono/paraphyletic distinction is excellently described) than the distinction between spiders and insects. – Bryan Krause Mar 07 '17 at 16:21
  • @Remi.b but dinosaurs (counting birds, and excluding pterosaurs and other dinosaur-like reptiles, which many paleontologists and nerds who employ this usage do) are monophyletic. – Oosaka Mar 07 '17 at 16:30
  • @BryanKrause I wasn't comparing birds/dinosaurs to spiders/insects from a biological standpoint, but from a meme/English usage standpoint. My point being that while the vernacular "dinosaur" usually represents a different group from the clade "Dinosauria", the usage is evolving in certain circles at least to make them coincide (and that group are those that will tell you that birds are dinosaurs and pterodactyls aren't). – Oosaka Mar 07 '17 at 16:33
  • Spider + insects (+ crustaceans and other things): monophyletic. spider: monophyletic. insects: monophyletic. birds+dinosaurs: monophyletic. brids: monophyletic. dinosaurs: not monophyletic. Dinosaurs is not a stand-alone mnonophyletic group unlike spider and insects are. In other words, spiders and insects are sister(-ish) taxa while dinosaurs contain birds. This is why I think your comment is misleading. – Remi.b Mar 07 '17 at 16:41
  • 1
    You are begging the question. Dinosaurs: not monophyletic if "Dinosaurs" is defined so as to exclude birds. And what I am saying is that in modern English usage, that definition is no longer so clear-cut as to exclude birds; there is an increasing number of people who use the vernacular "dinosaur" to mean "belongs to the clade Dinosauria", and to explicitly include birds. I'm not talking biology here, I'm talking an evolution in the English language. – Oosaka Mar 07 '17 at 16:42