No it’s actually correct, just like how all synapsids are humans because humans are synapsids. That dimetrodon fossil in a museum is literally just human remains that we don’t give a proper burial for some reason unknown to me.
As far as we know. You know how we found the tuatara which is just an unassuming lizard-lookalike but actually isn't a lizard, but a sister family all together? I keep wandering if that'll ever happen where we find some sort of rough back iguana looking reptile on a hard-to-explore island and then run some tests and low and behold, this guys actually in the scelidosaurus lineage or somethin.
I'm not like, holding out hope other dinosaur clades squeaked through, or anything, I just think if the Wollemi Pine can do it, who knows
The closest we have proof of right now are ancient reptiles who were there next to and before dinosaurs. Crocodyliformes, rhynchocephalia, and testudines- or crocodiles and their kin, the tuatara, and turtles tortoises and terrapins. These things are not dinosaurs, but they are reptiles that lived alongside, and many of whom ate, dinosaurs. Supercrocs are honorary Dino's to many, some prehistoric snapping turtles were truly monstrous, and honestly the tuatara seems to have just always been in 'lil guy' niche, but his ancestors were 'lil guys' before and during dinosaurs. It did have a crazy aquatic uncle who shoehorned its family tree into mosasaur territory- so there's that.
Edit: I now see what you meant, extinct not extant. Yeah, there were dozens of lil guys.
True, but I find it helpful to compare them that way. It helped me understand that dinosaurs (especially giant theropods and sauropods) reached their massive sizes for the same reasons small theropods evolved flight.
Yeah i just recently learned that using fish as a way to describe creatures that live in the sea isnt necessarily accurate like how Eden_ITA states. I’m not a taxonomist by any means but i thought it was interesting and makes total sense! Learned it from a book named “Fish Dont Exist”
The first monkeys appeared some 40 million years ago, and among them were our ancestors. Therefore we have evolved from monkeys and we still are monkeys like all other great apes.
Monkeys just like fish is not a cladistic term, however.
What is cladistic is lobe finned fish, Sarcopterygians if you prefer ancient Greek terms, meaning humans are not fish, but they are lobe finned fish. Just like when you're in an interglacial period you're in an ice age still (we are still in the ice age). Or how everyone have thePrion Protein but you don't usually have aprion protein, aka a protein in its prionic form, which so far has only been the Prion Protein to do that.
Also you'll have a hard time explaining that we evolved from monkeys by saying from 40 million years ago, as nowadays people understand monkey to mean primate, not just simians.
I think you might wanna fix that last line, since lemurs and lorises are primates/primates is the broader group and simian the narrower group that includes us. Maybe you meant what are called monkeys colloquially (the usually tailed simians/catarrhini excluding apes)?
Humans are in a clade in which the common ancestor was a fish. It existed about 375 million years ago and was also the common ancestor of all land animals. By most modern definitions it would be considered a fish. But a fish is kind of a hard thing to define. So it would not make sense to say all humans are fish, but it would make sense to say that all humans are descended from a fish.
Yes, as if new world monkeys and old world monkeys are monkeys, then apes (more closely related to old world monkeys than either are to new world monkeys) are also monkeys. Or “monkey” is a paraphyletic term and meaningless taxonomically in which case anyone correcting you saying “um ackshually apes aren’t monkeys/were apes, not monkeys” is pointlessly arguing about a completely arbitrary distinction that isn’t based on ancestry but instead on “these catarrhines have (significantly functionally/morphologically different) tails!”
But that’s not why they’re reptiles. They are reptiles because they are literally dinosaurs. They share a more recent common ancestor with crocodilians than crocs do with lizards. So if lizards are reptiles and crocs are reptiles, then bird must be.
I think it is good to distinguish between birds and other reptiles, because it would be pretty confusing if there wasn’t any distinction between different reptiles.
Because there are many birds, but manny more reptiles, and it would be very hard for birdwatchers to see all species if they also had to count all other reptiles.
There are as many species of bird as there are in all of squamata (all lizards including snakes) so, no, there aren’t “many more” nonavain reptiles. There are slightly more nonavian reptiles. Birds are the most species rich clade within reptiles. Why would birdwatchers need to count all other reptiles? That would be like a snake enthusiast needing to count every lizard. Snakes are lizards, but not all lizards are snakes. Birds are reptiles, but not all reptiles are birds.
There's something hilarious about the fact that the official name for the Crocodile-Bird nested clade is just "Ruling Lizards", like even in the 19th century people were well aware of just how badass Crocodiles & Dinosaurs were and they just thought of modern-day lizards & snakes as an afterthought by just calling them "scaled lizards".
The third one is incorrect. All birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds.
Fun fact. Dinosaurs were split into two main groups - saurischia and ornithischia.
saurischia meaning lizard hipped and ornithischia meaning bird hipped.
Weird thing is, birds evolved from therapods which were the saurichia (lizard hipped) dinosaurs.
That was a really fun fact! Also, how’s Ankh-Morpork these days? Still fighting crime?
No it’s actually correct, just like how all synapsids are humans because humans are synapsids. That dimetrodon fossil in a museum is literally just human remains that we don’t give a proper burial for some reason unknown to me.
Oh no, my house was built on an ancient dimetrodon burial ground!
They moved the Sailboats, but they never moved the bodies!!!
You had me in the first half of the first sentence.
But they wish they could be.
Yes, all dinosaurs ARE birds.
But not all dinosaurs WERE birds.
It's all about the present tense.
Insert the "technically correct" meme here. Bravo! Or brava, or bravi or brave, as appropriate.
All dinosaurs have birded
You can use present tense, both forms should be valid. The description of the nature of a creature no longer here doesn't change with time
all living dinosaurs are birds
As far as we know. You know how we found the tuatara which is just an unassuming lizard-lookalike but actually isn't a lizard, but a sister family all together? I keep wandering if that'll ever happen where we find some sort of rough back iguana looking reptile on a hard-to-explore island and then run some tests and low and behold, this guys actually in the scelidosaurus lineage or somethin.
I'm not like, holding out hope other dinosaur clades squeaked through, or anything, I just think if the Wollemi Pine can do it, who knows
I would love if we found an extant non-avian dinosaur
Do we even have any non theropod dinosaur that is small?
The closest we have proof of right now are ancient reptiles who were there next to and before dinosaurs. Crocodyliformes, rhynchocephalia, and testudines- or crocodiles and their kin, the tuatara, and turtles tortoises and terrapins. These things are not dinosaurs, but they are reptiles that lived alongside, and many of whom ate, dinosaurs. Supercrocs are honorary Dino's to many, some prehistoric snapping turtles were truly monstrous, and honestly the tuatara seems to have just always been in 'lil guy' niche, but his ancestors were 'lil guys' before and during dinosaurs. It did have a crazy aquatic uncle who shoehorned its family tree into mosasaur territory- so there's that.
Edit: I now see what you meant, extinct not extant. Yeah, there were dozens of lil guys.
All squares are rectangles, but no Triceratops learned to fly.
True, but I find it helpful to compare them that way. It helped me understand that dinosaurs (especially giant theropods and sauropods) reached their massive sizes for the same reasons small theropods evolved flight.
Was going to say this. Thank you.
Total group Aves technically includes all archosaurs closer to birds than to crocs, so even pterosaurs are birds in a sense
Ok 👌
well they make for terrible lizards
https://i.redd.it/6c6mqgtfns7g1.gif
Birds are fish
Erhm fish arent real /s
Fishes are like dragons.
They are both an umbrella word for a big group of creatures often not so much related.
https://i.redd.it/od0tu6ebts7g1.gif
We are all fishes with problems at the end.
It was a really upsetting day when I was confronted with the fact that whales can in fact be called fish. There is no reason they can't be.
Honestly with how arbitrary taxonomy is anyway this is kinda how I view it
Birds are reptiles and the category of fish doesn’t really exist
Yeah i just recently learned that using fish as a way to describe creatures that live in the sea isnt necessarily accurate like how Eden_ITA states. I’m not a taxonomist by any means but i thought it was interesting and makes total sense! Learned it from a book named “Fish Dont Exist”
That said birds are still lobe finned fish, and humans aren't monkeys, but they're primates and great apes
https://preview.redd.it/o0gwnxzisy7g1.png?width=675&format=png&auto=webp&s=2eadeab836c365914b054b242325ee31205bae22
The first monkeys appeared some 40 million years ago, and among them were our ancestors. Therefore we have evolved from monkeys and we still are monkeys like all other great apes.
Monkeys just like fish is not a cladistic term, however.
What is cladistic is lobe finned fish, Sarcopterygians if you prefer ancient Greek terms, meaning humans are not fish, but they are lobe finned fish. Just like when you're in an interglacial period you're in an ice age still (we are still in the ice age). Or how everyone have the Prion Protein but you don't usually have a prion protein, aka a protein in its prionic form, which so far has only been the Prion Protein to do that.
Also you'll have a hard time explaining that we evolved from monkeys by saying from 40 million years ago, as nowadays people understand monkey to mean primate, not just simians.
I think you might wanna fix that last line, since lemurs and lorises are primates/primates is the broader group and simian the narrower group that includes us. Maybe you meant what are called monkeys colloquially (the usually tailed simians/catarrhini excluding apes)?
Neither are birds, duh
We’re all fish.
Third one is fake
But the others are completely true
Wait untild bro discovers whales ARE fish
Unless you consider only cartilaginous fish to be fish, then whales are not fish (neither are trouts, salmon, etc)
I assume (like most people).. when referring to fish, bony fish are the type that is implied
Are we descendants of
reptiles and amphibians(Edit: fish) or are we them? 🤔We are not descendants of reptiles or reptiles.
Fixed
Humans are in a clade in which the common ancestor was a fish. It existed about 375 million years ago and was also the common ancestor of all land animals. By most modern definitions it would be considered a fish. But a fish is kind of a hard thing to define. So it would not make sense to say all humans are fish, but it would make sense to say that all humans are descended from a fish.
This depends on which kind of taxonomy we are talking about. Its a really fascinating thing and I'd suggest reading up kn it beyond reddit answers.
Can I finally say that I'm a monkey?
All apes are monkeys, but not all monkeys are apes, yes.
https://i.redd.it/g66r4yapts7g1.gif
I’m down with that. Let’s embrace our inner monkey.
Before embracing our inner monkey we have to embrace our shrew like true mammalian form
And before that our fish
You are a monkey. We are all monkeys.
Yes, as if new world monkeys and old world monkeys are monkeys, then apes (more closely related to old world monkeys than either are to new world monkeys) are also monkeys. Or “monkey” is a paraphyletic term and meaningless taxonomically in which case anyone correcting you saying “um ackshually apes aren’t monkeys/were apes, not monkeys” is pointlessly arguing about a completely arbitrary distinction that isn’t based on ancestry but instead on “these catarrhines have (significantly functionally/morphologically different) tails!”
laughs in placoderm
Birds and reptiles are VERY close genetically. They poop the same, they have the same reproductive organs, for the most part, and they both lay eggs.
But that’s not why they’re reptiles. They are reptiles because they are literally dinosaurs. They share a more recent common ancestor with crocodilians than crocs do with lizards. So if lizards are reptiles and crocs are reptiles, then bird must be.
I think it is good to distinguish between birds and other reptiles, because it would be pretty confusing if there wasn’t any distinction between different reptiles.
Why would it be confusing?
Because there are many birds, but manny more reptiles, and it would be very hard for birdwatchers to see all species if they also had to count all other reptiles.
There are as many species of bird as there are in all of squamata (all lizards including snakes) so, no, there aren’t “many more” nonavain reptiles. There are slightly more nonavian reptiles. Birds are the most species rich clade within reptiles. Why would birdwatchers need to count all other reptiles? That would be like a snake enthusiast needing to count every lizard. Snakes are lizards, but not all lizards are snakes. Birds are reptiles, but not all reptiles are birds.
Ok
Reptilia is paraphyletic. Sauropsida is better.
It’s not paraphyletic if you make it a monophyletic group by including birds like you should.
And like someone did 40 years ago!
There's something hilarious about the fact that the official name for the Crocodile-Bird nested clade is just "Ruling Lizards", like even in the 19th century people were well aware of just how badass Crocodiles & Dinosaurs were and they just thought of modern-day lizards & snakes as an afterthought by just calling them "scaled lizards".
In fact yes
All birds are dinosaurs. All dinosaurs are not birds.
Other than that, yes, correct- birds are reptiles.
But not all dinosaurs are birds. You're right other than that
aves are theropods
All earth life are water carbon and oxygen based beings who are derived from a common single celled ancestor from the ancient primordal soup.
https://preview.redd.it/04o7w2coy18g1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eee92959756ea76ebdec11bbcdb8a58665b8d21f
You can't evolve out of a clade. Technically we're all fish.
There are no reptiles phylogenetic speaking
This
And either fishes don't exist, or we are fish.
All tetrapods are terrestrial fish.
Birds are, infact, reptiles, yes
3 is the other way around
Every land animal's either a bug, a worm, a fish or a snail by some definition
I guess you could say we live on a…….
Dinosaur Planet
The tirth one is wrong, all birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds
Humans are technically dromeosaurids so..
Whales are fish 🤯
Final Truth: Everything’isa Fish, except Fish
“Bird,” “reptile,” “fish,” etc. are common names, so they don’t have to be phylogenetic clades.
If common names had to be clades, sharks would be worms, wolves would be foxes, ants would be wasps, and sea anemones would be coral.
broke: whales are fish
woke: whales are not fish, they are mammals
bespoke: mammals are fish, so whales are fish
Join the Prehistoric Memes discord server! Now boasting slightly more emojis than we had this time last year!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
The third photo is Fakenews,All Dinosaurs is not birds but All birds is Dinosaurs
We all are fish.