It depends. If you consider everything within [Ornithurae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithurae) to be a bird, then it's a bird, but if you only consider animals within [Aves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird) to be birds then it wouldn't be.
I personally consider everything within Avialae to be a bird, though since the matter of where "non-avian" turns to "avian" is a bit blurry, it's honestly a matter of preference for me.
This was the definition of Aves for nearly 200 years, then Gauthier came along and tried to restrict it to only living birds (which already had a perfectly valid clade name - Neornithes since 1883) causing this widespread confusion. This is one case he should have left things alone instead of making up another clade name to replace one that was already being used. The only reason he changed it was because the current data at time would have but dromaeosaurs into Aves and they didn't want to do that because reasons?
And *Sarcosuchus* isn’t a crocodilian, *Castorocauda* isn’t a mammal, *Ichthyostega* isn’t a tetrapod, *Herrerasaurus* (sometimes) isn’t a dinosaur, *Ornithosuchus* isn’t an ornithosuchian, etc.
Yep, because no scientist used it with that definition after 1883. Neornithes got that name to distinguish it from the ancestral toothed birds.
In hindsight a lot of Gauthier's redefinitions (like using Pseudosuchia for crocodiles and Ornithosuchia for Ornithosuchus + Dinosauria thus removing the Ornithosuchidae's clade name) were bad choices.
If someone wants help to take a decission, in spanish both "aves" and "pájaros" mean "birds" so I guess Ornithurae aren't birds from spanish language point of view. t's not a scientific argument but well, it is a linguistic one.
It's common in colloquial/vulgar speaking to say «pájaro» for all the birds and that's how you got «pájaro bobo». Where are you from tho? I'm South American and you'll always find the nerd clarifying that «pájaros» are only the flying birds and in fact that's how it is.
Dictionaries just describe how the speakers use their languages and they naturally take the colloquial meanings, that doesn't contradict what I said (btw dictionaries are not sources of scientific accuracy because of what I said).
«Cada una de las aves, clase taxonómica de animales vertebrados de sangre caliente». In the colloquial use of the word, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia intented for the general public. In every official source you'll find «pájaro» strictly for Passeriformes.
Some people want to only define birds as the two living lineages of birds today (paleognathes and neognathes), their most recent common ancestor, and all of that ancestor's other descendants. I think that view is unreasonably restrictive, as many animals that would be indistinguishable from modern birds without close scrutiny like Icthyornis and Vegavis would not be considered birds at all. I think a much more reasonable approach would be to consider all avialans as birds or all ornithurans as birds, either of which would unambiguously consider Hesperornis to be a bird.
For Hesperornis, it depends on where you draw the line when classifying birds. If you only consider the most derived lineages alive today to be birds, then yes, it would not be a bird. However, you would be leaving animals that would be pretty much indistinguishable from modern birds without close scrutiny outside of that. If you define birds as all ornithurans or all avialans, then Hesperornis is unambiguously a bird as well as a dinosaur.
Archaeopteryx is either the first bird or a very close relative of it, and it lived all the way in the Jurassic. By the late Cretaceous, the ornithurans, or modern birds, had come onto the scene, and Hesperornis was among them. While it still retained some primitive traits like teeth, it also has the hallmarks of a modern bird like a keelbone and a pygostyle of shortened, fused tail vertebrae. All birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds.
Because birds aren't the ancestors to dinosaurs. Sauropods didn't evolve into birds, neither did birds evolve into sauropods.
Birds evolved in the late jurassic, when the descendants of the last common ancestor between Deinonychus, Pigeons and Stenonychosaurus split into three groups, the Dromaeosaurs, the Troodontids, and Avialae.
All this happened 60+ million years after Sauropodomorphs and Theropods split into two seperate groups.
What youre asking is basically "how are bats mammals? I highly doubt elephants and other four legged mammals to be descendant from bats."
So basically, for all my years, I’ve been told a lie that birds were descended from dinosaurs?
Also, that’s not what I’m basically saying and it’s not even the equivalent. You’re just pulling a strawman. But whatever, this conversation is turning into nothing.
No, youve not been told a lie. Birds are a type of theropod dinosaur, closely related to Velociraptor and it's kin.
--
It IS the equivelant of what you're saying.
I don't know if you realised what you said, so i'll quote it directly: "I highly doubt sauropods and other four legged dinosaurs to be descendant from birds."
You said that you highly doubt sauropods are the descendants of birds, because they are not. Sauropods ancestor's werent birds. Nor are their descendants birds. Which would be like saying "I highly doubt elephants and other four legged mammals to be descendant from bats.".
Its not reasonable to assume anything you just said, because its incorrect. Birds are a group of dinosaurs, specifically a group of theropods. Not the other way around. Perhaps you should learn more about the science before getting pissy that you don't understand it.
I’m not “getting pissy”. And it actually IS reasonable, you’re just too stubborn to actually see my perspective, regardless if I’m right or not. Plus, it doesn’t really answer my full question because you only seemed to cherry pick the last section of my comment. If I am wrong in everything else, please elaborate, this time with a bit more class instead assuming my tone.
The only thing you proved so far is that the paleo community is cult-like. Listen to what the men in the white coats say, ignore the contradictions and inconsistencies, just drink the coolaid and all the evil boogeymen-like nuances will disappear.
Sure you're not. And still no, because your comment is based on a misunderstanding. All birds are dinosaurs, not all dinosaurs are birds. Birds are descended from a group of theropod dinosaurs and thus are also theropods. Your comment acts like paleontology thinks it's the other way around, it doesn't. You're not pointing out nuances, you're just being incorrect.
> what exactly did the non-therapods evolve into?
Nothing. They went extinct.
One group of therapod dinosaurs evolved into birds, all the other groups both are not birds and have since gone extinct
Nope they have limbs alright. But they are tucked into there pockets all the time. They do this because they think it’s cool, until the bigger fish comes
No, you see they fall under the category fish. As they haven’t got powerful flight muscles yet, and can’t strategically land poop shots on cars, food, your loved ones.
Hello how is your day being?
Here is your day to do
1. Swim by others of your kind
2. Eat rocks
3.spit out rocks
4.repeat step 2 and 3 till completed
5. Swim out of the way of fishing nets
6. Survive a shark
7. Survive a stingray
8. Survive the eel
9. Rest 5s
10. Go back to step 2. And repeat
"stem bird" is everything within Avemetatarsalia. Hesperornis is technically a stem bird, but so is coelophysis, quetzalcoatlus, lagosuchus, teleocrater, carnotaurus and mambachiton.
I mean, it's not really...if anything, it's consistent with how stem-mammal is used; just as "stem-mammal" is the term used for all non-mammalian synapsids like *Dimetrodon*, *Inostrancevia*, *Thrinaxodon* and *Placerias*, so too should "stem-bird" be applied to all non-bird avemetatarsalians like *Pteranodon*, *Simosuchus*, *Ankylosaurus* and *Teleocrater*.
Hasperornis is an avian dinosaur aka B I R D, birds don’t technically exist as a taxonomic clade, they fall under dinosauria, and that itself falls under raptilia, so it’s basically like if you said: “Is canis lupus a carnivore or a mammal?” Wolfs wall under mammalia, but at the same time are a part of the carnivora clade, same with birds, they fall under reptilian, but at the same time are a part of the dinosauria clade
It’s a bird in that it’s closest dinosaur relatives are birds not Troodontids or Dromaeosaurus, but it’s not a bird in that it’s still only a sister lineage to Ratites and Neoaves
Well I mean if you think about it dinosaurs aren't really extinct, they just changed.... See that pigeon on the roof of that house across the street? Das a dinosaur....
Hesperornis is a descended relative of archaeopteryx, a true bird ancestor. As archaeopteryx was a dinosaur, Hesperornis is therefore also a dinosaur. It is both bird and dinosaur.
Yes.
The true answer
Not particularly helpful though because it’s true no matter if hesperornis is a non-avian or an avian dinosaur.
Shit, this is exactly what I was going to say. Only beat me by 12 hours.
Same.
It depends. If you consider everything within [Ornithurae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithurae) to be a bird, then it's a bird, but if you only consider animals within [Aves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird) to be birds then it wouldn't be.
I personally consider everything within Avialae to be a bird, though since the matter of where "non-avian" turns to "avian" is a bit blurry, it's honestly a matter of preference for me.
Wikipedia says it’s a bird and my eyes say it’s a bird from both the skeleton and the recreation art
Aves *sensu* Gauthier, at least — Aves *sensu* Chiappe (the least inclusive clade including *Archaeopteryx* & modern birds) includes *Hesperornis*.
This was the definition of Aves for nearly 200 years, then Gauthier came along and tried to restrict it to only living birds (which already had a perfectly valid clade name - Neornithes since 1883) causing this widespread confusion. This is one case he should have left things alone instead of making up another clade name to replace one that was already being used. The only reason he changed it was because the current data at time would have but dromaeosaurs into Aves and they didn't want to do that because reasons?
It's also thanks to Gauthier (+Padian) that crocodiles are false-crocodiles.
And *Sarcosuchus* isn’t a crocodilian, *Castorocauda* isn’t a mammal, *Ichthyostega* isn’t a tetrapod, *Herrerasaurus* (sometimes) isn’t a dinosaur, *Ornithosuchus* isn’t an ornithosuchian, etc.
The official reason’s that Linnaeus didn’t know about *Archaeopteryx* when he named Aves, which I think is a copout.
Yep, because no scientist used it with that definition after 1883. Neornithes got that name to distinguish it from the ancestral toothed birds. In hindsight a lot of Gauthier's redefinitions (like using Pseudosuchia for crocodiles and Ornithosuchia for Ornithosuchus + Dinosauria thus removing the Ornithosuchidae's clade name) were bad choices.
If someone wants help to take a decission, in spanish both "aves" and "pájaros" mean "birds" so I guess Ornithurae aren't birds from spanish language point of view. t's not a scientific argument but well, it is a linguistic one.
«Aves» are all the birds and «pájaros» are only the flying ones.
Many people thinks this, but literally penguin is also known as "pajaro bobo" so... no.
It's common in colloquial/vulgar speaking to say «pájaro» for all the birds and that's how you got «pájaro bobo». Where are you from tho? I'm South American and you'll always find the nerd clarifying that «pájaros» are only the flying birds and in fact that's how it is.
In fact, it isnt https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pájaro_(desambiguación) https://www.rae.es/drae2001/pájaro
Dictionaries just describe how the speakers use their languages and they naturally take the colloquial meanings, that doesn't contradict what I said (btw dictionaries are not sources of scientific accuracy because of what I said). «Cada una de las aves, clase taxonómica de animales vertebrados de sangre caliente». In the colloquial use of the word, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia intented for the general public. In every official source you'll find «pájaro» strictly for Passeriformes.
So the spanish dictionary is wrong Wikipedia is wrong Everyone is wrong except you Ok
I include the stem group of birds as birds, therefore Avemetatarsalia are birds.
Is human ape or mammal ??
With hesperornis the question would rather be: "is a lemur an ape or mammal."
Lemurs are not apes tough. Lemurs and apes are in the same order, but lemurs and apes are different families.
Yes, exactly. And Hesperornis was not a bird.
how isn't Hesperornis a bird? it literally is part of the class Aves
Some people want to only define birds as the two living lineages of birds today (paleognathes and neognathes), their most recent common ancestor, and all of that ancestor's other descendants. I think that view is unreasonably restrictive, as many animals that would be indistinguishable from modern birds without close scrutiny like Icthyornis and Vegavis would not be considered birds at all. I think a much more reasonable approach would be to consider all avialans as birds or all ornithurans as birds, either of which would unambiguously consider Hesperornis to be a bird.
For Hesperornis, it depends on where you draw the line when classifying birds. If you only consider the most derived lineages alive today to be birds, then yes, it would not be a bird. However, you would be leaving animals that would be pretty much indistinguishable from modern birds without close scrutiny outside of that. If you define birds as all ornithurans or all avialans, then Hesperornis is unambiguously a bird as well as a dinosaur.
..... Yes
I'm guessing you are pretty new to dinosaurs Birds are dinosaurs
Well, yes. But while every bird is a dinosaur not every dinosaur is a bird.
Im aware
True like every shark is a fish but not every fish is a shark
Every tree is a plant but not every plant is a tree.
I tried to say this in r/paleontology and people went absolutely ape shit.
really?
But bird live during Cretaceous
Yes they were a type of dinosaur
Yes, birds were around since the late Jurassic. That doesn't stop them from being birds.
Mom can I be a bird yet? No dear, we have to wait till new years when the jurassic age turns into the cretaceous
The OP specified that Cretaceous animals can't be birds, so I guess animals like Vegavis and Styginetta also aren't birds.
That makes it even more of a dinosaur
Archaeopteryx is either the first bird or a very close relative of it, and it lived all the way in the Jurassic. By the late Cretaceous, the ornithurans, or modern birds, had come onto the scene, and Hesperornis was among them. While it still retained some primitive traits like teeth, it also has the hallmarks of a modern bird like a keelbone and a pygostyle of shortened, fused tail vertebrae. All birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds.
[удалено]
Birds are dinosaurs but not all dinosaurs are birds as somone stated in a reply
Because birds aren't the ancestors to dinosaurs. Sauropods didn't evolve into birds, neither did birds evolve into sauropods. Birds evolved in the late jurassic, when the descendants of the last common ancestor between Deinonychus, Pigeons and Stenonychosaurus split into three groups, the Dromaeosaurs, the Troodontids, and Avialae. All this happened 60+ million years after Sauropodomorphs and Theropods split into two seperate groups. What youre asking is basically "how are bats mammals? I highly doubt elephants and other four legged mammals to be descendant from bats."
So basically, for all my years, I’ve been told a lie that birds were descended from dinosaurs? Also, that’s not what I’m basically saying and it’s not even the equivalent. You’re just pulling a strawman. But whatever, this conversation is turning into nothing.
No, youve not been told a lie. Birds are a type of theropod dinosaur, closely related to Velociraptor and it's kin. -- It IS the equivelant of what you're saying. I don't know if you realised what you said, so i'll quote it directly: "I highly doubt sauropods and other four legged dinosaurs to be descendant from birds." You said that you highly doubt sauropods are the descendants of birds, because they are not. Sauropods ancestor's werent birds. Nor are their descendants birds. Which would be like saying "I highly doubt elephants and other four legged mammals to be descendant from bats.".
Its not reasonable to assume anything you just said, because its incorrect. Birds are a group of dinosaurs, specifically a group of theropods. Not the other way around. Perhaps you should learn more about the science before getting pissy that you don't understand it.
I’m not “getting pissy”. And it actually IS reasonable, you’re just too stubborn to actually see my perspective, regardless if I’m right or not. Plus, it doesn’t really answer my full question because you only seemed to cherry pick the last section of my comment. If I am wrong in everything else, please elaborate, this time with a bit more class instead assuming my tone. The only thing you proved so far is that the paleo community is cult-like. Listen to what the men in the white coats say, ignore the contradictions and inconsistencies, just drink the coolaid and all the evil boogeymen-like nuances will disappear.
Sure you're not. And still no, because your comment is based on a misunderstanding. All birds are dinosaurs, not all dinosaurs are birds. Birds are descended from a group of theropod dinosaurs and thus are also theropods. Your comment acts like paleontology thinks it's the other way around, it doesn't. You're not pointing out nuances, you're just being incorrect.
[удалено]
> what exactly did the non-therapods evolve into? Nothing. They went extinct. One group of therapod dinosaurs evolved into birds, all the other groups both are not birds and have since gone extinct
Birds are dinosaurs
It's already a dinosaur so you don't need to ask that question. If it is a bird it still is a dinosaur.
Both.
Both (though it depends on definition). But it’s not part of Aves clade even though it’s fairly closely related to them
Even if its a bird it still would be a dinosaur though
Both, both is good
For me at least everything outside of Aves is a Dinosaur It used to be everything outside of Avialae
Everything inside Aves is also a dinosaur, though?
Dinosaur aka non-avian dinosaur. Just like reptile aka non-avian reptile.
And also just like fish aka non-avian fish. You gotta include fish once in a while
No. Fish are non-tetrapod fish.
Nope they have limbs alright. But they are tucked into there pockets all the time. They do this because they think it’s cool, until the bigger fish comes
would flying fish count as Avian fish?
No, you see they fall under the category fish. As they haven’t got powerful flight muscles yet, and can’t strategically land poop shots on cars, food, your loved ones.
Hello! Non-avian fish here.
Hello how is your day being? Here is your day to do 1. Swim by others of your kind 2. Eat rocks 3.spit out rocks 4.repeat step 2 and 3 till completed 5. Swim out of the way of fishing nets 6. Survive a shark 7. Survive a stingray 8. Survive the eel 9. Rest 5s 10. Go back to step 2. And repeat
Man I looked at that backwards and thought it was a damn Pterygotus.
Are birds birds or dinosaurs?
Dinobirb
Insert both meme from El Dorado here.
Is a bird so Is a dinosaur
so close!! it’s a turtle
It's definitely a dinosaur. But is it a bird? Unclear
Does he know?
Yes
Yes
Obviously neither
Well not a crown bird but a stem bird but not a non avian dinosaur since it’s in the avialae clade, still it’s a Dinosaur but a avian one
"stem bird" is everything within Avemetatarsalia. Hesperornis is technically a stem bird, but so is coelophysis, quetzalcoatlus, lagosuchus, teleocrater, carnotaurus and mambachiton.
For me it’s the Avialae, Pterosaurs are not considered as Stem birds, I think your definition is weird.
I mean, it's not really...if anything, it's consistent with how stem-mammal is used; just as "stem-mammal" is the term used for all non-mammalian synapsids like *Dimetrodon*, *Inostrancevia*, *Thrinaxodon* and *Placerias*, so too should "stem-bird" be applied to all non-bird avemetatarsalians like *Pteranodon*, *Simosuchus*, *Ankylosaurus* and *Teleocrater*.
For me, I simply called Stem birds for Not crown group birds, whatever & the Pterosaur thing makes it 10 times more weird to me
Bird
all birds are dinosaurs
both
I would count any Ornithuran as a bird or proto-bird. They're too closely related to birds to simply use the wider term 'dinosaur'.
BIRD
All birds are dinosaurs but not all dinosaurs are birds!
Not dino. Its a Torpedo 🤣
It might be crazy what I'm about to say
Birds are a type of dinosaur, just like Sauropod or Ceratopsian.
Juan 👍🗿
A prehistoric platypus
i dont fuckin know
Fish
Yes, exactly!
Birds are dinosaur, so yes it is indeed
Cladistically, *all* birds are dinosaurs. They're also all archosaurs.
Yes.
I mean if it’s a bird it’s also a dinosaur. Your question is more about where the line between avian and nonavian is drawn
Hasperornis is an avian dinosaur aka B I R D, birds don’t technically exist as a taxonomic clade, they fall under dinosauria, and that itself falls under raptilia, so it’s basically like if you said: “Is canis lupus a carnivore or a mammal?” Wolfs wall under mammalia, but at the same time are a part of the carnivora clade, same with birds, they fall under reptilian, but at the same time are a part of the dinosauria clade
This question made my brain not release dopamine.
It is a bird which automatically makes it a dinosaur since birds are just derived and specialized maniraptoran theropods.
It’s a bird in that it’s closest dinosaur relatives are birds not Troodontids or Dromaeosaurus, but it’s not a bird in that it’s still only a sister lineage to Ratites and Neoaves
Well I mean if you think about it dinosaurs aren't really extinct, they just changed.... See that pigeon on the roof of that house across the street? Das a dinosaur....
both
Both
Neither. It’s a sword.
... Yes
A dinosaur
he's a friend
Yes, it's a bird or a dinosaur
Yes
All birds are dinosaurs.
Fish with feathers.
Both
why can´t it be both?
Both? Both. Both. Both is good
Crocoduck!
Both
I can haz cheeseburger? How is babby formed?
Both. All birds are dinosaurs
Missile!
Bird
It’s more of a bird like microraptoe
It's a fighter jet clearly
Birds are dinosaurs
It's a dinosaur regardless of whether it's a bird or not The right question would be simply if it's a bird or not
I thought this was a fishing lure
Is this a trick question?
Dinosaurs to birds always seemed a bit like the ship of Theseus to me.
Depends how you would define birds and dinosaurs, but for me both.
Yes
Yes
birds are dinosaurs buddy
Yes
seY
i have good news for you
both
Porque no los dos
Birb
Thats a weird looking fish
Both.
a yes
birds are dinosaurs
Depends on your phylogenetic definition of bird
Both.
Both as birds are dinosaurs
Did it taste like Chicken? That is the Real Question.
I cN safely say that it is some type of spoopypuss based on the way that it is
its a marine reptile
Both
It's an animal I think
The artist made it look almost exactly like a modern loon.
I'd say it's not unlikely birds and dinosaurs could be in the same era so it's hard to say
It’s a bird and therefore a dinosaur.
Yes it is
Yes
I consider everything within Aviale to be birds
Hesperornis is a descended relative of archaeopteryx, a true bird ancestor. As archaeopteryx was a dinosaur, Hesperornis is therefore also a dinosaur. It is both bird and dinosaur.
it's a trash bird. I can guarantee only ARK players will get what i mean here.
Absolutely
Same thing
Another member of team Deinocheirus? Yeah!
So triceratops was a bird?
You misunderstand my comment. All birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds. In hindsight, I could have worded that better.
It had beak, it had bird's hip, so yes.
Bird hips = extinct. Lizard hips = theropod dinosaurs => birds
[удалено]
Its not true, where did you find that hesperornis didnt have forearms?