Board 8 > Are birds really just reptiles?

(+) Yeah! (+)

but I will say... at this point though I feel like the discussion has pretty much run its course.

it feels like you're trying to convince me that birds are reptiles. which is something I already believe. what I haven't been convinced on is the idea that there is a consensus in the scientific community on birds = reptiles. I've only seen evidence that there is not a clear consensus. I have not seen evidence that there is a clear consensus. furthermore I think there are valid reasons for people to prefer other systems of classification.

the fact that I'm nitpicking potential flaws in the evolutionary classification system, when I don't even care one way or the other, shows me just how little I am even invested in this argument anymore.
---

I'm struggling with the same stuff Maria brought up

If the point is to find the smallest groups, then why does "reptiles" start ABOVE archosaurs/lepidosaurs? Why can't "reptiles" be lepidosaurs and archosaurs be something else? And how can birds be = reptiles, but crocodiles can't be = birds if they're both under "reptiles?"
---

HashtagSEP posted...

I'm struggling with the same stuff Maria brought up

If the point is to find the smallest groups, then why does "reptiles" start ABOVE archosaurs/lepidosaurs? Why can't "reptiles" be lepidosaurs and archosaurs be something else? And how can birds be = reptiles, but crocodiles can't be = birds if they're both under "reptiles?"

There isn't a strict logic to the ordering of the names. You start at species and go up. You could definitely redefine reptiles to exclude archosaurs, but there's no real will or reason to do this. Crocodiles are not birds because they form a separate monophyletic clade. That's really all there is to it.

Think about it this way: pidgeons are birds and penguins are birds but pidgeons are not penguins.
---

If the point is to find the smallest groups, then why does "reptiles" start ABOVE archosaurs/lepidosaurs? Why can't "reptiles" be lepidosaurs and archosaurs be something else? And how can birds be = reptiles, but crocodiles can't be = birds if they're both under "reptiles?"

Because archosaurs can be split into smaller groups where one are crocodiles and the other are birds. It would be like saying why aren’t oranges considered to be apples when they are all fruit.
---

Anyway going with the topic on hand there are only a couple of scenarios where birds would not be classified as reptiles.

The first would be the argument that some classifications don’t need to be monophyletic. The downside is of course that it’s arbitrary to say things like feathers=not reptiles.

The other would be to reclassify what we would consider to be reptiles. Basically everything we now call reptiles except Crocodiles/Alligators (and maybe Turtles, depending who you ask) would now be a reptile.


On the same vein fish is also something that needs to be reclassified because using the same argument about birds being reptiles we would also be fish. Teleost fish will likely be the new fish while things like Sharks, lampreys, lungfish etc would be called something else.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

There isn't a strict logic to the ordering of the names. You start at species and go up. You could definitely redefine reptiles to exclude archosaurs, but there's no real will or reason to do this.

But is there a real will or reason for why it SHOULDN'T be that way?

That's my point. If there's not, then it's just as arbitrary.
---

Why not just keep calling reptiles "everything under reptilia except birds" which is very simple and uncontroversial?
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Lightning Strikes posted...

There isn't a strict logic to the ordering of the names. You start at species and go up. You could definitely redefine reptiles to exclude archosaurs, but there's no real will or reason to do this.

But is there a real will or reason for why it SHOULDN'T be that way?

That's my point. If there's not, then it's just as arbitrary.

Because the term was originally envisioned with them in mind, so why exclude them to exclude a very similar group? You can say it's arbitrary but only in the way all names are arbitrary.

foolm0r0n posted...

Why not just keep calling reptiles "everything under reptilia except birds" which is very simple and uncontroversial?

Because the word reptiles=Reptilia literally, it would be extremely confusing. Just say non-avian reptiles.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Why not just keep calling reptiles "everything under reptilia except birds" which is very simple and uncontroversial?

Because excluding birds is arbitrary. Anyone who has studied crocodiles knows they have more in common with birds than lizards
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Because the word reptiles=Reptilia literally

No, Reptilia comes from "reptiles", which is a word that was used way before modern classification systems to mean "creepy scaley creatures". And it still means that. If you care about the genetic classification then use the genetic terms.
---

The argument of "We call diaspids reptiles, just calling lepidosaurs reptiles is arbitrary" just sounds like one big "We called this thing reptiles first and don't feel like changing it because because."

Which also sounds like the argument of "Evolutionary only, nothing else ever!"

Either way, I think saying "birds = reptiles is a consensus" is incredibly disingenuous.

Going "We want to be as specific as possible. ...Except for what we classify as 'reptiles'" just seems so silly to me.
---

Like, why is it so easy to handwave "mammal-like reptiles" with "Oh, we just call them something else, now"

But then you stand so firmly on "Birds must be reptiles!"
---

The whole thing about science is that it moves forward. We have changed the definitions.

When taxonomy started, it was purely morphological. Now it has shifted to evolutionary, because we now have the technology to do this. It was actually a huge rearrangement of the tree of life, really interesting stuff.

However, you have to understand that Reptilia is a clade the same as Diapsida, we don't just call diapsids reptiles. That seems to be your point of confusion.
---

My problem with this whole thing is that there is a non-scientific meaning to the word "reptile" - saying "birds are reptiles" may be accurate to some degree in an evolutionary context, but there's a good reason why we don't use the word "reptile" to mean "a bird" in everyday context. So the answer to "are birds reptiles" is "who are you asking?" I have linguistic objections to the whole thing.

Regardless of which side we're on, here, can we agree that Kenri's argument of "The difference between birds and other reptiles is arbitrary, just like the difference between XX and XY is arbitrary" is a horrible argument?
---

arguments by analogy are always flawed!
---

This is the thing - I don't think there are such uses. You would not call bats birds or dolphins fish (people used to!). It is needlessly confusing. Casual use must adapt as science advances, and the only way to do this is education. You're kind of arguing for still calling Pluto a planet.

Just to clarify what I said earlier by the way, Reptilia is the parent class of the Diapsida, shared with the Anapsida which are all extinct.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Regardless of which side we're on, here, can we agree that Kenri's argument of "The difference between birds and other reptiles is arbitrary, just like the difference between XX and XY is arbitrary" is a horrible argument?

That's definitely a horrible argument but I don't think I ever said anything even close to that, so.
---

Kenri posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Regardless of which side we're on, here, can we agree that Kenri's argument of "The difference between birds and other reptiles is arbitrary, just like the difference between XX and XY is arbitrary" is a horrible argument?

That's definitely a horrible argument but I don't think I ever said anything even close to that, so.

You literally told me "Even if birds aren't reptiles, the difference is arbitrary."
---

Basically the gist of the reptile argument to me, without a ton of research into the topic, seems to boil down to a long time ago some old scientists called alligators, crocodiles, and dinosaurs reptiles due to observed similarities with stuff like lizards, snakes, etc such as scales and being cold blooded.

Then eventually it was found that birds share a lot of traits with alligators, crocodiles, and dinosaurs, and are actually closer to them than lizards/snakes are. So rather than say "we were wrong to say alligators and dinosaurs were reptiles" and reclassifying those as something different, they instead broaden the definition of reptile to one that happens to catch birds as collateral damage, despite birds not really appearing very reptile like to what people on casual observation would call a reptile, and having a decent amount of traits that most 'other' reptiles don't.

So to me it looks like it's all about being stubborn and which hill is chosen to die on.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

You literally told me "Even if birds aren't reptiles, the difference is arbitrary."

My dude I am seriously done with this argument and have nothing more to add, but if you're gonna keep claiming I said whatever, you should quote the actual posts where I said it instead of paraphrasing what you think my argument is, cuz you've already admitted multiple times that you don't know what I'm arguing.
---

Sorry, Kenri. I'll be fair. You didn't directly say "The difference is arbitrary."

But you did say

"Yeah well we've established I was uninformed about the latter but I'd still say it's arbitrary. What changes about the world if we classify them as one or the other?"

Which, at the time, you most certainly were not making the arguments LS is. So you were basically telling me "What changes about if we call birds 'snakes?' It's arbitrary."
---

Kenri posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

You literally told me "Even if birds aren't reptiles, the difference is arbitrary."

My dude I am seriously done with this argument and have nothing more to add, but if you're gonna keep claiming I said whatever, you should quote the actual posts where I said it instead of paraphrasing what you think my argument is, cuz you've already admitted multiple times that you don't know what I'm arguing.

I don't know what you're arguing not because I don't understand it, but because you literally haven't actually made a point yet.

So far your only argument is "What's 'same' and 'different' is arbitrary."
---

Lopen posted...

Basically the gist of the reptile argument to me, without a ton of research into the topic, seems to boil down to a long time ago some old scientists called alligators, crocodiles, and dinosaurs reptiles due to observed similarities with stuff like lizards, snakes, etc such as scales and being cold blooded.

Then eventually it was found that birds share a lot of traits with alligators, crocodiles, and dinosaurs, and are actually closer to them than lizards/snakes are. So rather than say "we were wrong to say alligators and dinosaurs were reptiles" and reclassifying those as something different, they instead broaden the definition of reptile to one that happens to catch birds as collateral damage, despite birds not really appearing very reptile like to what people on casual observation would call a reptile, and having a decent amount of traits that most 'other' reptiles don't.

So to me it looks like it's all about being stubborn and which hill is chosen to die on.

Pretty much. I have no issue of calling Crocodiles et al. something else, but if people are stubborn enough to still call them reptiles then you'd have to call birds reptiles too.

The same can be said of calling sharks fish. If they're fish, we are too.
---

I mean, the initial argument I made was "sex is a social construct", because of the broader point that most (all?) systems of classification are social constructs. Nature doesn't classify; humans classify. Beyond that, what I said was that classifying an individual as male or female (as in on a form of ID) is useless, because given the way that classification happens and the way our society treats sex, it tells you absolutely nothing about them. Not their chromosomes, not their genitalia, not their gender, nothing.

The "same and different are arbitrary" is part of all that, sort of, but came from this whole other discussion and frankly, I don't care anymore. Yes, I guarantee you could create a system of classification that would make birds into snakes if you really wanted to. Does this answer your current question?
---

Doesn't nature classify by the fact that birds can't fuck snakes and have snakebird babies?
---

Honestly the thing with classification systems is you can choose which things are more significant as you go. There's nothing preventing us from putting a fork further up the chain at endothermic vs exothermic, and dropping birds on one side of that fork and the other reptiles (unless there are a lot of non-birds that are endothermic, but I don't think there are) on that side, then classifying reptiles as some subset within that fork.

You'll notice "non-avian" is a term dropped pretty often if you look into what defining traits of reptiles are. That's a pretty big red flag that birds being in that neighborhood to begin with is probably a gaffe in how the hierarchy was setup. For a slightly ridiculous comparison, it's sorta like if you'd classified one of the primary traits of something necessary to be a vegetable to be yellow in color, and you end up with school buses and taxi cabs being considered a type of vegetable by some purists because they share some traits with things we'd typically consider vegetables.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Doesn't nature classify by the fact that birds can't fuck snakes and have snakebird babies?

Nope! Because "can reproduce with each other" would be a form of classification humans decided on, and only one of many.
---

Kenri posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Doesn't nature classify by the fact that birds can't fuck snakes and have snakebird babies?

Nope! Because "can reproduce with each other" would be a form of classification humans decided on, and only one of many.

...This is a really dumb argument.

If a bird can't fuck a snake and have snakebird babies, then that is nature basically saying... Yes, these things are different.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

If a bird can't fuck a snake and have snakebird babies, than that is nature basically saying... Yes, these things are different.

A human can't fuck a dog and have bappies either but they're both mammals so I'm not sure why you're picking this hill to die on, there are obviously different systems of classification than the one you've chosen.

But yes, it is a really dumb argument.
---

Furthermore, birds don't go around actively trying to reproduce with snakes, suggesting that birds are also aware... Yes, these things are different.

Humans didn't tell birds that they can't fuck snakes and have snakebird babies. They didn't go "Sorry, birds, we classified you as 'not snakes.' "

We're not keeping birds from fucking snakes to try and have snakebird babies.
---

Kenri posted...

A human can't fuck a dog and have bappies either but they're both mammals so I'm not sure why you're picking this hill to die on, there are obviously different systems of classification than the one you've chosen.

No, we went beyond this and got specific, since you said we could just make up a classification that says birds and snakes are the same thing.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

No, we went beyond this and got specific, since you said we could just make up a classification that says birds and snakes are the same thing.

...yes, and you can, it just can't be based around reproduction

???
---

charmander6000 posted...

The same can be said of calling sharks fish. If they're fish, we are too.

well i mean
there's plenty of fish in the sea

glub glub
---

Kenri, I think my argument is simple enough.

If birds know that they want to reproduce with birds, not snakes
And in most cases, male animals of a species know that they want to reproduce with female animals of that species

How are the differences "arbitrary" and things only humans decided are differences?
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Casual use must adapt as science advances

It can, if it's useful, or it can't, if the original meaning is still useful.

"Creepy scaled animals" is still a useful definition of reptile, so people still use it. If you go to a reptile house at a zoo, you expect to see lizards and maybe frogs, but not birds. A bunch of cold-blooded things at least. It's useful for that.

Pluto being a planet or not isn't useful at all beyond the scientific classification, so society had no problem updating language to stop calling it a planet.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

How are the differences "arbitrary" and things humans decided are differences?

Well, to use even your example, tigers and lions (for example) can reproduce, so it's not as simple as reproduction == same species. Or is it? I think that might also be a current debate, either way it's not as simple as you're claiming.

But also, you're the one stuck on reproduction as the only form of classification. You even just said "animals", which is already a classification that treats snakes and birds as the same (as in "I have one bird and one snake; I have two animals").

Either way, this is dumb and irrelevant and I'm not gonna humor it anymore.
---

What are differences anyway, other than just ways to divide us, man
---

I'm not stuck on reproduction

It's just a very easy way to say that nature has decided there are definite biological differences between species, and between male and female, and thus you can't just say it's all a human social construct.
---