If you’re confused: Birds are dinosaurs, crocodiles aren’t; note the “closest living relatives”
Though, isn’t being part of a group the closest you can get in terms of relatedness?
Yeah, it’s like being related to your family. Most people would consider your relatives to be related to you.
Are octopus related to octopus? I mean technically they’re 100% related, but also they aren’t related as related implies not being. Depends on your interpretation.
Are you saying octopus are all incest babies? Scandalous.
Ah sorry, the genome of octopus’ mating is only 99.99 something % similar. Not 100%. Rounding reflex.
Am I my closest relative?
“Brother, am I not your relative?”
silently dies
I actually just learned this recently, but dinosaurs differ from reptiles in that dinosaurs have legs that are under their bodies whereas reptiles have legs that splay out to the side. So all mammals, and birds, with legs directly under their bodies are probably more closely related to dinosaurs then reptiles.
No. Tetrapods and reptiles diverge well before dinosaurs. All dinosaurs are diapsids as compared to mammals, which are synapsids. A dimetrodon (the one with the big sail) is not actually a dino and is more closely related to humans than it is to dinos.
To expand on this concept, all dinosaurs and humans are technically considered bony-fishes as they are nested within the bony-fishes clade, osteoicthyes, but thats probably spelled wrong (this recently was used as a way of protecting some types of animals in a law that is supposed to protect fish as a category), and all birds are technically dinos, so when we refer to non-avian dinos, it just means dinosaurs excluding the birds!
Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but huh?
Clearly I missed a briefing somewhere. I thought that crocodiles were from that era, or is that the joke that I’m somehow missing?
The joke is that birds aren’t only related to dinos, but are dinos themselves.
Yes and the cruel part is… Pterosaurs are not Dinosaurs!
It might be easy to brush off my complaint as a case of paleo-pedantry, but word choice matters. “Dinosaur” is a word for a specific group of creatures united by shared characteristics and which had their own evolutionary history—it is not a catch-all term for anything reptilian and prehistoric.
We have known about this distinction for a long time, and I bet that your average 10-year old paleo fan would know not confuse the groups.
So, it’s a joke about the fact that both are essentially dinosaurs?
… nope, I got nothing …
Here’s my take:
Low IQ: crosc looks like dinos so they are the cloests living relative to dinos. Mid IQ: birds are direct descendents of dinos so they are the closest living relatives to dinos. High IQ: since birds are direct descendent they are just dinos, not a relative. Which makes crocs the next closest living relative to dinos/birds.
This is dumb as rocks
The most charitable interpretation is “well crocodiles didn’t change in the last 100 million years but birds did so that means maybe crocs are closer since birds evolved to get farther away”
That’s dumb because both birds and crocodiles have been changing the whole time. Just because crocs look more similar to their fossils, doesn’t mean they haven’t been evolving/drifting/etc.
Same thing any time someone talks about “sharks haven’t changed”. It’s dumb.
This is some dunning Kruger shit.
It has nothing to do with if the said animal were evolving or not. Birds and Crocodilians are the only living animals of the Archosauria clade. Since birds are dinosaurs, technically they aren’t their relatives. So Crocs are the closest living relatives of dinosaurs (and birds), since they belong in the same clade and shared a common ancestor more recent than anyone else alive.
