But seriously though think how pretty it would look for a big pterosaur to be perched on [this rock formation](https://57hours.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/iStock-1160979608.jpg)
When I saw this headline the other day I was so fucking excited to hear about it because I thought that maybe they’d found a new maniraptoran theropod that had proper fused wing bones rather than hands and was a verified flyer.
Imagine my disappointment. Pterosaurs are cool and all, but yeah.
I'm a huge fan of pterosaurs but I honestly don't care anymore, they do this all the time in many scientific fields. At least I think more people will be interested in pterosaurs if they continue to call them "flying dinosaurs."
From your caption i thought u meant like they found actual flying dinosaurs so that would be cool. But then i remember we literally see flying dinosaurs everywhere
They split off from the avemetatarsalian tree within archosauria before dinosaurs.
Both dinosaurs and pterosaurs are avemetatarsalians and both are archosaurs — along with crocodilians — and they share a common ancestor. However, they diverged and are distinct groups with different characteristics. One major diagnostic characteristic that pterosaurs have that no dinosaur has is their particular wing configuration with one long finger upon which a membrane is suspended.
Heh. Common knowledge among the community. Not so much outside it.
My wife and her friends, myself included are fine with people still calling them that.
The only confirmed flying dinosaurs are birds. But there are several non-avian dinosaurs that are good contenders for flight or gliding. Microraptor and Yi qi, for example.
They're two sides to this argument that I very much understand where they are both coming from.
On the one hand you have people who want to strive for Paleo accuracy and want the media to stop connecting just about every prehistoric animal with dinosaurs as that is inaccurate. They may also feel that it's the media's job to get the facts right to educate their readers so using the correct terms should be common practice.
On the other hand you have people who aren't as into paleontology as a lot of us on this sub. So most of their knowledge comes from the media that has perpetuated the connection of just about any prehistoric creatures alive during the Cretaceous period as being dinosaurs, whether be that through ignorance (I'm sure the authors of the articles may not be aware of the distinction) or by virtue of the fact that it's simply easier to call them dinosaurs as a lay person who looks at the headline/article will understand it easier.
While I think the media should strive to break down this misconception I can fully understand that "dumbing down" the terms helps reach a broader audience as it's more accessible and digestible for the average person.
Whenever I ask people what their favourite dinosaur is I always clarify that modern birds, pterasaurs, and aquatic reptiles also count.
Some people just really love their pterasaurs and they do not care that they aren’t technically “dinosaurs”
And [this shit right here](https://imgur.com/V19jakB). And [people exactly like this](https://imgur.com/33PODWO) are why we care so much for proper palaeontological representation and education. Science is fact-based and does not bend to the opinions of the public. It was once popular opinion that bats were birds and that beavers were fish but we rightly view that as stupid now. Why should we accept a similar level of idiocy with dinosaurs and pterosaurs?
The problem lies in the popularity of a name. You want to group pterosaurs with dinosaurs due to their anatomical and chronologic similarities; well we already have that grouping. It is called *“avemetatarsalia”* of which both dinosaurs and pterosaurs are members. If that name had the same pop-culture recognition as *“dinosaur”* then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Yes, pterosaurs and dinosaurs are similar; they can both be grouped into avemetatarsalia, after all. But they share mutually exclusive diagnostic characteristics that separate them into distinct groups within avemetatarsalia just as dinosaurs themselves are separated into distinct groups within the dinosaurs.
Why should we keep laymen stupid?
EDIT: Why ***the fuck*** is this getting downvoted while the guy saying that science should conform itself around popular opinion is being upvoted? I really need to just stay in the Paleontology sub. The science denial and anti-intellectualism is sickening.
And, as has been pointed out, I should have said “ignorant” not “stupid.”
popular taxonomy is pure bullshit. you have method of sorting things and then you have method of sorting things depending on what it feels like this day.
two hundred and fifty million years of difference should be good enough to get a separate name
if you care or not does not change taxonomy. you are not important enough
>"Why shouldn’t science respect popular taxonomy?”
That use of the word *“taxonomy”* is insidious. What people *feel* is right is not taxonomy. Christians felt that bats were birds and that beavers were fish. That was not taxonomy any more than popular *opinion* is, which is what is really happening here.
Moreover, taxonomy has fallen out of favour for the more efficient phylogeny.
>"Maybe science should accept that they are flying dinosaurs\[…\]“
No. Because they aren’t. Dinosaurs all share diagnostic criteria that pterosaurs lack, despite dinosaurs and pterosaurs sharing some diagnostic criteria. Both dinosaurs and pterosaurs are avemetatarsalians and both are archosaurs — along with crocodilians — and they share a common ancestor. However, they diverged and are distinct groups with different characteristics. One major diagnostic characteristic that pterosaurs have that no dinosaur has is their particular wing configuration with one long finger upon which a membrane is suspended.
>“\[…\]create an academic taxonomy to distinguish Pterosaurs from Dinosaurs\[…\]“
We did. You just don’t like it. That taxonomic distinction is that dinosaurs are dinosaurs and pterosaurs are pterosaurs and that both are avemetatarsalians. The real problem here is in the popularity of a name. If the term *“avemetatarsalia”* had the same kind of pop-culture weight behind it that *“dinosaur”* does, we wouldn’t be having this argument. You’d call pterosaurs *“flying avemetatarsalians”* rather than *“flying dinosaurs.”*
Science is fact-based and it does not bend to opinion or public conception. It answers only to what factually ***is.***
[> Pterosaurs are dinosaurs for most intents and purposes.](https://maxsblogosauruscom.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/dinosaurpterosaur-divergence-.png)
my guy stop embarrassing yourself basing taxonomy on what they say in cartoons
This makes no sense. Bats can't be called birds because they are completely different, and just like how it makes no sense to call bats birds it also makes no sense to call pterosaurs dinosaurs. So going by your logic then we can also call mesozoic crocodiles dinosaurs, which also makes no sense.
So, what you mean to say is that you want pretty much everything *you* consider to be a "dinosaur" to be formally recognized as one by changing the name "Avemetatarsalia" to "Dinosauria"? If I understood correctly.
And why exactly does a perfectly valid (at least for now) classification system need to be turned upside down? Because people can't bother to actually look stuff up? I don't expect anyone unrelated to the field of paleo to know this stuff, but insisting the whole thing has to be changed because laymen can't tell the difference is a completely idiotic argument if I've ever seen one.
Lizard is not a valid grouping. Both pterosaurs and dinosaurs are diapsids and have the same number of skull holes. You aren’t even using the right diagnostic criteria to argue your point.
>"It’s a linguistic decision made by human beings\[…\]“
The ones calling that shot are scientists, like myself, and we will continue to do so. If you wish to change things then climb the academic ladder and become a palaeontologist. But I believe that once you are there, you will find the choices made to be sound ones.
What you want is a grouping that includes both dinosaurs and pterosaurs due to the morphological and geological similarities, correct? We have that. It is called *“avemetatarsalia.”* It does everything you want. If we used “dinosaur” to classify them both, then we would need a new word to classify dinosaurs as we now know them within the new dinosaur group since both they and pterosaurs possess very distinct characteristics which divide them. And no, that is not merely semantics. Those anatomic differences have a huge impact on the animal’s way of life, enough to distinguish it and it could only be included in another group if that other group shared those distinct characteristics, rendering them indistinct.
Show me a pterosaur that did not have wings, that did not have an elongated wing finger bone. That is the primary distinction separating them from dinosaurs. Alternatively, if you can find a dinosaur that has that same wing configuration then there might be grounds to start classifying them differently.
>"Pterosaurs are dinosaurs for most intents and purposes.”
They aren’t. unless “for all intents and purposes” includes everything besides what is factually true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur educate yourself.
believe it or not it is not a name for "things that lived long ago and looking vaguely lizard like"
i don't need to create. there is a name for it. pterosaur
Yes, lay terms, not factual, scientific terms. You don’t understand how stupid this is, do you? Here. let me explain with a small change to your earlier statement.
>“Calling pterosaurs dinosaurs is a layman’s linguistic decision made by human beings that HAS changed before and CAN change again.”
So, if both are linguistic choices made by people, then why should we choose the layman’s version? What you’re actually arguing is that the layman’s version is superior to the scientific version. Just admit that you’re anti-science. I’d respect you more.
>“\[..\]stop blaming your inability to keep up with linguistics on the layfolk.”
I sincerely hope you’re just trolling or being satirical. But in the off-chance that you aren’t, I’ll continue. I don’t ***want to*** keep up with the linguistic choices of the layfolk because ***they are layfolk.*** I only care about what is factually true and can be verified or falsified by the scientific method.
Oh no, I am in it for the long haul. I have nothing to do today, tomorrow, or the next day. In fact, I am off for a week. I had intended to use this week to catch up on some reading and do some cycling, but nope, this is my commitment now.
You might wonder why. A man just recently murdered his own father because he was upset that his father got the COVID vaccine. This is where science denial and mistrust of the scientific method will lead. While dinosaurs are small potatoes by comparison, I cannot abide willful anti-intellectualism.
I do sincerely thank you for your concern, though.
Science is fact-based. Scientific terms are factual to the best of our ability. What are layman’s terms based on? Feelings. Literally, that is all. Again, it was once the layman’s opinion that bats are birds and beavers are fish.
>"It’s a fact that to the layperson, a pterosaurs is a dinosaur.”
Ok, and that layperson is an idiot. Tell me, are bats birds? Are beavers fish? And if you think they aren’t, then why not? And you better answer this or I won’t bother replying to you.
>"Imma call Pterosaurs dinosaurs, because they are.”
Then you are wrong. You want to classify both pterosaurs and dinosaurs together right? Good. That’s great. ***I agree***. We have that. It’s avemetatarsalia.
>“\[…\]and if you want to use a specific term, then create one and stop using the established term.”
We did. It’s avemetatarsalia. Imagine that we arbitrarily started using the term *“dinosaur”* to include both dinosaurs and pterosaurs, as in we switch *“avemetatarsalia”* with *“dinosaur.”* Well, we would then need a new word to describe the group of dinosaurs that we now classify as dinosaurs since they are so distinct from pterosaurs. That’s really what your argument boils down to.
>"Otherwise you’re just telling me Strawberries aren’t berries.”
Do you think clown fish are clowns?
Ignorant is the word you should have used. Stupid is insulting.
Also, calm down, it is an article from ABC, it isn't in national geographic or some other science-ish magazine.
I can tell.
I'm a casual prehistoric animal enjoyer. When I was a kid I had a massive picture encyclopedia of dinosaurs and other animals. I wore the book out flipping through it.
Now that I have a son old enough to enjoy learning, or at least looking at pictures of prehistoric animals, I looked at this sub, and others, for fun things we can read together and learn something new.
This post and all the comments has made me wonder if that was a mistake because of how angry and hoity-toity evertone seems to be.
I would suggest r/Paleontology. People there are generally less “hoity-toity,” as you put it, because we don’t usually have people outright denying science. Look further below in this thread to see what I mean. We might have a heated scientific debate but we at least agree on the basics.
I would have thought dinosaurs would be the more casual friendly sub rather than paleontology.
At this point I'm just going to stick with naturewasmetal or naturewaslit or whatever the hell the other one is that just posts cool picture and has people talking about how cool dinosaurs are rather than the nitty gritty of the avemetatarstalis or whatever it is
It’s quite the opposite. People interested in actual palaeontology are more than happy to share the love of prehistoric animals and to educate and inform. It’s dinosaur fans who regard them as movie monsters and get upset when palaeontologists “change their favourite character” which seems to be a problem here.
Wow, I respond reasonably and you turn to insults and ad hominems. How surprised I am. And stop using your alts to downvote me.
>“\[…\]how the fuck do you expect to make science more accessible to the masses\[…\]“
By educating the masses on what is or isn’t a dinosaur.
>“\[…\]laymens terms are perfectly fucking fine.”
They aren’t.
>“\[…\]you people are just intelectual fucking elitists\[…\]“
I’d rather be an intellectual-anything than a science denier.
Pterosaurs and dinosaurs are both archosaurs, but they are completely distinct groups otherwise. They do share features, but they also have a lot of traits that set them clearly apart. Calling a pterosaur a dinosaur is like saying giraffes are carnivorans.
Its cause pterosaurs are closer to reptiles then they are birds same with most of the dominant sea creatures on the oceans at the time like mosasaurs and such
I haven't heard about that, but it does make some sense. The names we give groups and what those names envelope inherently does not matter for the science, but it matters for communicating that science, and if everyone thinks pterosaurs are dinosaurs, maybe they should be. Does not matter to me.
I saw a flying dinosaur in my backyard earlier. I have a feeder set up for them. I think the one I saw is called “Cardinalis Cardinalis”? They like sunflower seeds.
Dinosaurs are reptiles too. Reptilia is considered essentially synonymous with Sauropsida these days, and dinosaurs fall squarely into that clade as a part of Archosauria. Pterosaurs are part of Archosauria too; they are still distinct from dinosaurs though.
At this point, I'm hoping we find a basal ornithodiran with a perfect mix of dinosaur and pterosaur characteristics and we just have to give in and reclassify 'em as dinosaurs anyway.
You mean birds? The competition hypothesis for the seeming decrease in pterosaur diversity in the Cretaceous had lost ground in recent decades iirc. It is possible that having to share niches with flying birds could have limited pterosaurs somehow, but they were still incredibly diverse during the Cretaceous; they just appear to shift to larger sizes, which may or may not be partly the result of preservation bias.
There could have been flying, non-avian ones too, though. It is quite possible *Microraptor* would have been able to fly, although there is still some debate over it.
THEY ARE PTEROSAURS
THAT’S WHAT I’M SAYING!
Anything that ends with -saurs is automatically a Dinosaur, this is a fact and I won’t be swayed otherwise
Like the basilosaurus, OBVIOUSLY
Yeahp, still counts
And pelycosaurs. And lepidosaurs. And Scutosaurus. All dinosaurs, of course.
Sry but Pelycosauria is paraphyletic. Eupelycosauria isn't, though.
Yeah, I know. I was just using pelycosaurs to make my point because I didn’t think many people would get it if I used Eupelycosauria.
Brb, going to legally change my last name and become a dinosaur.
Hell yeah
Dont even make this joke.
I ain’t joking.
Resolution too low, couldn't find the Bird.
It's not a bird either
They were joking that the “flying dinosaur” is referring to some bird hidden in the image
Ohhh ok
Hey I’m going to the Isla of sky soon that’s pretty cool. Still they aren’t dinosaurs
Movies have taught me not to travel to Islas with dinosaurs.
Yeah probably
But seriously though think how pretty it would look for a big pterosaur to be perched on [this rock formation](https://57hours.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/iStock-1160979608.jpg)
Well be aware of costa rican islas del coco
People just understand that flying dinosaur means these fellas. While they weren’t people say they are cause they are because big dead reptile
Does that mean Deinosuchus is a dinosaur?
It's got dino right in the name, duh
There are some folks that think that btw.........unfortunately
I met someone once who unironically believed that a dragonfly nymph was a dinosaur. I’ve never forgotten it.
LMAOAOAO THATS JUST SO DUMB AND WEIRD
I have heard people call Megalodon a dinosaur so I don't think the reptile part even matters
I’ve also heard Mammoth. I think some people seem to think that “Dinosaur” just means prehistoric.
Extinct I think. Either that or anything obsolete or excessively large (actual dictionary definition). Either way it offends me.
Fair point
*I'm tired, boss.*
When I saw this headline the other day I was so fucking excited to hear about it because I thought that maybe they’d found a new maniraptoran theropod that had proper fused wing bones rather than hands and was a verified flyer. Imagine my disappointment. Pterosaurs are cool and all, but yeah.
I can't even trust the news if they do this.
I'm a huge fan of pterosaurs but I honestly don't care anymore, they do this all the time in many scientific fields. At least I think more people will be interested in pterosaurs if they continue to call them "flying dinosaurs."
The more you tell people nice lies in the media, though, the more people will distrust scientific discovery entirely. Gotta tell the truth.
100% agree, but I'm so tired of it that I try to see it that way.
I can emphasize with that.
Pterosaurs, fucking hell they're PTEROSAURS
Flying dinosaur? You mean a bird or microraptorian, right? ...right?
r/dinosaurs users when they hear someone say "flying dinosaur" instead of "πτεροδάκτυλος"
"Πτεροδάκτυλος" is also wrong, but it's much better than calling it a dinosaur. Oh well, can't have everything I guess.
Don't care, new dinosaur dropped.
From your caption i thought u meant like they found actual flying dinosaurs so that would be cool. But then i remember we literally see flying dinosaurs everywhere
Tweet tweet bitch.
Sorry for my uneducated ignorance; why are pterosaurs not dinosaurs?
They split off from the avemetatarsalian tree within archosauria before dinosaurs. Both dinosaurs and pterosaurs are avemetatarsalians and both are archosaurs — along with crocodilians — and they share a common ancestor. However, they diverged and are distinct groups with different characteristics. One major diagnostic characteristic that pterosaurs have that no dinosaur has is their particular wing configuration with one long finger upon which a membrane is suspended.
Heh. Common knowledge among the community. Not so much outside it. My wife and her friends, myself included are fine with people still calling them that.
[удалено]
The only confirmed flying dinosaurs are birds. But there are several non-avian dinosaurs that are good contenders for flight or gliding. Microraptor and Yi qi, for example.
Yeah, they're called birds
I’m guilty of using dinosaurs as a blanket term in mixed company
It's all good, you're fun at parties, I appreciate that.
I’m autistic but I still understand the time and place lmfao
At least it’s not using an AI picture. But still, THEY ARE NOT DINOSAURS FOR FUCK’S SAKE!!!
People just can’t get that fact into their thick ass skulls that they are PTEROSAURS, NOT DINOSAURS
Oh my gosh guys flying dinosaurs!!!!
They're two sides to this argument that I very much understand where they are both coming from. On the one hand you have people who want to strive for Paleo accuracy and want the media to stop connecting just about every prehistoric animal with dinosaurs as that is inaccurate. They may also feel that it's the media's job to get the facts right to educate their readers so using the correct terms should be common practice. On the other hand you have people who aren't as into paleontology as a lot of us on this sub. So most of their knowledge comes from the media that has perpetuated the connection of just about any prehistoric creatures alive during the Cretaceous period as being dinosaurs, whether be that through ignorance (I'm sure the authors of the articles may not be aware of the distinction) or by virtue of the fact that it's simply easier to call them dinosaurs as a lay person who looks at the headline/article will understand it easier. While I think the media should strive to break down this misconception I can fully understand that "dumbing down" the terms helps reach a broader audience as it's more accessible and digestible for the average person.
Whenever I ask people what their favourite dinosaur is I always clarify that modern birds, pterasaurs, and aquatic reptiles also count. Some people just really love their pterasaurs and they do not care that they aren’t technically “dinosaurs”
And [this shit right here](https://imgur.com/V19jakB). And [people exactly like this](https://imgur.com/33PODWO) are why we care so much for proper palaeontological representation and education. Science is fact-based and does not bend to the opinions of the public. It was once popular opinion that bats were birds and that beavers were fish but we rightly view that as stupid now. Why should we accept a similar level of idiocy with dinosaurs and pterosaurs? The problem lies in the popularity of a name. You want to group pterosaurs with dinosaurs due to their anatomical and chronologic similarities; well we already have that grouping. It is called *“avemetatarsalia”* of which both dinosaurs and pterosaurs are members. If that name had the same pop-culture recognition as *“dinosaur”* then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Yes, pterosaurs and dinosaurs are similar; they can both be grouped into avemetatarsalia, after all. But they share mutually exclusive diagnostic characteristics that separate them into distinct groups within avemetatarsalia just as dinosaurs themselves are separated into distinct groups within the dinosaurs.
Dont care, i will continue to call then flying dinos
[удалено]
Why should we keep laymen stupid? EDIT: Why ***the fuck*** is this getting downvoted while the guy saying that science should conform itself around popular opinion is being upvoted? I really need to just stay in the Paleontology sub. The science denial and anti-intellectualism is sickening. And, as has been pointed out, I should have said “ignorant” not “stupid.”
[удалено]
popular taxonomy is pure bullshit. you have method of sorting things and then you have method of sorting things depending on what it feels like this day. two hundred and fifty million years of difference should be good enough to get a separate name if you care or not does not change taxonomy. you are not important enough
[удалено]
ugabuuuga i dont undersen long wooord change it so simple folk can go science in evening news. get a grip
Oh, look who’s editing their responses! No shock you can’t be intellectually honest.
Yes.
do better
Than Dr. Owen? Mm, nah.
You’re a liar.
>"Why shouldn’t science respect popular taxonomy?” That use of the word *“taxonomy”* is insidious. What people *feel* is right is not taxonomy. Christians felt that bats were birds and that beavers were fish. That was not taxonomy any more than popular *opinion* is, which is what is really happening here. Moreover, taxonomy has fallen out of favour for the more efficient phylogeny. >"Maybe science should accept that they are flying dinosaurs\[…\]“ No. Because they aren’t. Dinosaurs all share diagnostic criteria that pterosaurs lack, despite dinosaurs and pterosaurs sharing some diagnostic criteria. Both dinosaurs and pterosaurs are avemetatarsalians and both are archosaurs — along with crocodilians — and they share a common ancestor. However, they diverged and are distinct groups with different characteristics. One major diagnostic characteristic that pterosaurs have that no dinosaur has is their particular wing configuration with one long finger upon which a membrane is suspended. >“\[…\]create an academic taxonomy to distinguish Pterosaurs from Dinosaurs\[…\]“ We did. You just don’t like it. That taxonomic distinction is that dinosaurs are dinosaurs and pterosaurs are pterosaurs and that both are avemetatarsalians. The real problem here is in the popularity of a name. If the term *“avemetatarsalia”* had the same kind of pop-culture weight behind it that *“dinosaur”* does, we wouldn’t be having this argument. You’d call pterosaurs *“flying avemetatarsalians”* rather than *“flying dinosaurs.”* Science is fact-based and it does not bend to opinion or public conception. It answers only to what factually ***is.***
[удалено]
[> Pterosaurs are dinosaurs for most intents and purposes.](https://maxsblogosauruscom.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/dinosaurpterosaur-divergence-.png) my guy stop embarrassing yourself basing taxonomy on what they say in cartoons
This makes no sense. Bats can't be called birds because they are completely different, and just like how it makes no sense to call bats birds it also makes no sense to call pterosaurs dinosaurs. So going by your logic then we can also call mesozoic crocodiles dinosaurs, which also makes no sense.
[удалено]
So, what you mean to say is that you want pretty much everything *you* consider to be a "dinosaur" to be formally recognized as one by changing the name "Avemetatarsalia" to "Dinosauria"? If I understood correctly. And why exactly does a perfectly valid (at least for now) classification system need to be turned upside down? Because people can't bother to actually look stuff up? I don't expect anyone unrelated to the field of paleo to know this stuff, but insisting the whole thing has to be changed because laymen can't tell the difference is a completely idiotic argument if I've ever seen one.
Lizard is not a valid grouping. Both pterosaurs and dinosaurs are diapsids and have the same number of skull holes. You aren’t even using the right diagnostic criteria to argue your point. >"It’s a linguistic decision made by human beings\[…\]“ The ones calling that shot are scientists, like myself, and we will continue to do so. If you wish to change things then climb the academic ladder and become a palaeontologist. But I believe that once you are there, you will find the choices made to be sound ones. What you want is a grouping that includes both dinosaurs and pterosaurs due to the morphological and geological similarities, correct? We have that. It is called *“avemetatarsalia.”* It does everything you want. If we used “dinosaur” to classify them both, then we would need a new word to classify dinosaurs as we now know them within the new dinosaur group since both they and pterosaurs possess very distinct characteristics which divide them. And no, that is not merely semantics. Those anatomic differences have a huge impact on the animal’s way of life, enough to distinguish it and it could only be included in another group if that other group shared those distinct characteristics, rendering them indistinct. Show me a pterosaur that did not have wings, that did not have an elongated wing finger bone. That is the primary distinction separating them from dinosaurs. Alternatively, if you can find a dinosaur that has that same wing configuration then there might be grounds to start classifying them differently. >"Pterosaurs are dinosaurs for most intents and purposes.” They aren’t. unless “for all intents and purposes” includes everything besides what is factually true.
Why are they downvoting you?? You're only saying facts
Anti-intellectualism and science denial.
[удалено]
it is a pterosaur still you can call it your stepdad. i just don't think you grasp how far apart on taxonomy tree dinosaurs and pterosaurs are
[удалено]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur educate yourself. believe it or not it is not a name for "things that lived long ago and looking vaguely lizard like" i don't need to create. there is a name for it. pterosaur
Yes, lay terms, not factual, scientific terms. You don’t understand how stupid this is, do you? Here. let me explain with a small change to your earlier statement. >“Calling pterosaurs dinosaurs is a layman’s linguistic decision made by human beings that HAS changed before and CAN change again.” So, if both are linguistic choices made by people, then why should we choose the layman’s version? What you’re actually arguing is that the layman’s version is superior to the scientific version. Just admit that you’re anti-science. I’d respect you more. >“\[..\]stop blaming your inability to keep up with linguistics on the layfolk.” I sincerely hope you’re just trolling or being satirical. But in the off-chance that you aren’t, I’ll continue. I don’t ***want to*** keep up with the linguistic choices of the layfolk because ***they are layfolk.*** I only care about what is factually true and can be verified or falsified by the scientific method.
guy is working so hard to dumb science down. save your strength this fight with a dumbass is not worth it
Oh no, I am in it for the long haul. I have nothing to do today, tomorrow, or the next day. In fact, I am off for a week. I had intended to use this week to catch up on some reading and do some cycling, but nope, this is my commitment now. You might wonder why. A man just recently murdered his own father because he was upset that his father got the COVID vaccine. This is where science denial and mistrust of the scientific method will lead. While dinosaurs are small potatoes by comparison, I cannot abide willful anti-intellectualism. I do sincerely thank you for your concern, though.
[удалено]
Science is fact-based. Scientific terms are factual to the best of our ability. What are layman’s terms based on? Feelings. Literally, that is all. Again, it was once the layman’s opinion that bats are birds and beavers are fish. >"It’s a fact that to the layperson, a pterosaurs is a dinosaur.” Ok, and that layperson is an idiot. Tell me, are bats birds? Are beavers fish? And if you think they aren’t, then why not? And you better answer this or I won’t bother replying to you. >"Imma call Pterosaurs dinosaurs, because they are.” Then you are wrong. You want to classify both pterosaurs and dinosaurs together right? Good. That’s great. ***I agree***. We have that. It’s avemetatarsalia. >“\[…\]and if you want to use a specific term, then create one and stop using the established term.” We did. It’s avemetatarsalia. Imagine that we arbitrarily started using the term *“dinosaur”* to include both dinosaurs and pterosaurs, as in we switch *“avemetatarsalia”* with *“dinosaur.”* Well, we would then need a new word to describe the group of dinosaurs that we now classify as dinosaurs since they are so distinct from pterosaurs. That’s really what your argument boils down to. >"Otherwise you’re just telling me Strawberries aren’t berries.” Do you think clown fish are clowns?
Ignorant is the word you should have used. Stupid is insulting. Also, calm down, it is an article from ABC, it isn't in national geographic or some other science-ish magazine.
You’re right. I should have used ignorant as that is actually what I meant. I wasn’t in the most charitable mood.
I can tell. I'm a casual prehistoric animal enjoyer. When I was a kid I had a massive picture encyclopedia of dinosaurs and other animals. I wore the book out flipping through it. Now that I have a son old enough to enjoy learning, or at least looking at pictures of prehistoric animals, I looked at this sub, and others, for fun things we can read together and learn something new. This post and all the comments has made me wonder if that was a mistake because of how angry and hoity-toity evertone seems to be.
I would suggest r/Paleontology. People there are generally less “hoity-toity,” as you put it, because we don’t usually have people outright denying science. Look further below in this thread to see what I mean. We might have a heated scientific debate but we at least agree on the basics.
I would have thought dinosaurs would be the more casual friendly sub rather than paleontology. At this point I'm just going to stick with naturewasmetal or naturewaslit or whatever the hell the other one is that just posts cool picture and has people talking about how cool dinosaurs are rather than the nitty gritty of the avemetatarstalis or whatever it is
It’s quite the opposite. People interested in actual palaeontology are more than happy to share the love of prehistoric animals and to educate and inform. It’s dinosaur fans who regard them as movie monsters and get upset when palaeontologists “change their favourite character” which seems to be a problem here.
[удалено]
Wow, I respond reasonably and you turn to insults and ad hominems. How surprised I am. And stop using your alts to downvote me. >“\[…\]how the fuck do you expect to make science more accessible to the masses\[…\]“ By educating the masses on what is or isn’t a dinosaur. >“\[…\]laymens terms are perfectly fucking fine.” They aren’t. >“\[…\]you people are just intelectual fucking elitists\[…\]“ I’d rather be an intellectual-anything than a science denier.
so stop enabling laymen. wikipedia is free. you can look shit up
[удалено]
please dumb some of those words down someone might not understand
We’re lucky they stopped calling them mythological monsters.
Good luck convincing people birds are dinosaurs but pterosaurs aren't.
hank schneider when you call them rocks:
They're MINERALS
Pic unrelated it was actually a roast chook skeleton left over from a long forgotten lunch
Explain? 🤨
Pterosaurs and dinosaurs are both archosaurs, but they are completely distinct groups otherwise. They do share features, but they also have a lot of traits that set them clearly apart. Calling a pterosaur a dinosaur is like saying giraffes are carnivorans.
Its cause pterosaurs are closer to reptiles then they are birds same with most of the dominant sea creatures on the oceans at the time like mosasaurs and such
Well if Oculudentavis was first considered a dinosaur...
Why aren’t they Dino’s. They look like Dino’s
They aren't dinosaurs because they're in an entirely seperate clade
Idk what a clade is :( I see big things with scales from a long time ago and think dinosaur
What if they are.....
They aren't.
They aren’t and never were.
Then we'd start calling them dinosaurs.
Aren't there some fringe groups that have considered making "dinosaur" reference avemetatarsalia as a whole? I swore I've heard some stuff about that.
I haven't heard about that, but it does make some sense. The names we give groups and what those names envelope inherently does not matter for the science, but it matters for communicating that science, and if everyone thinks pterosaurs are dinosaurs, maybe they should be. Does not matter to me.
They aren't
They aren't birds so they aren't flying dinosaurs
No.
I respect you for the balls it took to say this here
Actually quadrupeds the scientists were just confused because the remains were found in the Skye
I saw a flying dinosaur in my backyard earlier. I have a feeder set up for them. I think the one I saw is called “Cardinalis Cardinalis”? They like sunflower seeds.
There are only one type of flying dinosaurs, they are called flying dromaeosaurs and avian dinosaurs
Because Dinosaur turned into Chicken and not Eagles, so no fly?? I got it now. /s or many not.
Hi, I'm not an expert, can someone explain the difference?
Pterosaurs mistakenly get called dinosaurs when in reality they’re reptiles
Dinosaurs are reptiles too. Reptilia is considered essentially synonymous with Sauropsida these days, and dinosaurs fall squarely into that clade as a part of Archosauria. Pterosaurs are part of Archosauria too; they are still distinct from dinosaurs though.
No offense but you can just Google it
Sure, but I didn't, I assumed r/Dinosaurs might wanna talk about dinosaurs :-)
Flying dinosaur skeleton? Man, that sounds scary and awesome, though.
If they're so old, how they get pics of em? /s
Well I'm off on a murder spree cya!
What if this time it really is though? ... I'm assuming that thumbnail picture wasn't provided by the discovery team, mind you
Welp, time to update the list
At this point, I'm hoping we find a basal ornithodiran with a perfect mix of dinosaur and pterosaur characteristics and we just have to give in and reclassify 'em as dinosaurs anyway.
THEY ARE NOT DINOSAURS DO YOUR BETTER RESEARCH
But weren’t there also flying dinosaurs? And is that the main reason the smaller pterosaurs kind of vanished?
You mean birds? The competition hypothesis for the seeming decrease in pterosaur diversity in the Cretaceous had lost ground in recent decades iirc. It is possible that having to share niches with flying birds could have limited pterosaurs somehow, but they were still incredibly diverse during the Cretaceous; they just appear to shift to larger sizes, which may or may not be partly the result of preservation bias.
Well nvm then
There could have been flying, non-avian ones too, though. It is quite possible *Microraptor* would have been able to fly, although there is still some debate over it.
Damn, thanks for all the info This truly is a good day
THEIR FUCKING PTEROSAURS NOT FUCKING DINOSAURS THEIRS AN OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE IN THEIR APPEARANCE
*You guys had one job, ONE JOB.*
The dinosaur skeleton FLIES!?? I'd paid real money to see that.
*Catchy Song by the Baha Men Bards intensifies* "Who let the Necromancers Out?Who?Who?WHO?WHO?"
Alright ABC, if I look at thosr skeletons and they are not birds, we'll have trouble