Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 1

message: Birds are now generally believed to represent descendents of dinosaurs, and so are classed with them by those who believe groups should be monophyletic.
Can someone point to a reputable source that claims birds are a kind of dinosaur? - Tim
Just type "bird dinosaur site:.edu" into Google. Here's one that popped up: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html. "Kind of dinosaur" is of cause a matter of definition, but there is no questions that birds are the closest living relatives of the dinosaurs, closer still than the crocodiles and other reptiles.  --AxelBoldt
The point is more than that.  Birds are not just the closest living relatives of the dinosaurs, but are in fact closer to some dinosaurs than they are to others.  As there has recently been a big push for monophyletic groups, the Dinosauria would either have to be broadened as a formal category or extended to include birds.  In practice the latter approach seems to be the one taken.  I can't name any particular source, though UCMP and the tree of life would be some of the first I check, but I have seen it in a few more recent books.
Birds are not dinosaurs. Even if dinosaurs evolved into birds (contentious) then it is still true to say that all dinosaurs became extinct. DJ Clayworth 20:21, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Check some biology textbook. Or Google for a relevant and authoritative page on that. There probably is one right way to classify birds. I am just not sure about those Archosaurs - who they are, may be just an artificially defined group to have a place to put birds and dinos into? Paranoid 21:06, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birds are Dinosaurs 

message: On the main page there had been a comment that only the most adaptable animals survived the K-T extinction, like mammals.  I don't believe this is concensus, and there is a lot of evidence against this.  Dionsaurs were highly adaptable and diverse, as were ammonites and other groups that were devastated or destroyed, while crocodiles and other such forms managed to pull through.  Indeed the placental mammals had not shown much diversity before the Cretaceous.  If anything, then, I would say that the more conservative groups were the ones that faired better.  If there is a kernel of truth in the statement, it will need considerable modification before it is true enough to replace.
"Adaptable" organisms tend to survive extinction events simply because, having already proved to be adaptable, they have filled many various ecological niches, a few of which are more likely to survive moderately intact, when the extinction dice roll. "Adaptability" is not neccessarily a virtue in the changed situations that characterize extinction events. Rather than "conservatives" etc. the survivors tend to be "generalists."Wetman 20:22, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: adaptability concern

message: At a recent lecture I went to the current evidence is that dinosaurs were not reptiles at all.  This is because a large number of them were too large to have been cold-blooded unless they ate huge, huge amounts.  Secondly some dinosaurs had very advanced, large brains.  Thirdly their is even some evidence that dinosaurs could have had wings as the fossil of arceopteryx is identical to that of another dinosaur except for the feathurs.  Dinosaurs should be considered as a seperate group and not reptiles
-----
The dinosaurs, being succesful, were able to be phylogenetically adaptable, which made them individually more conservative. This is not necessarily so. Diversification creates specialists as well as generalists. Populations of generalists survive sudden change better than specialists. Wetman 20:22, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: recent lecture

message: The listed classification does not seem to match any of the cladograms in the external references. I will work over the next few days to come up with something that is representative of the external data. - UtherSRG 12:15, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomy

message: I don't have the knowledge to improve it, but this biggest dinosaur bit is unclear.
* Is the Sauropodus Argentinosaurus the biggest or isn't it? If we think Brachiosaur Ultrasaurus is bigger, why is it not the record holder? Is this because we've never seen a whole one? (But did we ever see a whole Argentinosuarus?) 
* If only one certain species of whale is bigger, then it should be possible to name it. (Bigger than Argentinosaurus or than Ultrasaurus?)
* Throw a scale of cmparison around. We mention the weight of Ultrasaurus. What about Argentinosaurus and the whale? Put in T-Rex for comparison, as that's what people think of as the biggest dinosaur, even if it isn't. (Is it still called T-Rex? I thought it was discovered to already have been named differently a few decennia earlier.)
Aliter 17:12, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biggest 

message: Should this be ordered more like:
# Overview
## Characteristics (Common or Diversity)
## Saurischians
## Ornithischians
## Related classes
# Collected Knowledge
## Warm-blooded dinosaurs
## Feathered dinosaurs
## Surmises about dinosaur behavior
## Extinction
# Classification of dinosaurs
# Dinosaurs in culture
# External links
? Aliter 17:12, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should make each link to a dinosaur species in the same format. Obviously, pages for each would be ideal, but instead of simply linking to Abelisaurus, we should linke to Dinosaur_Abelisaurus, or maybe Abelisaurus_(dinosaur). If we do this for more things, lists will be less cluttered. Lockeownzj00 21:27, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the idea is to use a distinct term as the title, so the term can be used in text and so people can jump to the page by typing in that term. Only when this purpose is defeated by the fact that there is more than one concept with the same name, specifications are added. So Abelisaurus would be OK, and Abelisaurus (dinosaur) would only be used if Abelisaurus meant something else as well. Aliter 20:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure