• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Living Dinosaurs!

this thread reminds me, in about 1995, I was in Florida and we saw about 2 or 3, what we could have sworn were, pterodactyls, they were about the size of Canada Geese I guess, they were grey in colour and looked to be featherless with elongated heads.

now, as a non-native Floridian from the UK whilst driving at the time, I could have mistaken pelicans. however some stopped and landed on rooftops and I remember pretty vividly how unusual they looked.

we never really told anyone but it's always one of those things my family recalls when we talk about our holiday to Disney in the 90s.
 
Sharon Hill said:
There is nothing about these claims that is remotely believable. I very strongly disagree with Shuker's unfounded promotion of dinosaur survivors. The good evidence for this is nil.
Click to expand...
Do you consider these nine named witnesses to be:
  • deliberately fibbing for attention or money
  • Have been 'leant on' by a cryptozoologist who has invested money and time in this
  • Mistaking a known sea creature
  • The creature is one of legend, like us seeing a fairy
  • Something else
Would be interested to know your thoughts. Personally, I feel the jet age opened up what were once distant, almost mythical places and in and unexplored.doing so killed off the hopes of finding living dinosaurs. For example, a close mate of mine spent two years in PNG with VSO, these places are no longer inaccessible
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
So what is the closest living animal to a dinosaur?

On superficial looks alone, I guess a Saltwater Croc, Komodo Dragon or those species of lizard that resort to a bipedal gait when in a hurry spring to mind.

In reality though, would it be a chicken, goose or ostrich?
Click to expand...
Birds, they are not only closely related to dinosaurs, they ARE dinosaurs.
 
lordmongrove said:
Birds, they are not only closely related to dinosaurs, they ARE dinosaurs.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the post you've quoted is from a couple of years back. It's been hammered home a lot more since then. Also, not everyone is as familiar with the concept of a monophyly as you are, so, perhaps some explanation. Like, archosaurs, avemetatarsalia, why crocadilians and birds are now each other’s closest living relatives. I dunno, it's not your job to educate us on things we could just look up ourselves, but not everyone realises how easy that info is to find.
 
PeteByrdie said:
To be fair, the post you've quoted is from a couple of years back. It's been hammered home a lot more since then. Also, not everyone is as familiar with the concept of a monophyly as you are, so, perhaps some explanation. Like, archosaurs, avemetatarsalia, why crocadilians and birds are now each other’s closest living relatives. I dunno, it's not your job to educate us on things we could just look up ourselves, but not everyone realises how easy that info is to find.
Click to expand...
I'm quite familiar with monophyly. I always play the little scottie dog.
 
lordmongrove said:
Birds, they are not only closely related to dinosaurs, they ARE dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

But surely to the majority of people, dinosaurs are creatures that became extinct at the end of the Mesozoic Era, some 65 million years ago.
Birds are the modern descendants of (theropod) dinosaurs, but that doesn't make them dinosaurs any more than you or I am an Ardipithecus.
 
lordmongrove said:
I'm quite familiar with monophyly. I always play the little scottie dog.
Click to expand...
Haha. Seriously, though, I've heard no end of people over the years try to...
blessmycottonsocks said:
But surely to the majority of people, dinosaurs are creatures that became extinct at the end of the Mesozoic Era, some 65 million years ago.
Birds are the modern descendants of (theropod) dinosaurs, but that doesn't make them dinosaurs any more than you or I am an Ardipithecus.
Click to expand...
And I've left what I was writing above your post because you've literally said what I was about to say I've heard people say, as I was typing.

No! You don't ever evolve out of a clade. Clades just branch. Things get a little different with genera and species. But we're moving away from linnean taxonomy to cladistics, which better represents the evolutionary relationships between organisms. A monophyletic clade includes a common ancestor and all its descendents. Dinosauria is a clade which has to include birds, otherwise it becomes paraphyletic, and becomes essentially meaningless. That means birds are reptiles, dinosaurs, saurischians (confusingly), theropods, and so on. If dinosaurs was just a genus like ardipithecus, that would be different.

As for what most people think, if dinosaur was just a colloquial term, I might agree. In fact I've tried in a few places around the Internet to start a discussion about taxonomists and zoologist and palaeontologists changing words that have utility in English (and I assume other languages have the same problem), and I've got nowhere. They like to tell us that whales are fish, and so are we, because all tetropods* are fish, for example. My argument is that the word fish isn't a phylogenetic term, and doesn't have to be monophyletic. It has utility in English, and I don't want to have to keep saying 'non-tetropod* fish' instead of just 'fish'. However, dinosaur refers to those organisms in the clade dinosauria, and that has to include birds.

*tetrapods. I swear my brain is so old.
 
Last edited:
PeteByrdie said:
Haha. Seriously, though, I've heard no end of people over the years try to...

And I've left what I was writing above your post because you've literally said what I was about to say I've heard people say, as I was typing.

No! You don't ever evolve out of a clade. Clades just branch. Things get a little different with genera and species. But we're moving away from linnean taxonomy to cladistics, which better represents the evolutionary relationships between organisms. A monophyletic clade includes a common ancestor and all its descendents. Dinosauria is a clade which has to include birds, otherwise it becomes paraphyletic, and becomes essentially meaningless. That means birds are reptiles, dinosaurs, saurischians (confusingly), theropods, and so on. If dinosaurs was just a genus like ardipithecus, that would be different.

As for what most people think, if dinosaur was just a colloquial term, I might agree. In fact I've tried in a few places around the Internet to start a discussion about taxonomists and zoologist and palaeontologists changing words that have utility in English (and I assume other languages have the same problem), and I've got nowhere. They like to tell us that whales are fish, and so are we, because all tetropods are fish, for example. My argument is that the word fish isn't a phylogenetic term, and doesn't have to be monophyletic. It has utility in English, and I don't want to have to keep saying 'non-tetropod fish' instead of just 'fish'. However, dinosaur refers to those organisms in the clade dinosauria, and that has to include birds.
Click to expand...

So we're talking about the difference between widespread popular usage of the term dinosaur and the strictly-speaking technical or scientific definition?
Bit like how mutant, cloning, alcohol, organic etc. have differing scientific and popular definitions.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
So we're talking about the difference between widespread popular usage of the term dinosaur and the strictly-speaking technical or scientific definition?
Bit like how mutant, cloning, alcohol, organic etc. have differing scientific and popular definitions.
Click to expand...
Could be. One of the reasons I don't have a problem with birds being included as dinosaurs is because I think it teaches people a little about how taxonomy works, and therefore evolution, and to my mind also makes both birds and dinosaurs a bit more awesome. However, I have used the relationship to try to illustrate why I think we should at least consider a little before redefining all our English animal words to be monophyletic. Taxonomy obsessed scientists are insisting that birds be included as dinosaurs. That's fine, but it's prompted the invention of the clumsy term 'non-avian dinosaur', to indicate what we used to mean by 'dinosaur '. So, we've just created another paraphyletic term, because it has utility.

Similarly, some would say there's no such thing as a monkey, or at least, if there is, it must include apes, including humans. I'd say the word monkey describes an organism with certain characteristics, and doesn't need to be monophyletic. We don't worry about the phylogeny of tables when we say 'table'. A table has certain characteristics. Simiiforms, or simians, those organisms in the clade simiiformes, absolutely should be monophyletic, and includes monkeys and apes. But I see no use in having to say 'non-hominoid monkeys'.

I'm not suggesting we never make these changes in definition. I'm happy, for example, that the word 'ape' includes humans, because it tells us something about both evolution and our place in the world, being so relevant to us. I'm only saying we should think a little harder about the pros and cons of each case.

Anyway, as I've said, I've tried to start this discussion in various places around the Internet where people are trying to redefine our colloquial words to be monophyletic, and apart from this conversation here on a forum which has nothing specifically to do with taxonomy, all I've ever got is one like on one comment on a YouTube video. Apparently, nobody cares. So I'll accept when I'm beaten.

So we're all fish.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
All I know is that, if I told my grandson I'd take him to see a real living dinosaur and it turned out to be aunt Aggy's canary, he would never forgive me!
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised, when i told my 3 year old that there was a dinosaur outside on the lawn and pointed to the magpie, he was delighted. He's 4 and half now and loves bird watching.
 
PeteByrdie said:
Could be. One of the reasons I don't have a problem with birds being included as dinosaurs is because I think it teaches people a little about how taxonomy works, and therefore evolution, and to my mind also makes both birds and dinosaurs a bit more awesome. However, I have used the relationship to try to illustrate why I think we should at least consider a little before redefining all our English animal words to be monophyletic. Taxonomy obsessed scientists are insisting that birds be included as dinosaurs. That's fine, but it's prompted the invention of the clumsy term 'non-avian dinosaur', to indicate what we used to mean by 'dinosaur '. So, we've just created another paraphyletic term, because it has utility.

Similarly, some would say there's no such thing as a monkey, or at least, if there is, it must include apes, including humans. I'd say the word monkey describes an organism with certain characteristics, and doesn't need to be monophyletic. We don't worry about the phylogeny of tables when we say 'table'. A table has certain characteristics. Simiiforms, or simians, those organisms in the clade simiiformes, absolutely should be monophyletic, and includes monkeys and apes. But I see no use in having to say 'non-hominoid monkeys'.

I'm not suggesting we never make these changes in definition. I'm happy, for example, that the word 'ape' includes humans, because it tells us something about both evolution and our place in the world, being so relevant to us. I'm only saying we should think a little harder about the pros and cons of each case.

Anyway, as I've said, I've tried to start this discussion in various places around the Internet where people are trying to redefine our colloquial words to be monophyletic, and apart from this conversation here on a forum which has nothing specifically to do with taxonomy, all I've ever got is one like on one comment on a YouTube video. Apparently, nobody cares. So I'll accept when I'm beaten.

So we're all fish.
Click to expand...
And shouldn't you change your avatar name to PeteDynosaurie?
 
feen5 said:
You'd be surprised, when i told my 3 year old that there was a dinosaur outside on the lawn and pointed to the magpie, he was delighted. He's 4 and half now and loves bird watching.
Click to expand...
There you go, birds and dinosaurs are cooler because birds are dinosaurs. I wish I had the chance to spend more time with my nephew's stepson. He loves both dinosaurs and basically anything that flies. I want to be the one to tell him pterosaurs aren't dinosaurs, but birds are. He's a bright kid.
 
PeteByrdie said:
There you go, birds and dinosaurs are cooler because birds are dinosaurs. I wish I had the chance to spend more time with my nephew's stepson. He loves both dinosaurs and basically anything that flies. I want to be the one to tell him pterosaurs aren't dinosaurs, but birds are. He's a bright kid.
Click to expand...
I've already told him that but i don't think he understands yet :)
 
Paul_Exeter said:
Do you consider these nine named witnesses to be:
  • deliberately fibbing for attention or money
  • Have been 'leant on' by a cryptozoologist who has invested money and time in this
  • Mistaking a known sea creature
  • The creature is one of legend, like us seeing a fairy
  • Something else
Would be interested to know your thoughts. Personally, I feel the jet age opened up what were once distant, almost mythical places and in and unexplored.doing so killed off the hopes of finding living dinosaurs. For example, a close mate of mine spent two years in PNG with VSO, these places are no longer inaccessible
Click to expand...
Exaggerating, probably. Maybe not on purpose. Memory is a messy, malleable thing. Stories grow and evolve, it's how people are.
Certain cryptozoologists pushing pterosaurs or dinosaurs in PNG are Creationists, and/or self-serving, and entirely non-credible in all respects.
People see birds that look like pterosaurs (pelicans, frigatebirds, herons, cranes) and only see glimpses or ripples of river animals. They respond directly to the cultural products they are surrounded by and exposed to, so that's what colors the stories.
I don't think there are any truly unexplored places anymore. People have been there.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
So we're talking about the difference between widespread popular usage of the term dinosaur and the strictly-speaking technical or scientific definition?
Bit like how mutant, cloning, alcohol, organic etc. have differing scientific and popular definitions.
Click to expand...

Look at it this way. We, whales, elephants, cats, and bats, are all mammals. We have a common ancestor and are more closely related to each other than we are to any other non-mammals. If all but one group of mammals went extinct, the survivors would still be mammals. So it is with birds and the wider now extinct group they stem from within, Dinosauria.
 
oldrover said:
Look at it this way. We, whales, elephants, cats, and bats, are all mammals. We have a common ancestor and are more closely related to each other than we are to any other non-mammals. If all but one group of mammals went extinct, the survivors would still be mammals. So it is with birds and the wider now extinct group they stem from within, Dinosauria.
Click to expand...
That's a very succinct way of saying what I went on a massive ramble about. I wish I could do that.

Another way to look at it is expressed with a slight change of wording. Somewhere upthread, @blessmycottonsocks said something about birds evolved from dinosaurs. It's better to say birds evolved within dinosauria.
 
I bet you people also put tomatoes in a fruit salad.
 
PeteByrdie said:
That's a very succinct way of saying what I went on a massive ramble about. I wish I could do that.

Another way to look at it is expressed with a slight change of wording. Somewhere upthread, @blessmycottonsocks said something about birds evolved from dinosaurs. It's better to say birds evolved within dinosauria.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
Except possibly the deep oceans - that have already come up trumps with coelacanths and colossal squid.
Click to expand...
Not dinosaurs, though.
Large ocean creature tend to reveal themselves eventually. Even the oceans have been decently explored for large animals. We've fished and netted a lot. I'm sure there are several more amazing things to be discovered but dinosaur-adjacent plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, megalodon? Those are a big nope.
 
Sharon Hill said:
Not dinosaurs, though.
Large ocean creature tend to reveal themselves eventually. Even the oceans have been decently explored for large animals. We've fished and netted a lot. I'm sure there are several more amazing things to be discovered but dinosaur-adjacent plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, megalodon? Those are a big nope.
Click to expand...
I wonder why the marine reptiles never attained the size of the marine mammals. Given the size the dinosaurs reached on land you would think their marine counterparts would at least equal the Blue Whale. Are there huge marine fossils to be discovered?
 
Tunn11 said:
I wonder why the marine reptiles never attained the size of the marine mammals. Given the size the dinosaurs reached on land you would think their marine counterparts would at least equal the Blue Whale. Are there huge marine fossils to be discovered?
Click to expand...
Liopleurodon was pretty big:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liopleurodon
Up to 22ft long.

Shastasaurus was the biggest, at up to 69 feet in length:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shastasaurus

There may have been something even larger than that, but have so far not found fossils.
 
lordmongrove said:
Birds, they are not only closely related to dinosaurs, they ARE dinosaurs.
Click to expand...
You are of course correct.

Nevertheless, I would argue, m'lud, that birds are dinosaurs in the same way that tomatoes are fruit.

Knowledge is being aware that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting tomatoes in a fruit salad.

When we talk about the possibility of a relict population of dinosaurs, we all know we are day dreaming of "terrible lizards" (Greek deinos sauros) and not, for example budgerigars or sparrows.
 
Mikefule said:
You are of course correct.

Nevertheless, I would argue, m'lud, that birds are dinosaurs in the same way that tomatoes are fruit.

Knowledge is being aware that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting tomatoes in a fruit salad.

When we talk about the possibility of a relict population of dinosaurs, we all know we are day dreaming of "terrible lizards" (Greek deinos sauros) and not, for example budgerigars or sparrows.
Click to expand...
Tomatoes are a good analogy. I'd love there to by non-avian dinos cavorting in jungles around the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top