This is an archive of past discussions about Dinosaur. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
MMartyniuk is right. Birds are descended from dinosaurs and they form one group, the same way humans are descended from earlier hominids and form one group under apes. It makes more sense if you look at a cladogram. Cadiomals (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It is really a matter of language conventions: From a phylogenetical POW birds are dinosaurs. In normal parlance birds have evolved from dinosaurs. The two things really means the same thing, it is just a matter of how you choose to express yourself. The evolutionary history of birds was discovered not really that long ago, making it a kind of palaentological fade to stress the connection using "are". You won't hear the same people make a point of saying we are fish all the time, though phylogeneticaly it is equally true. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm not a fish, that isn't true at all. I agree trying to say birds are dinosaurs is a fad based on still disputed theories of their evolutionary history, but even if dinosaurs evolved into birds, birds are still not dinosaurs. And when I said a modern mouse, I wasn't saying people evolved from mice as they now exist, I was trying to say that the mammals that existed 65 million years ago were largely mouse-like, and one branch of them evolved into us, but that doesn't make me "really" a modern version of a Hadrocodium. And say we instead went in the other direction, and 65 million years from now birds had evolved somehow back into dinosaurs (I know this is highly unlikely, but barring total extinction of birds they will evolve into something, perhaps even something that looks reptilian like). Are you really going to tell me that dinosaur looking thing is really a bird because it evolved from a bird? What form would birds have to evolve into to cease being dinosaurs, or are all descendents of dinosaurs dinosaurs forever now? 71.211.221.149 (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
How far would humans have to evolve to cease being tetrapods? "Tetrapods" means four limbs, but even snakes are still considered tetrapods, so what would it take? The correct answer is nothing. Once a tetrapod, always a tetrapod. Once a dinosaur, always a dinosaur. "Fish" is different because it doesn't correspond to any scientifically recognized group, similar to "worm" or "beast". There is a formal group Dinosauria--anything which is a member of Dinosauria is a dinosaur. MMartyniuk (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I suppose I should have said bony fish rather than "fish", sigh, I never learn... 71.211.221.149 is however right in that the normal phylogenetic wording does not sit well when used out of context. We should be aware that phylogenetic nomenclature is not the common norm and need a bit of explanation before we start arguing that we are colonial choanoflagellates.
Yeah, the common usage by laypeople is different from its usage in phylogenetics. We are technically highly evolved fish, but laypeople would misunderstand and scoff at that.Cadiomals (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
If we are to be really strict about it, we aren't even highly evolved fish, just fish. Nothing is "more" evolved than anything else, technically that is. Most highly evolved species on the planet? I'd say the earthworm. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm proud to be a fish (in the phylogenetic sense) but this is the whole grade/clade argument all over again. The explanation can't get much clearer in this article. It might be a good idea to include a template like Template:Evolutionary biology that links to some basic evolutionary concepts that most laypeople seem to struggle with, especially since this is such a high-traffic article. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Nah, I think explaining it in the text as now is better. We might have a look at the wording, and explain how phylogeny differ from classification and the normal use of language. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Change in temporal range
I am considering changing the temporal range of dinosaurs in the infobox from Late Triassic-Late Cretaceous to simply Late Triassic-recent. I think this is important is it displays current scientific consensus based on modern cladistic classification, that birds aren't simply the descendents of dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs and continue to be part of the dinosaur group. This means that dinosaurs survive to the present and I think it is important to show that no distinction is made in the temporal range. Almost all scientists agree that birds aren't just a distinguished group that evolved from dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs, at least according to modern phylogenetics. Anyone else wanna weigh in on this? Cadiomals (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The sentence "birds aren't simply the descendents of dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs" is entirely a questiuon of semantics. You can equally well say that tetrapods are not just descendants of elpistostegalian fish, they are elpistostegalians, or that insects are not just descendants of crustaceans, they are crustaceans. Sure, from a phylogenetic POW you are absolutely right, but phylogeny is not the sole criterium for how things are understood. To 99% percent of people having heard about dinosaurs (i.e. all people who are not phylogenetic nomenclaturists) the term "dinosaur" means non-avian dinosaurs, even though the ancestry of birds being fairly well known thanks to Jurassic Park. The more common "have evolved from" emphasize the anatomical, physiological and ecological distinctness of the birds as compared to their ancestors. What birds "are" is really a metaphysical question, and as such not something you resolve simply by pointing at a phylogenetic tree.
The phylogenetical nomenclature of the dinosaurs is amply covered in the article and in the lede. The current range shows quite correctly that the majority of dinosaur lineages died out at the end of Cretaceous, with only a small highly divergent line surviving to the present. Are you suggesting this is somehow wrong? Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I took so long to respond, I didn't see this till now. But in short, I completely see your point of view and realize you're totally right. That is why I asked first before changing it, because I always make sure to hear other people's opinions as it lets me see the flaws in my own. Cadiomals (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
And I'm sorry if a came across a bit strong, I didn't mean to. It's just that we seem to have this or related debates every month or so. Again sorry. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree while noting Peter Bockman's arguments are also sound and that this is an issue of semantics. however all serious workers in the field include birds among traditional dinosaurs, even in a vast majority of current popular and children's books. If this doesn't have consensus nothing does. Specifically, "from a phylogenetic POW you are absolutely right, but phylogeny is not the sole criterium for how things are understood." It is in modern dinosaur paleontology, for better or worse. "To 99% percent of people having heard about dinosaurs (i.e. all people who are not phylogenetic nomenclaturists) the term "dinosaur" means non-avian dinosaurs" there are numerous popular works in print, TV documentaries, etc. where scientists go out of their way to paint this as a misconception, again for better or worse, but that's the verifiable consensus, which is what wiki needs to follow. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we just end this now? Because this is basically becoming a repeat of the conversation above. I started this discussion, and I changed my mind because I think Peter is right. If we're going to say birds are dinosaurs (which, they of course are) we may as well also be saying humans are sarcopterygian fish. I think this article makes clear the bird-dinosaur relationship. This subject has been discussed before and I just don't want it to be repeated. I guess its my fault. The current temporal range is completely fine. Cadiomals (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Dinoguy, I fail to see this as being the view of the "majority of current popular and children's books", and I work in an institution which sells those books and am a father to boot, so I think I would have noticed. It may again be a cultural thing. I have seen a few translated children's dino-books from the USA using phylogenetic nomenclature, but not from Britain or other countries. The same goes for TV-documentaries. Most dino-programs shown where I live are BBC-productions anyway (heck, even Primeval aired here), programs like Dinosaur Revolution haven't. Besides, while the birds-are-dinosaurs is all the rage among dinosaur studies (and to a large degree in other vertebrate palaentology fields), dino-studies is a rather small field. The views of the field ought to be expressed clearly (which it is) and the history and use of terms ought to be covered (which they are). If we are to take the birds-are-dinosaurs stance seriously, this article need a thorough rewrite, and will in my humble opinion not become a better and more informative article. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
"Besides, while the birds-are-dinosaurs is all the rage among dinosaur studies (and to a large degree in other vertebrate palaentology fields), dino-studies is a rather small field." So I see this as the central question. should the article "Dinosaur" reflect the consensus view of scientists who work on dinosaurs, however small or large that field may be, or should it reflect the consensus usage in other, unrelated fields? In other words, how this subject is treated in the article Dinosaur vs the article Bird or vertebrate should not necessarily be the same (and probably cannot be made the same without violating verifiability). I watched Dinosaur Revolution and in the last episode several of the talking heads explicitly endorsed birds-are-dinosaurs, by the way. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I mentioned the Dinosaur revolution as an example of a specifically American program that has not aired over here, to support that there may be a cultural aspect to this discussion.
Let's square away the obvious first: a) We all agree where the birds came from and that the known phylogeny needs to be stated unambiguously, b) we all agree "are" vs. "evolved from" is a semantic rather than phylogenetic distinction, c) we all agree the use of terms in dino-studies needs to be clearly expressed, d) we all agree dinosaur studies is kind of a special case when it comes to the use of phylogenetic nomenclature, e) and we all agree this nomenclature sees extremely limited use outside academic circles. Right?
As far as I can see that leaves us with two basic topics under discussion: 1) name of article, and 2) coverage of article. What do we want to put into this article? I would like an article about non-avian dinosaurs, and I would like an article about birds. Both these articles exists. What should they be called? Do we want an article about dinosaurs in the full sense (with e.g. equal weight to extinct and extant critters)? If not, what do we want? Who wants to write what? What do Wikipedias readers want? What names would be expected on what articles, given Wikipedias article name conventions?
I think a good example to follow is Primate. This article does a great job of outlining what primates are, the fact that they include humans, but still manages to talk about primates in general, using the clunky yet useful term "non-human primate" when necessary. "I would like an article about non-avian dinosaurs" why? What exactly can be said about non-avian dinosaurs that cannot also be said about birds? The only thing i can think of is "they're extinct", which is only true if you exclude birds and so is an outdated concept based on circular logic. Of course everyone wants a separate article on birds, nobody is arguing the two should be merged, any more than we should merge Dinosaur and Titanosaur. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's a slight difference between primates-humans and dinosaurs-birds. In one the excluded group is a single species (or a handful, if you count the stem), in the other it is a whooping great group. And then there's the extant-extinct aspect of things. If you seriously want an article about the dinosaurs the clade rather than the grade, then there need to be a substantial rewrite to include the vast topics of birds. Otherwise, the article will be so much lip service to the dinosaurs-are-birds idea. A comparable example is Tetrapod, which is all about stem tetrapod fish and labyrinthodonts, ignoring the extant groups. Mammals and birds are mentioned in the lede and in the classification only. If Tetrapoda is a clade (and I have never heard it used otherwise) then it needs to deal with evolution of lungs and blood vessels and all that jazz in all groups (it's on my to-do list).
You are free to not find an article covering dinosaurs in the traditional sense interesting, but the number of hits on this article indicate quite a few others do not share then view. Number of hits alone make it obviously there should be an article covering the grad. This one does a decent job of it. Should there be one covering the clade too? I'm not much of an ornithologists, I'm afraid I won't be much help. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
...you mean you STILL haven't fixed it?
Um... I was here over a year ago and... the article is still as wrong as ever. It's the year 2012 now. We've known birds are dinosaurs for a very, VERY long time now in the sense of paleontology (which moves ridiculously fast in regard to dinosaurs), and yet the "mighty" wikipedia still treats what is outside of it's little bubble common knowledge as a controversial heated debate?
Sorry, guys, birds are dinosaurs, dinosaurs aren't extinct. If you have some sort of idealogical problem with that, I can't help you, but I'm sure there are other wikis which would revel in hearing all about the ignorance and misconceptions that are holdovers from the late 1950's. No really, you need to start growing up now.
Tell you what, wikipedia, I'll give you one more chance. I'll come back in a week, or maybe a month. Then I'll go directly to this page and look ONLY at the taxobox. That's it. You don't have to maintain a neutral point of view or one-author feel to the page itself, I understand that requires thinking and I know you're incapable of that, so all you have to do is fix the taxobox. That's all. Change the part that's wrong, specifically where it mentions that dinosaurs are extinct, and that's all you have to do.
I understand there's a lot of politics involved in this sort of nonsense, but I'll be honest, I have no interest in it. In short, I believe this page CAN be saved. The problems with the tone I can actually do myself. The problems with inconsistent information can be solved as well as long as you quit reverting the frakking page. Outdated information can be updated, there are plenty of readily available recent sources to work with. Omitted information can be added to if we work as a team to create short sections summarizing information from more detailed, respectable pages. It IS possible. I'm not just about talking big either, I'm ready to roll up my sleeves and get it done. But with all of the politics and time travelers from the 1950's, it's hard for one person to do alone. And I'll be honest, it would be easier to just give up on you. Still, your google monopoly makes this hard to ignore, and if you really want to help educate the public, I think that's a cause worth fighting for.
Why don't you just go do it yourself instead of insulting the editors here? You're as much responsible as everyone else. It's a public wiki. deBivort03:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
From your reply:"Filling the article with discussions on birdsong, plumage and anatomical adaptions to different styles of flight between discussions of stratigraphy, dermal armour, teeth and hipbones would not make it better." This is a strawman if I've ever seen one. Adding bird-specific topics to this page would be utterly ridiculous. As would adding specifics about sauropod rearing postures or oviraptorid nesting styles. Sections like the one on dermal armour, which evolved several times in different groups of dinosaurs, are appropriate. Sections on flight, which probably arose only in one subgroup, may or may not be appropriate. Sections on birdsong or whiplash tails, which are highly specific their subgroups, would not be appropriate. The point of a page about Dinosaurs is to give an overview of the group as a whole. Anything in this article that is specific to one particular subgroup of dinosaurs, be it birds or pachycephalosaurs, should be removed. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Birds are clearly acknowledged in this article as dinosaurs. It's everywhere, and it's obvious. You can even see it in the lead. What you have to understand, Mr. CultistofVertigo, is that this is a general article meant for the general public. There needs to not only be an acknowledgement that birds are considered dinosaurs by the scientific community (which is clearly mentioned a number of times in the article) but a distinction made between birds and the non-avian dinosaurs that most of the general public associates the word "dinosaur" with. While we need to be scientifically accurate we also need to consider the 8th grader who knows nothing about dinosaurs who may well be reading this right now. "The very least you can do is fix the taxobox"... No, I think we've already decided against that. We need to continue to both connect and make the distinction between birds and dinosaurs and be considerate of that uneducated 8th grader who could get confused. How scientists look at things and how the general public looks at things is very different. If you really have such a huge problem with this, instead of insulting Wikipedia and insulting the users why not make some changes yourself? I notice that too much. Certain editors complain and complain about the flaws in an article and seem to have forgotten they have the full ability to fix it themselves. Laziness, maybe? Cadiomals (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
"How scientists look at things and how the general public looks at things is very different." Yes, sort of like the way the general public believes plesiosaurs to be dinosaurs or whales to be fish. We have to reinforce the errors in layman's understandings rather than teach them science. An encyclopedia is no place for education. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstood what I was trying to say, MMartyniuk. We need to be considerate of the general public, not support their misconceptions. I'm going to repeat this again: The fact that birds are dinosaurs has already been clearly acknowledged in this article. In fact I recently made a small change to the taxonomy section further reinforcing that, if you want to check it out. But if we completely get rid of the distinction between avian and non-avian dinosaurs we may end up confusing many laymen. Cadiomals (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
My point is only this--people want to exclude birds to avoid having lots of bird-specific stuff. We should not have ANY specific stuff. this is a general overview of all dinosaurs. There is no fact that can be said about Triceratops and Tyrannosaurus that cannot also apply to an ostrich. If any fact that's not merely an interesting anecdote is in the article that applies only to one kind of dinosaur but not all others, it needs to be on a more specific page. Therefore there is no need to "draw distinction" or be "overly inclusive" here. We just have to make sure everything applies to all dinosaurs, birds included, in an accurate way. I've already done much of the tweaks necessary for this today, and almost all were just that--small tweaks. Nothing major. Would you say this article is more confusing now than it was an hour ago? MMartyniuk (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there are things to be said about Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops that do not apply to an ostrich. Adult size is one thing (size in general in Dinosauria (trad.)), dermal armour, teeth, speculations on reproduction and social life, the fact that we aren't really sure about their temperature regulation etc. See? There are interesting things to be said about dinosaurs! There's a reason Dinosauria (trad.) is an evolutionary grade, an not a wastebasket taxon. As for the bird information being a straw man, we would have to have some specifics and examples, and considering our knowledge of birds is vastly better than of dinosaurs, it would reasonably clog up the article. The "people believe plesiosaurs are dinosaurs" isn't exactly a kosher argument in that regard either. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
There is hardly any controversy surrounding the fact that birds are dinosaurs anymore, it's just not widely accepted by some laypeople because they don't like the idea of the cute little featherball that wakes them up each morning with its singing being connected to a cold, reptilian killer from the mists of time, and thus many still pretend that birds aren't dinosaurs. Yet even more strangely, many of those same laypeople readily accept pterosaurs as both birds and dinosaurs, when in actuality they are neither, although they do share a close evolutionary relationship with both groups. Anywho, the taxobox has been changed the last time I checked so there's no need for this discussion to go on any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I had noticed the change a while ago, and am fine with it. So consider this support for a consensus to revert your reversion. deBivort18:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we need editorial consensus when there is professional consensus. We didn't have a Talk page discussion over whether or not to include a question mark next to birds in deference to fringe opinions like Feduccia's, and we shouldn't need one to decide whether to follow a fringe classification like Benton's. There are now too many secondary sources agreeing with including birds among Dinosauria proper to count. Linnaean taxonomy is stone dead in dinosaur paleontology and you'd have to do some very selective reading to come away with any other opinion. I doubt we could find more than one source for the idea that Aves is a "descendant taxon" rather than a subclade, let alone the dozens we'd need to counterweight the multitude of papers and popular books treating it as such. MMartyniuk (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we can leave Feduccia out of this. I don't think there's anyone here disagreeing on the phylogeny. If you have a look at the edit history you will see I just reinforced that point. The only relevant question is whether dinosaurs should be treated differently than the rest of the animal kingdom when it comes to Wikipedia taxoboxes. That, and that alone, is the only area of dispute. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Feduccia and Benton are equivilent situations for the purposes of consensus. Feduccia disputes the phylogeny (birds aren't dinosaurs and didn't evolve from dinosaurs), Benton disputes the classification ( birds evolved from dinosaurs but aren't dinosaurs anymore). Both are in an extreme minority wrt the consensus view (birds evolved from dinosaurs and therefore are dinosaurs) and should only be mentioned as footnotes in the text.
I think in this case the answer is yes. There's no source we can cite for Linnaean classification of dinosaurs that's more than 20 years old. Benton's is woefully incomplete and outdated in terms of included groups and overall relationship to phylogeny. Our options appear to be a) make up our own classification and violate OR as we have been doing or b) use a rank-free classification that the one in Holtz 2007 or any number of other secondary sources published in the last 5 years. MMartyniuk (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
No, Benton and Feduccia are not equivalents. Phylogeny can be studied and is a matter of science. Classification is a matter of choice. Neither Linnaean nor phylogenetic classification is inherently more correct than the other. It is just two ways of organizing information. The case of Feduccia is something else, so quit it, will you?
I have not argued for going all orders and families in the article. I have not argued for not reflecting the overwhelming consensus for phylogenetic nomenclature among dinosaur palaenthologists. My concern here is the taxobox. The current one reflects our current knowledge of phylogeny perfectly, but it does not reflect the current fade in classification in this particular field. The only question I want answered is: Do we let the peculiarities of a particular field decide what's goes in the taxobox, or do we use the same basic guidelines for all of Wikipedia? Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
"Do we let the peculiarities of a particular field decide what's goes in the taxobox, or do we use the same basic guidelines for all of Wikipedia?" If doing the later requires OR, or deviation from consensus in the field, then we need to do the former. I'm not sure why there is debate about this. "Neither Linnaean nor phylogenetic classification is inherently more correct than the other." But one is explicitly rejected by a majority of dinosaur paleontologists. Whether or not that's justified is not our call. We're here to report what the sources say, not take what the sources say and change it to fit our own original structure. If the sources conflict, we should go with consensus and mention dissenting views in the text in a manner appropriate to their prominence. These are all basic Wikipedia guidelines. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Today phylogenetic classification is the standard not just for dinosaurs, but for most of paleontology. This article - and that includes the taxobox along with it - is meant to inform, not to reinforce common conceptions. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Poll
Do you support or oppose an edit that would extend the temporal range of dinosaurs to "present?" Just put "support" or "oppose" in bold below without giving a reason because this is already being discussed above. In the end we'll count up the votes and act accordingly. This is really becoming an issue of semantics and what exactly defines a dinosaur and I think just putting it to a vote would help. The poll will end a week from now.
Most research conducted since the 1970s, however, has indicated that ancient dinosaurs, like modern birds, were active, intelligent animals with elevated metabolisms and numerous adaptations for social interaction.
The text indicate dinosaur intelligence (which was really varied) was on par with that of modern birds. Now, surely they were not turtle sluggish, but even the most brainy dinosaur (Troodon) had an encephalization quotient below that of birds. This means a chicken would outsmart a Troodon, not to mention Velociraptor. Some of the large plant eaters would have been really limited. The Victorian "dim witted" is likely an apt description. Small brains do not only affect behaviour, the body is also controlled by the brain, meaning animals like Stegosaurus and Ancylosaurus would have have a limited range of movements. I suggest toning it down a bit. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Correct on all counts. The smartest Mesozoic dinosaurs based on pure EQ were likely neornithines. Then yanornithids, then enantiornithines, then confuciusornithids, then archaeopterygids, then troodontids. People always speculate what would have happened if dinosaurs survived the extinction... well, the smartest ones did, and they resulted in crows and African Greys, not dinosauroids ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
EQ is a pretty meaningless factor if you are comparing animals of significantly different body weight. That's caused by the fact that larger mass requires larger afferent and efferent fibres, but that logical decisions do not grow with size. I'd be really careful using EQs outside one order of magnitude, and even for doubling of weight it may massively mislead you.
Simply said: why should a decision making process require more telencephalic matter in Apatosaurus than in Gallus? It should not - but the brain stem and spinal cord should be much larger. Also given the distance of communication large dinosaurs were very likely slower - but that's exactly what we see in extant animals, too.
"dim witted" is definitively not supported (nor countered) by EQs. If we look at the amount of input (estimated from the relative sizes of various lobes), we may get a better picture. Animals capable of orientation in a highly complex 3D geometry, and capable of handling the required data (e.g. bat and birds) have enlarged areas dealing with the related sensory inputs. There was a SVP talk last fall that showed quite large olfactory areas in many archosaurs, comparable to dogs etc. That would be an indication that these animals were capable of orientation via smell roughly as good as smart animals today. HMallison (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure you are referring to encephalization quotient and not Brain-to-body mass ratio? The EQ is the formula devised for giving reasonable answers for mice and whales. As for size difference, both Archaeopteryx, Troodon and Velociraptor fall within the size range of modern birds, so the comparison should be straight forward. Flight is likely a complicating factor though, but it indicate the "highly intelligent" trait sometimes attributed to them is suspect, hence I remoced the reference to birds (behaviour of crows and parrots are certainly not a relevant comparison here).
I quite agree an animal like Ankylosaurus would have had a lot of in/out enervation compared to brain size, but I fail to see how a 6 ton animal with an 80 gram brain could have much behavioural complexity when compared to a mammal. The term "dim witted" must be understood as a comparative term, with present day fauna (i.e mammals when we are talking about this size). Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am talking about EQ - remember that it is a) empiric, and b) thus limited to an order of magnitude smaller than dinosaurs. The comparison is not straightforward even for those dinosaurs that fall within the same range, because (as you pointed out) you are comparing highly adept fliers (with according need for a large optical lobe and excellent 3D orientation and extremely good memory) to non- or barely-fliers. Plotting the EQs for narrower categories, however, gives enormous error bars. Oops!
I agree that dinosaurs were overall likely less intelligent than mammals. Thus, crows and parrots should not be used as a general comparison. On the other hand, "dim-witted" in the sense of a crocodile, iguana or turtle (which is what Victorians had in mind) is certainly an underestimation of your average dinosaur. HMallison (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
For the magnitude scale, whales were used to get the EQ line, and some of them are fairly large, so I don't think your size criticism is valid. What's really wrong with EQ in this matter is that it is a strictly mammalian measure, and it is clear mammals and reptiles use their brains differently. A lot of the brain in mammals appear to be occupied with keeping track of the body, to a much larger degree than in reptiles. Then again, the mammalian brain has on average an order of magnitude higher EQ than reptiles.
For what it's worth, I agree turtles are not a good indication of "average" dinosaur intelligence. They are highly specialized and armoured besides, so they should by all expectations be "dim-witted". How dim-witted crocodiles really are is another question. Their amphibious habit make them cold blooded and slow, but they can show some very interesting behaviour when they want to. I would assume a more active and less specialized animal like e.g. Allosaurus to be a good deal quicker both of body and mind. I do not insist on describing the dinosaurs as a whole as dim-witted, but perhaps ad a sentence to the effect of "some of the more heavily armoured dinosaurs and the larger sauropods had extremely small brains, and would have very limited behavioural complexity" or something like that. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far to say that you can even make these claims. If you add two or three qualifiers to the sentences - OK. Otherwise.... what do we know about the internal structure (i.e., cross-connectivity) of the sauropod cortex? HMallison (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
We know absolutely squat about the internal structures of a sauropod brain, but as a zoologist I would be hard pressed to come up with a scenario where a 30 ton low quality plant food eating vertebrate with the brain size of an apple could have any sort of behavioral complexity. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
See, faulty assumptions: 30 t high-quality plant foot eater, with a central nervous system that's proportionally as large as that of most mammals...... see what I am driving at? The brain of a sauropod is larger than that of a rat. If we assume (out of thin air) that a rat uses 50% of the brain for "logical" decisions, and the rest relates to body size because it correlates with peripheral nerves, how big does a sauropod brain have to be for the animal to be equally smart? Well, that depends on how much of the sauropod brain is really "outside communication", and how much is "logic" - and we have no clue. As I said: a decision (for example) does not require more neurons or a more complicated network just because you're bigger. HMallison (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Only the sauropod brain is not proportionally as large as that of a mammal, it falls in the reptilian range, and is much, much smaller than that of a comparable mammal. A large male humpback whale weighs 30 tons. It's brain is 4,5 to 5 kilos. It is not even a particularly bright whale, the sperm whale has almost 8 kilos of brain for half the body weight. Again, Diplodocus had a brain the size of a fist. Sorry, not buying your argument. The total central nervous system might be proportionally as large, but animals don't think with their nerve chord.
You keep using mammalian standards - the animals where in extreme cases you can drive a crowbar through the brain and all that happens is that anger management changes - for animals the brains of which we know practically nothing about. Sorry, but your defeatist attitude doesn't make sense. "We don't know" means "we don't know", not "They must have been STOOPID because they did not write a sonnet".
And you continue to miss the point: I did not say animals think with their spinal chord. I said that as long as we do not know anything about the internal structure of their brains, we can't be sure that comparing brain size makes sense. HMallison (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Come on, these are tetrapod brains, how different internally can they be? They are similar enough to brains of modern reptiles and birds to allow for fairly detailed analysis' of the relative function of the various parts, see Evolution of the sense of smell in dinosaurs and birds for an example. So I would say (or rather, the scientists at the Royal Tyrrell Museum says) we pretty much can say something about dinosaur intelligence based on their brain casts. You suggestion that the brain of sauropods could have been somehow uniquely structured to allow for more complex behaviour than size alone would indicate, is an ad hoc hypothesis, and as such would require some independent evidence. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I just had the chance to read through Hopsons article. Here are some highlights:
Dinosaur EQ varied across the whole group, but generally stayed within the reptilian range with some of the carnivores falling between reptilian and avian EQ.
The EQ did not correlate with size, low and high EQ were found across the size spectrum
EQ did however vary with food quality:
Plant eating bulk feeders with cropping teeth only (Sauropods and thyreophorans) had very low EQ
Plant eaters with some chewing capability (Ceratopsians) has medium low EQ
Plant eaters with high chewing capacity (Hadrosaurs) had medium to high EQ, even surpassing some of the less brainy meat eaters by a good margin
Meat eaters generally had medium to high EQ, small coelurasurs approaching avian values.
Heavily armoured, armed or very large plant eaters thought to be able to stand their ground against predators had low EQ, while those lacking such defences and would have to rely on speed and acute senses for protection, had high EQ
Animals with assumed high cursorial speed (lightly built animals) had higher EQ than those with low speed (heavily built animals)
Relevant to our discussion, Hopson noted the sauropods (despite him assuming their brain filled the whole the whole brain case) had extremely low EQ, at the very lower range for reptiles. He simply state he will refrain from drawing conclusions on their behaviour based on this. He really wanted to point out dinosaurs had not been the dim-witted creatures of Victorian view, but when it comes to sauropods, the raw data (if taken at face value) really indicate otherwise. Lower end of the reptilian range place them in the legue of turtles.
Interestingly, Hopson also concluded that the pterosaurs had a fairly low EQ, well within typical reptilian range, indicating that high EQ is not a pre prerequisite for flying per se. The high EQ in small coelurosaurs (surpassing that of Archaeopteryx in some cases), indicate the high EQ evolved before flight, not as a result of it. Hopson suggest pterosaurs were plains- and costal dwellers, while the avian ancestors were forest dwellers, which would be more complex and put higher demand on the vision.
There is virtually nothing in the article on this topic, when I think it is an important detail. As well as being a diverse and varied group, they were also incredibly widespread, and believed to have inhabited most terrestrial ecosystems on Earth during the Mesozoic. Indeed, this should have mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Niggling
"CT-scanning revealed the evidence of air sacs within the body cavity of the Aerosteon skeleton" ?! I'm not sure that's how a CT scan works with a fossil. I think "CT-scanning of Aerosteon's fossil bones revealed evidence for the existence of air sacs within the animal's body cavity" is better phrased. Dracontes (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Dinosaurs as Aquatic Animals
A British scientist claims that dinosaurs were too heavy to have been terrestrial animals, and that they spent most of their time floating in shallow rivers and lakes. Furthermore, he says that the tail was a swimming aid instead of a tool used for balance on land. I don't buy this hypothesis myself, but I put the info here just to alert the dino-nuts on this encyclopedia about this new theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The guy is a crackpot with no evidence and no knowledge of dinosaur anatomy. A group of paleontologists are currently petitioning the BBC to retract this ridiculous story. Note that this "researcher" published his "theory" in a magazine with no references and no peer review. The "study" consisted of him looking at pictures of dinosaurs and thinking they didn't look right. That's it. Totally worthless and not science. It's deeply unfortunate this was picked up by every media outlet on earth including the BBC. Apparently nobody checks facts anymore. [1]MMartyniuk (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Phew, that's a relief. Come to think of it, wasn't this a popular theory in the 1930s that has been disproven since then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It was a popular theory right up till the 1980s, and is still occasionally presented as fact. I don't know anything about this purported study, and I don't support the idea of amphibious sauropods. But I do think that as wikipedians we need to treat this historical idea with some respect. At the time it was based on the science at the time, although we now know it was misinterpreted. The idea was supported by sound palaeontologists. It's an important idea in the history of palaeontology and it is so often ridiculed on these talk pages or grudgingly glossed over in articlers.Gazzster (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
And to be fair to the report in question, if this is it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3310531.stm, the study does not claim that sauropods were aquatic, or needed to live in water. It only claims that an amphibious lifestyle is not inconsistent with their physiology. And it goes on to say that if they moved into deep water they would have experienced difficulties.Gazzster (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Spinosaurids as semi-aquatic
At some point, the text of the article states "†Megalosauroidea (early group of large carnivores including the semi-aquatic spinosaurids)". I think it's a bit far-fetched to call Spinosaurids semi-aquatic. Should I remove the statement? DaMatriX (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Dinosaurs that archeologists discover and observe as prehistoric fossils were once the dominant terrestial vertabraes that ever existed in the the environment which surrounds us but due to the sub-zero effects of the climate that we humans have adapted to, their diverse population has seized to exist since the triassic period.
During the era which these creatures existed, an immense quantity of them behaved in a brutal and sinister manner towards the other classifications of these dinosaurs whilst some were eco-friendly and peaceful in their surroundings;Behaviour — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.124.45 (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Dinosaurs were extremely adaptable animals, and it was not climate change that contributed to their demise, despite popular belief. They dealt with all kinds of changes in the climate and environment during their 165+ million years on Earth. Their demise was brought on by an extraordinary cataclysm, usually thought to have been an asteroid or a comet that slammed into Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula 65 million years ago. To put it simply, your statement is invalid, my fellow unsigned contributor.--24.36.130.109 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
none of those two beginning entires to this section made any sense. if dinosaurs went extinct in the triassic why are there dinosaur fossils dated to the Cretacious? are you talking about Therapsids?--50.195.51.9 (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 18 October 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Umm..he's not talking about the Mokele-mbembe and crap, which are quite obviously fake. He's talking about those tiny, feathered flying dinosaurs in our backyards. You know, the ones that the kids these days call "birds". --24.36.130.109 (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Nyasasaurus
Stop removing it from the infobox. The argument that all dinosaurs have to fall into either the Saurischia or Ornithischia is invalid, for 1) the definition section of this article states that "Under phylogenetic taxonomy, dinosaurs are usually defined as the group consisting of Triceratops, Neornithes [modern birds], their most recent common ancestor, and all descendants".[10] It has also been suggested that Dinosauria be defined with respect to the most recent common ancestor of Megalosaurus and Iguanodon, because these were two of the three genera cited by Richard Owen when he recognized the Dinosauria.[11] Both definitions result in the same set of animals being defined as dinosaurs: "Dinosauria = Ornithischia + Saurischia"". At least based on the information we have here, a species does not have to be Saurischian or Ornithischian to be a dinosaur, but for the most part, all known species that met the actual definition fell into one of them, so it amounted to be that - notice it says results, not called for a redefinition as - before this finding. 2) The researchers (Nesbitt, etc.) are well more educated in the field than any of us, and clearly know what a dinosaur is defined as. They would not have states it was either a basal Dinosaurian or a Dinosauriform if it was not possible to be just a basal Dinosaurian. 3) We are not the taxonomists here who are to determine whether it is or is not a basal dinosaur, but if scientists say it is in either one clade or the other, then it belongs in both with a question mark next to its placement in Wikipedia articles. Jntg4Games (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand how these definitions work, and how the scientists are using them. "Basal dinosaurian" means either basal saurischian or basal ornithischian and nobody has implied otherwise. If Dinosauria = either Triceratops + Passer or Megalosaurus + Iguanodon, it includes, by definition, saurischians and ornithischians only, because Saurischia itself = all animals closer to Passer than to Triceratops and vice versa. Secondly, even if Nyasasaurus is a basal dinosaur, which there's no solid evidence for according to the scientists who described it, it doesn't warrant inclusion in the taxobox, because the taxobox is only for major groups as currently stated. There are dozens of genera of basal saurischians, basal ornithischians, and basal dinosaurs which also are too fragmentary to assign to either group being left out. So there's no reason to add Nyasauruas and not, say, Pisanosaurus and Alwalkeria etc. except for the fact that Nyasasaurus happens to be in the news at the moment. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm done with this. But is absolutely wrong that what is likely the oldest known dinosaur isn't located on any dinosaur taxonomies here at all, huge case of not supplying readers a huge piece of information just because we aren't sure which order it would belong to. It also receives no mention in its other possible location in the Dinosauriformes, we are treating it as if it doesn't exist here. And the inclusion of other species known to exist in one order or the other is irrelevant since they can be found by going to the Saurischia or Ornithischia page. And, while there is no indication this is it, but the MRCA would be a dinosaur but not in either, just saying it isn't impossible to fall into neither but still be one. Something has to be done to include this species more obviously on this wiki, due to the implications it holds. Jntg4Games (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Recommend using the lay definition in most dinosaur articles
Yes, birds evolved from dinosaurs, so scientifically they're the same, but outside of biology, dinosaurs only refer to the extinct animals. The common word "dinosaur" and the clade "Dinosauria" do not have the same meaning, and this article is titled dinosaur. Dinosauria is a scientific term that includes birds; Dinosaur is a lay term that does not. All dinosaurs are extinct, many members of Dinosauria are not. Thus, for an opening sentence, I would suggest, "Dinosaurs are a diverse group of extinct animals comprising most of the clade Dinosauria." Then, after mentioning that birds are a member of the clade, never say "non-avian dinosaur" again, since dinosaurs (not dinosauria) are by definition, not birds. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
What would a "lay definition" entail? If you're going by what people "expect", I clearly remember Dimetrodon from my childhood dinosaur books. Should it be included? What about the Dinocephalia? They were big enough to fit within common expectations of what dinosaurs are, but again, they aren't. Simply excluding information because it isn't what people expect is doing the opposite of what we're supposed to - what's the point of an encyclopaedia that simply reinforces people's preexisting misconceptions? Guettarda (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
"so scientifically they're the same, but outside of biology,..." You may want to see Dinosaurs in popular culture for any depictions of the animals outside of biology. You're talking about dinosaurs as a concept within American or Western culture, not an actual science topic. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
My main point is that the phrase "non-avian" dinosaur is not necessary in any context, since pretty much everyone (including scientists) will assume that birds are excluded when using the word dinosaur. You in fact need to do the opposite, specifically say that you're including birds when you are. Of course, part of this is the ongoing conflict between the evolutionary tree classification system versus others, such as whether to also call birds reptiles. The bird and reptile articles both mention this school of thought and abandon it mostly for the rest of the article, and that's what I'm suggesting here. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Ego White Tray is correct, the "non-avian dinosaur" is clonky, pushy and largely unnecessary. We all agree how the phylogeny looks, we all understand what dinosaur in the traditional meaning means. Just because dino studies happens to be the home turf of the phylo-code posse, does not mean we have to push their peculiarities at all corners. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
It's the very fact that paleontologists use precise language that means we need to use it here. Not up to us to corrupt that language just because we think its clunky. deBivort14:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Most of our readers are not paleontologists. Most of our readers had no idea that biologists list birds as dinosaurs until they read this article - and, BTW, that includes most readers that know birds evolved from dinosaurs. We don't need to use pedantic technical terminology when writing for a clearly non-pedantic non-technical audience. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
If you're right that most readers don't know that birds are dinosaurs (they are not merely "listed" that way) then all the more reason to emphasize this in the language. Adding to words: "non-avian" to the word dinosaur here and there doesn't make the article pedantic or unclear. deBivort04:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Let's not beat around the bush here, Gents. There's a strong majority of people working on this article (and in the dinosaur studies in general) who very much want to see a change in the way the term "dinosaur" is used and understood by the public, and have found Wikipedia to be a suitable tool for their agenda. Several of the present debatants has said as much in earlier discussions on this topic. I just happen to be on the other side in this. This is all fine and dandy, but I would encourage you Gents to at least be open about this agenda.
The simple matter of the fact is that you are wrong. Usage on wikipedia depends on reliable sources. In this case, reliable sources are the scientific paleontological literature. To the extent that some of us prefer precise language, it's because we like following wikipedia's agenda, not our own. deBivort16:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
From an external POV, people understanding the term "dinosaur" as including birds is probably in the per mil range or less among English speakers. Scientifically there is no problem using the term either way, as long as one is clear about how the term is used. Since we have debated this before I know I'm wasting my time arguing my points here, though. Just be honest about what you're doing, will you? Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
When there is a clarity vs readability issue, then yes. As long as things are expressed in a way that do not introduce confusion, there is really no need to be pedantic. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, let's include lizards, pterosaurs and ichthyosaurs, because most people think they all are dinosaurs. Ego, Petter, are you agreed? This is, after all, what you wanted.... HMallison (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Too much heat, here; and the "agenda" comments are a bit over the top. The phrase "non-avian" occurs only eleven times in this rather large article, including once in the references. Firsfron of Ronchester16:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Ego White Tray and Petter Bøckman, just in case someone thinks that there's a consensus on the other side of this debate.
Owen introduced the term "Dinosauria" in a paper addressed to a scientific audience, turning it loose for the scientific community to refine and alter according to scientific norms. At the same time, Owen introduced the term "dinosaur" in popular lectures, releasing that term into the public sphere, to undergo change — or not — according to the patterns of linguistic evolution that govern vernacular terms.
In the subsequent evolution of the words, the meaning of the vernacular "dinosaur" has stayed quite close to Owen's original conception. A dinosaur is a "formidable reptile"; sparrows are not particularly formidable and they are not, in any ordinary sense, reptiles. To my knowledge, Owen never thought that Archaeopteryx might be a dinosaur, though he made a careful study of the British fossil. Meanwhile, a taste for monophyly (not shared by the general public) has led to a shift in the meaning of the scientific term "Dinosauria", leading many scientists to include the birds in the taxon.
Many of the comments above presuppose that birds are, indeed, dinosaurs. I refer in particular to the remarks of HMallison, Guettarda, and Abyssal. If this is accepted and uncontroversial, then it is certainly appropriate for Wikipedia articles to say so and inappropriate for them to make statements inconsistent with this thesis. I reject this view, however. Given what "dinosaur" actually means, a matter dependent on popular use, birds are not dinosaurs.
Reliable sources? I submit that Le Musée des Dinosaures d’Espéraza is a reliable source. Nowhere on their large website do they include birds among the dinosaurs. On the contrary, they say here that there was a major evolutionary transition from dinosaurs to birds, a claim that entails that they are different groups.
Guettarda does raise a point that is not easily answered: given that many people do think that Dimetrodon was a dinosaur, must we agree that the extension of the term includes dimetrodons? This is an aspect of a deep philosophical issue, one that much concerned the philosopher Donald Davidson: if, as is plausible, meaning is to be assigned to terms so as to make statements come out true, how can any be false? Some rule of coherence is needed to explain this. A relevant point, I think, is that a rational person who thinks that Dimetrodon is a dinosaur would quickly abandon that view if informed that Dimetrodon lived before a substantial period (Olson's gap, in the Roadian and Wordian stages of the Middle Permian) when there were no large terrestrial vertebrates, and that the standard dinosaurs like Stegosaurus and Tyrannosaurus rex lived well after this interval. No simple presentation of a fact, in contrast, would easily convince a rational layman that birds are dinosaurs.
As far as dimetrodon, we shouldn't include it as a dinosaur, but we should probably work into the article that it is often incorrectly called one. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
My French leaves some to be desired. Do they include a definition of dinosaur anywhere? If not, trying to infer how they use the term probably falls afoul of NOR. Guettarda (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The text describes an exhibit at the museum devoted to major evolutionary transitions. It reports that one of them is "une grande étape ou transition. . .des dinosaures aux oiseaux", a major step or transition from dinosaurs to birds. I don't think that I'm "trying to infer" anything, I'm just relaying what they say. Peter Brown (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The ten references that de Bivort provides offer little support for the view that birds are included in the scope of the term "dinosaur". Were this true, one would expect this usage to be reflected in all of them, but it is not. Only two, the UCMP and Discover Magazine, come out and say that birds are dinosaurs; the others say only that birds are descended from dinosaurs. On the basis of this limited sample of usage, the use of "dinosaur" in these two articles must accordingly be regarded as atypical. The Science article does include birds in Dinosauria, but this is wholly compatible with my argument.
I fail to see why the Espéraza museum is a "sad source" or why it is in any way inferior to the UCMP as regards its specialty, dinosaurs. Its president is Eric Buffetaut, a CNRS research director and a hugely prolific writer of paleontology papers in major journals, including more than a dozen in Nature. His papers have been cited more than 2000 times in the last five years.
Most importantly, though, none of the links de Bivort provides are to sources that claim reliability as to word meanings. For that, one goes to a dictionary. The definitions of "dinosaur" from both the Collins English Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary, both of which are based on large usage databases, can be found in dictionary.com. Both include "extinct" as part of the definition.
So, your concern is not that the 11 instances of "non-avian dinosaur" in this article are contradictory, but instead that they are redundant? If that's your only complaint, then perhaps you should accept that as a compromise nod to the consensus opinion of experts. The other 446 uses of "dinosaur" on its own can reflect the usage by laypeople and dictionary.com. deBivort19:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way. Please don't think that list was exhaustive. That's just what I whipped up in a few minutes of googling. Here are some other links that say, explicitly, that birds are dinosaurs [2][3][4][5][6][7] etc etc etc. deBivort19:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
There is certainly a movement afoot, represented by your links, to alter usage so that the meaning of "dinosaur" includes birds. Such a project, founded on scientific advances, can succeed. The term "planet" now includes the earth but not the moon; before Copernicus, it was the other way around. "Fish" does not include whales. "Reptile" does not include frogs. If your movement succeeds, "dinosaur" will include birds. I have no objection to your promoting this change in an appropriate forum, but Wikipedia, being nonpartisan, should not participate.
You write of "the consensus opinion of experts." Where word meaning is concerned, the experts are lexicographers. I have cited two dictionaries as representing a consensus that "dinosaur" excludes extant animals. Perhaps you can persuade me and other readers of this thread that this is a fringe position. Given the stature of the American Heritage Dictionary, though, you will find this difficult.
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree that when it comes to an article about dinosaurs, the best authority is dictionary writers, rather than paleontologists. deBivort01:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
There's more to the world than science. Accept that. BTW, humans also evolved from reptiles, but hardly anyone calls us reptiles. The dinosaur/bird thing is pretty similar. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a science topic article. Reptiles are defined paraphyletically. Mammals and Aves are excluded definitionally. Not true for Dinosaurs, which in the scientific literature (the only thing that matters, as this is an article about the scientific concept), are defined a clade. A better example would be Pluto - when the scientific consensus changed from Pluto being a planet to Pluto being a dwarf planet, the article was changed to reflect that. deBivort04:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)File:Rubber Duck.jpg"Dinosaur" toy circa 2050?
The meaning of vernacular terms is dictated by common usage, though, and can change. I don't think it likely, but perhaps the public can be persuaded to use "dinosaur" to refer to a group that includes birds. If it becomes quite natural for a clerk to pull out a rubber ducky when a store customer asks to see dinosaur toys, then the dictionaries will change, Wikipedia will refer to members of Dinosauria that are not included in Aves as "non-avian dinosaurs", and this whole problem will go away. Peter Brown (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd just like to apologize for my last post. I have discussed this on a number of occasions, it does not bring out the best in me, which is why I largely leave this article alone.
The term "planet" in the case of Pluto and "dinosaur" in the case of birds are not as comparable as it might look on the surface. The term planet started out as lay term, later to become a scientific term, the term dinosaur did the opposite. The number of planets in the solar system is relatively small, a classification convention is not really necessary to keep track of who is whom. There are on the other hand thousands of birds species and around a thousand named dinosaur species too, classification is clearly relevant. The classification of planets are governed by the International Astronomical Union, who are universally recognized as the proper authority in astronomical classification, no comparable authority exist to govern the dinosaur issue. The result is that while phylogenetic definition of dinosaurs as a clade have been used and tried imposed in the public with limited success for decades, the status of Pluto was ruled on and subsequently and accepted by the majority of the public. Clearly, the example of Pluto is only distantly related.
Ego White Tray argued that the this article should drop using the "non-avian dinosaur" terminology, as the general understanding of the term "dinosaur" is as the traditional grade, not as a clade. Peter Brown has given excellent sources to support Ego White Tray's argument, and has also given examples showing that the traditional use extend into the circles of workers in the field themselves. Personally, I would ad that the "Featured article" status was awarded this article some time ago, before the changeover to the current cladist terminology, so that the article clearly was good enough with the more traditional use of the term.
With dinosaurs, we are in a situation where the term as used by most workers in the field do not match the general understanding. This is obviously a problem we should deal with. There are a number of ways this could be solved, and we should be able to discuss these rationally. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I find this hysterical. We're literally arguing about whether or not to use terminology in the article correctly or whether to knowingly use it in an inaccurate, misleading way that helps lend support to popular religiously motivated pseudosciences. Wonderful. Abyssal (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not hysterical, it's common logic. Every dictionary on Earth defines dinosaurs as an extinct group of animals, so it's not inaccurate to say that. So, if we actually respect the reliable sources known as dictionaries, we might open with "Dinosaurs are a group of extinct animals and the ancestors of modern birds." - then later, have a name section that points out the paleontologist versus everyone one else on Earth dispute, including the distinction between Dinosauria (which includes birds) and dinosaur (which never does) Ego White Tray (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Expanding: "Paleontologists prefer to define life based on the evolutionary tree. Under such a system, a clade includes a group of animals as well as every animal that evolved from that group. Under such a system, modern birds are classed as dinosaurs, since birds are dinosaurs evolutionary descendants. When intending to exclude modern birds, paleontologists use the term non-avian dinosaurs while most of the general public simply says dinosaurs." I would say that there should not be a single mention of non-avian until after an explanation like this is provided. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Some facts
Seeing the temperature of this debate, I think we could benefit by at least agreeing to some basic facts, so that we have a common ground to build agreement on. I'll start with some suggestions, feel free to disagree:
1.) The overwhelming majority of palaeontologists working with dinosaurs uses the Dinosauria to denote a clade (i.e. including birds). I believe this should be uncontroversial.
2.) The overwhelming majority of people outside dinosaur palaeontology uses the term "dinosaur" and even "Dinosauria" as a traditional grade, excluding birds. I believe this too is uncontroversial.
3.) The use of phylogenetic nomenclature in general is ubiquitous in dinosaur palaeontology, but less common in other branches of palaeontology and even more so in biology. This too should be uncontroversial.
Then, there are some less obvious points, that are more open to interpretation:
4.) The only reason to use the term dinosaur as a clade is to comply with phylogenetic nomenclature.
5.) The term "dinosaur" was used as a grade in palaeontology for decades, without causing confusion.
6.) There is a concerted effort by a subgroup of dinosaur palaeontologists wishing to impose a new understanding of the term "dinosaur" on the public.
7.) The phylogeny of birds relative to the dinosaur grade is well understood and can be expressed clearly and succinctly using either phylogenetic or more traditional ways of expressing it.
8.) The meaning of common words like "dinosaur" is dictated by usage, and is not governed by science.
9.) While phylogenetics is a science, taxonomy is not. Thus taxonomy is only "right" or "wrong" relative to the constructed (i.e non-scientific) internal logic of the taxonomic rules.
As long as we can remember these facts I think we can discuss this civilly without resorting to accusing each other of hidden agendas or lending support to crationism. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Your three uncontroversial statements are basically fine, but I have issues with almost everything else you've said, starting with statement 4. Actually, I'd say the biggest reason to define Dinosauria phylogenetically, especially as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is because that's how every reliable source does it.
Five also has issues because there have been plenty of stupid arguments over whether or not individual bird-like animals are birds or dinosaurs to cause confusion. Of course there'd still be similar arguments under phylogenetic systematics, but at least those discussions would be regarding meaningful questions like "is animal x deeply nested enough within Dinosauria to fall under Aves?" versus "should animal X be classified under completely subjective designation Y or completely subjective designation Z?".
Statement six is even more ridiculous. You're framing the basic dissemination of science as some kind of right-wing anti-intellectual conspiracy theory. Like people are saying "those liberal elitists in the university are trying to force us to use a different definition of the word dinosaur". Really it's more like "dinosaur paleontologists generally are trying to inform the general public regarding advances in the field".
7: I'm not sure I agree that it's possible to discuss the matter "clearly", using the traditional framework, but I suppose it can get the basic gist across.
Statement 8 is just plain wrong. No. Absolutely not.
Statement 9: Sure, but there's the small matter of how logical that internal logic is and how well it corresponds to objective reality. Not to mention that as far as Wikipedia is concerned there's the matter of what classification is actually used by reliable sources. Abyssal (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if "and even more so in biology" is meant to indicate that phylogenetic nomenclature is: a) even less commonly (than in other fields of paleontology) in biology or b) more ubiquitous (than in dinosaur paleontology) in biology. Both are more or less wrong. Phylogenetic nomenclature is completely accepted in fields such as cell biology and neuroscience (though not invoked that much for obvious reasons). It is equally used in biology, broadly speaking, as it is in dinosaur paleontology. deBivort15:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Let me add another couple facts, that I don't think should be controversial, but probably are anyway:
10) Dinosaur is not a scientific term, while the clade name dinosauria is.
11) The general public will quickly adopt a new scientific meaning if it intuitively makes sense.
Regards to 11, Pluto has major obvious differences from the eight planets so reclassifying it made intuitive sense to the general public. On the other hand, birds have major obvious differences from extinct dinosaurs, so it makes no sense to the general public to classify them the same. This is why the general public universally rejects this definition, and the public will probably never accept it no matter what. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
12) Wikipedia does not write articles for the benefit of experts or specialists - This basic fact is important enough to bold. It pretty much trumps all the "birds are dinosaurs" arguments which only experts and specialists will accept. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Regards to 11, Pluto has major obvious differences from the eight planets so reclassifying it made intuitive sense to the general public. On the other hand, birds have major obvious differences from extinct dinosaurs, so it makes no sense to the general public to classify them the same. This is why the general public universally rejects this definition. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
With regards to 10, the term "dinosaur" has always meant "member of Dinosauria", both formally and informally, and if Dinosauria is now regarded as a clade including birds then birds are dinosaurs, formally or otherwise. I also disagree with 11. The general public gets sentimental and generally resents having to update their worldview after their school days are finished. Pluto is not an exception to this, people still complain about its reclassification. If anything I've heard much fewer complaints about the inclusion of Aves within Dinosauria, although there is a bit of confusion as to why in modern paleontology "birds are descended from dinosaurs" means that "birds are dinosaurs". The widespread confusion makes it all the more important to emphasize the scientific consensus in the article. Twelve is ridiculous. Writing for nonspecialists changes the way facts are communicated not the nature of the facts themselves. Abyssal (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I have to concur with #12. I don't see that statement in WP:What Wikipedia is not, but it would certainly fit right in. Also, "birds are descended from dinosaurs" does not mean "birds are dinosaurs" any more than "snakes are descended from lizards" means "snakes are lizards". Further, since "dinosaur" refers to an extinct collection of animals while there are living members of Dinosauria, the two are not synonymous.
#8 needs some qualification. The first clause is certainly correct; the meaning of all words, not just common ones, is governed by usage. That can easily be sourced from the philosophical literature. The second clause, that the meaning of common words like "dinosaur" is not governed by science, is too vague; what words are common and, within that collection, which are like "dinosaur"? Though "virus" is a common word, a layman will generally be unable to explain the difference between viruses and bacteria and will quickly defer to an expert who calls a disease viral rather than bacterial.
Hilary Putnam has introduced an important concept, relevant here, which he calls the "division of linguistic labor".(Putnam 1975) As an example, he uses the concept of gold. It is far from esoteric; people have been using the idea comfortably for many centuries. Only a small minority, however, know either a sufficient condition for a metal's being gold or a necessary condition that is not satisfied by other metals. The majority's concept is not defective, however, so long as people either have experts available who do know these conditions or else rely on others who have such access. "Child" is the opposite case; though we can err in determining whether someone is a child, we have firm criteria that do not depend on criteria formulated by experts.
Othnielosaurus consors
"Dinosaur" is in between. So many people will readily identify a stegosaurus as a dinosaur that its inclusion in the scope of the term does not, today, require that experts be consulted. Likewise, the popular understanding is sufficient to rule out crabs and pigeons. Othnielosaurus will be more troublesome. Its body shape is dinosaurian, but dinosaurs are usually thought of as large animals; could an animal less than a meter high be a dinosaur? Here, the dependence on experts comes in. It is a dinosaur, not because it fits comfortably within popular preconceptions, but because the experts say so. Pterosaurs are another example; since the public is divided as to whether they are birds or flying dinosaurs, expert opinion is required.
Meaning is indeed determined by usage, but usage must be understood in a broad social context that sometimes involves reliance on experts.
Reference: Putnam, Hilary (1975), "The meaning of 'meaning' ", Mind, Language, and Reality, ISBN0521206685.
All that matters is what reliable sources say. There are abundant sources saying 1) birds evolved from dinosaurs and 2) birds are dinosaurs. Case closed. deBivort19:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Abyssal, I'm glad we can agree on the three first points, I'll answer the rest in turn.
4) I've not come to Wikipedia yet, I take it we agree on the use of Dinosauria as a clade in dinosaur palaeontology is to comply with phylogenetic nomenclature?
5) Exactly where very birdlike animals belong inside or outside a set marker in the phylogenetic tree (in this case “Aves”) is a phylogenetic and thus scientific question, the choice of classification has no other bearing on the question other than where the marker stands. The only real difference in this case is that the phylogenetic nomenclature marker as you move up the branch reads “Now entering Aves”, while the Linnaean ones read “Now entering Aves, leaving Reptilia”.
6) I've never claimed the proponents of phylogenetic nomenclature are a cult working in secret and wearing funny hats and having some nefarious reasons. You being one of them though, I do maintain that the proponents of phylogenetic nomenclature wishes to impose a new understanding of the term “dinosaur” on the public, you just said so yourself. If you want other examples of the same, go brows the PhyloCode forum.
7) I fail to see how “birds evolved from dinosaurs” is any less clear than “birds are dinosaurs”. The expressed phylogeny is identical.
8) Peter Brown has already answered this question, I'd just like to clarify that I did not intend to say that science is without role in determining meaning, only that it it but one of several factors influencing usage.
I do not intend to bring up Wikipedia policies yet. Interpreting loosely worded rules is hard enough as it is, no need to go there until we at least agree on the basic facts. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Talk pages are for discussing articles, and their improvement, not the topic generally, so let's get to the nuts and bolts of what you're proposing to do to the article. deBivort21:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Debivort's right, this is getting a bit philosophical and tangled. I'll second her invitation to hear specific proposals and their justification. Abyssal (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
A fair challenge! Ego, you started this thread, are you really prepared to undertake the task?
The first sentence of the lead reads, "Dinosaurs are a diverse group of animals of the cladeDinosauria." You need to add, "a group that also includes birds".
The second sentence says that "the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event led to the extinction of most dinosaur groups". You need to make that "the extinction of the dinosaurs".
The third sentence says that "avian dinosaurs - more commonly known as birds - evolved from theropod dinosaurs". That needs to be changed to "birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs".
And so forth and so on, through an article of over ten thousand words. If we can reach agreement on the philosophy, are you prepared to do the work? I'm not sure that I'm prepared to take on the project. Unless someone is willing, though, de Bivort is right, this whole discussion is inappropriate.
We had done so for the German Wikipedias Article, because the German translation of "non-avian dinosaur" is quite rough. Its a catastrophe. It had caused so much confusion, common readers wondering what the term "dinosaur" in the article actually means. The leading and infobox says "birds are included", and on the other hand the leading says "dinosaurs went extinct for 66 Mya", thats just contradicting. In the German Wikipedia, we soon hat to add five additional sentences in the leading explaining that if the article uses the term dinosaur, it will not include birds, because in common usage … and so on. It was a bad solution, because not everyone reads the leading. Usage of the term "non-avian dinosaur" is the best solution even in a practical way. I will use that term when I rework the German article next time. Your proposals are just not feasible, and unnecessary. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Back to number 12, of course we write all our articles for non-specialists. Any paleontologist who learns something new from this article should be promptly fired. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Five sentences, Jens? I'm thinking we should add an entire section, the first after the lead, discussing the disagreement as to nomenclature, including a note, like yours, that the rest of the article won't include birds among the dinosaurs. The taxobox would have a "ghost" bar in the Cenozoic representing the birds, and its text would explain. We en.wikipedians can do it if the de.wikipedians did! Any major snags we should anticipate?
Proposal 1 is fine. Proposals 2 and 3 contradict proposal 1, as well as the many reliable sources I linked. I support #1 and oppose 2 and 3. deBivort16:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Reliable sources are certainly needed! Petter, can you provide reliable secondary or tertiary sources supporting your "uncontroversial" facts #1, #2, and #3? They can form the basis of a new section on nomenclature. Peter Brown (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
If majority of current reliable sources use "dinosaur" s a grade, it would justify making separate articles for Dinosaur and Dinosauria (same goes for, say, Mammal vs. Mammalia, Human vs. Homo sapiens, Aves vs. Bird, etc.). If not, keep the things together and mention the different usages in one article. I have no idea why there is so much argument about this other than the fact that some people do not like the current consensus (which is why old and minority references are now and have always been the only ones brought to bear in these discussions). Seriously, this is a dead horse. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
As for the "uncontroversial claims":
1.) The overwhelming majority of palaeontologists working with dinosaurs uses the Dinosauria to denote a clade (i.e. including birds). I believe this should be uncontroversial. Agree
2.) The overwhelming majority of people outside dinosaur palaeontology uses the term "dinosaur" and even "Dinosauria" as a traditional grade, excluding birds. I believe this too is uncontroversial. Why would we use sources from outside dinosaur paleontology for an article about dinosaurs?
3.) The use of phylogenetic nomenclature in general is ubiquus in dinosaur palaeontology, but less common in other branches of palaeontology and even more so in biology. This too should be uncontroversial. Agree, but again, how is this applicable?
The argument here seems to be that while including birds among dinosaurs is uncontroversial among dinosaur paleontologists, it is not widely known about and/or widely used outside that field. To this I would say--so what? Aren't non-dinosaur paleontology sources less relevant than dinosaur paleontology sources? Why should an article about dinosaur paleontology be primarily informed by cultural factors when we already have a separate article on Cultural depictions of dinosaurs?
A point I've made in the past and still stand by is that dinosaurs are so diverse any way you define them, it should not matter one bit whether or not birds are included. Any statement that applies to all non-avian dinosaur,s other than the sole fact hat they're extinct, MUST also apply to birds. If there's a statement in this article that applies to sauropods but not ceratopsids, it should be deleted. If there's a statement in this article that applies to Deinonychus but not Archaeopteryx, it should be deleted. If there's a statement in this article that applies to Archaeopteryx but not ostriches, it should be deleted. Again, this will result in a basically identical article whether or not birds are included. There are uncontroversial non-avialan dinosaurs practically identical to avian dinosaurs in anatomy. So why is this even an issue? MMartyniuk (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
". . .dinosaurs are so diverse any way you define them, it should not matter one bit whether or not birds are included." Perhaps it should not, but it does. This article about an ornithischian, for example, claims to report "the first trace and body fossil evidence of burrowing behaviour in a dinosaur" although a number of birds, sand martins for example, are burrowers. The authors are not including birds among the dinosaurs, and it matters.
We cannot responsibly discuss dinosaurs without discussing the ambiguity in the term. Since birds are adequately covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, and since readers who type "dinosaur" in the search box will seldom be concerned with birds, it makes sense, here, to restrict attention to the members of Dinosauria that are not birds, a restriction in accord with a common meaning of "dinosaur". Mention of the other prominent use, of course, is necessary. Peter Brown (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I read that title as emphasizing trace and body fossil evidence of burrowing. I.e. this is the first [fossil evidence] of burrowing, not the first [evidence] of burrowing in a dinosaur. First could also refer to chronology, i.e. the oldest evidence of burrowing. Moreover, the second sentence after the abstract uses the term "nonavian dinosaur" - they clearly approve of that term! deBivort23:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the authors seem rather indifferent as to whether to say "nonavian": dinosaur, nonavian dinosaur, same thing, but excluding the birds in either case. Surely, they can't mean that there is no prior evidence of burrowing! Earlier work established that Thrinaxodon burrowed. Peter Brown (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Martin: There are a number of things that apply to dinosaurs, but not birds. Most dinosaurs were big animals for instance. Their metabolism seems to have been below that of modern birds (old Archaeopteryx having a slower, more reptilian growth pattern), they were all terrestrial etc. So yes, there's a lot of things to be said about dinosaurs. If we look through the current article and remove all stuff involving birds, it's plenty left. Also, I'd say the majority of dinosaur (clade) researchers actually use the term dinosaur in the traditional/common sense. Ornithologists do as far as I know outnumber dinosaur palaeontologists by a good margin, and in those quarters "birds evolved from dinosaurs" is the common way of expressing things. I guess the reason is that the phylogeny of birds are more relevant to dinosaurs palaeontologists than it is to ornithologists, in that birds are very much alive and can be studied in the flesh.
Congratulation on your book BTW, just saw it on Amazone!
The older version of this article, the one who was nominated and accepted as a feature article, had the scope that Ego White Tray suggests. Clearly, a good article can be made on along these lines. The current suggestion is actually to improve the article, though I am sure some of you feel such a change will diminish it's value.
Worst case scenario is to split the articles into (e.g.) Dinosauria (clade) and Dinosaur. To my mind, that would have be a failure to the central idea of Wikipedia, but it would solve the current disagreement.Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Splitting would be without value. The very proposal would engender even more conflict, if it is even seriously considered. What would the content be? People go to the Dinosaur article to find out about dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus, Apatosaurus, and Stegosaurus and to learn of other dinosaurs that they haven't heard of, so that information should be in that article. What is left for the Dinosauria (clade) article to say?
Petter, you haven't responded to my question about reliable secondary or tertiary sources supporting your "uncontroversial" facts #1, #2, and #3. Can you think of any? Peter Brown (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
That the version of the article that was promoted to FA did not use the term "non-avian" seems rather irrelevant. Articles need to be updated to reflect new information and reliable sources. If anything, the article should be demoted from FA status if it doesn't reflect the sources, rather than reverted to incomplete/inaccurate FA versions. deBivort23:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I hope you don't think I'm confused about birds having evolved from dinosaurs! What reliable sources say now that they might not have when the article achieved FA status (2006), is that birds are dinosaurs. 11 out of 12 of the birds-are-dinosaur sources I provided are newer than that. deBivort00:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
What I think Petter is saying is that nothing relevant has changed since 2006, nothing except that a certain way of speaking ("birds are dinosaurs") has become more fashionable in certain circles. Not more accurate; more fashionable. Sources that were reliable in 2006 are reliable now; research since then does not bear, not in the slightest, on the question at hand. The issue is whether humans use the word "dinosaur" to refer to a clade. At most, your references support the notion that more humans use the word that way now than did in 2006, but this is only a shift in linguistic practice, not a more accurate understanding of anything that went on in the Mesozoic. It is not an advance in paleontology and does not need to be reflected in a paleontological article. Peter Brown (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
"nothing relevant has changed since 2006, nothing except that a certain way of speaking ("birds are dinosaurs") has become more fashionable in certain circles." Hmmm... I really disagree, here, Peter. One thing has absolutely changed since 2006: the number of genera linking dinosaurs to birds, and vice versa. In 2006, the number of dinosaur genera was around 900. Today, it's 1,403 (I know because I added several hundred of them to the List of dinosaurs myself, starting in 2006). Many of the new discoveries are theropods linking non-avian dinosaurs to avian dinosaurs, blending them together. Additionally, many Avialans have been described since 2006, reinforcing the bird-dinosaur link. It's not that "it's become fashionable", it's that our understanding of the relationship has solidified. It absolutely is an advance in paleontology: the description of hundreds of new theropods, enantiornithes, euornithes, confuciusornithids, avebrevicaudans, and the discovery of quills, feather attachments, feather down, etc, since 2006, only reinforce that change in understanding. Take a look at how Utahraptorwas illustrated in 2006. No wings; no feathers; pronated, "bunny-style" hands. The Oxford University Museum of Natural History was displaying this model as recently as June 2006. Take a look at the article today. Clearly, scientists' understanding of these animals has changed, even since 2006. Firsfron of Ronchester04:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
While I've got your attention, I'd like to invite you (Peter, Petter, and Ego) to join WP:DINO. While there have been some disagreements on this page, the fact of the matter is, the disagreement is over a few instances of "non-avian dinosaur". All three of you can write persuasively and intelligently, a commodity often in short supply on WP. You also have the ability to do solid online research, as your above arguments show. We have several hundred sub-stub articles on various dinosaurian taxa which are in dire need of expansion by intelligent writers (especially sourcing), and I'd like to formally invite all three of you to the project. I understand, of course, if this disagreement has soured you on the project, but I hope that is not the case. Firsfron of Ronchester05:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I overstated the case. I do believe that "fashionable" is the correct term although, as you point out, there have been some advances that may underlie the shift in fashion. Thank you for the correction.
Firsfron: are you suggesting that the the new genera coming to light since 2006 has in some way changed the view on where birds evolved from? ar you seriously suggesting that as of (e.g.) 2005 there were some doubt in the pal.vert. community the birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs? New finds have mapped out the transition in some detail, but they have confirmed the general picture, not changed it. What has changed is our understanding of the evolution of feather, and that happened well before 2006. Bad reconstructions are just that, bad reconstructions. They knew they were off the mark when making Jurassic Park in 1993. Notice this children's colouring book Dromeosaurus from 2003, it's not like the idea of feathers were unknown. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Revised opening
Here my suggestion for a revised opening based on conversations above:
Dinosaurs are a diverse group of animals of the clade Dinosauria. They first appeared during the Triassic period, approximately 230 million years ago, and were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for 135 million years, from the beginning of the Jurassic (about 200 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous (65.5 million years ago), when the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event led to the extinction of most dinosaur groups at the close of the Mesozoic Era. The fossil record indicates that avian dinosaurs - more commonly known as birds - evolved from theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic Period, and consequently they are considered a subgroup of dinosaurs in modern classification systems. Some avian dinosaursbird-like dinosaurs survived the extinction event that occurred 65 million years ago, and their descendants continue the dinosaur lineage to the present day.
Dinosaurs are a varied group of animals from taxonomic, morphological and ecological standpoints. Birds, which evolved from dinosaurs and include'at over 9,000 living species, are the most diverse group of vertebrates besides perciform fish. Using fossil evidence, paleontologists have identified over 500 distinct genera and more than 1,000 different species of non-avian dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are represented on every continent by both extant species and fossil remains. Some wereare herbivorous, others carnivorous. Most dinosaurs have been bipedal, though many extinct groups included quadrupedal species, and some were able to shift between these body postures. Many species possess elaborate display structures such as horns or crests, and some prehistoric groups developed skeletal modifications such as bony armor and spines. Birds have been the planet's dominant flying vertebrate since the extinction of the pterosaurs, and evidence suggests that egg laying and nest building is a trait shared by allboth dinosaurs and birds. While many prehistoric dinosaurs were large animals—the largest sauropods could reach lengths of almost 60 meters (200 feet) and were several stories tall—the idea that non-avian dinosaurs were uniformly gigantic is a misconception based on preservation bias; many ancient species were nearly as small as birds are today.
Although the word dinosaur means "terrible lizard", the name is somewhat misleading, as dinosaurs are not lizards. Rather, they represent a separate group of reptiles with a distinct upright posture not found in lizards, and many extinct forms did not exhibit traditional reptilian characteristics. Through the first half of the 20th century, before birds were recognized to be dinosaurshave evolved from dinosaurs, most of the scientific community believed dinosaurs to be sluggish and cold-blooded. Most research conducted since the 1970s, however, has indicated that ancient dinosaurs, particularly the carnivorous groups, were active animals with elevated metabolisms and numerous adaptations for social interaction.
As you can see above, the changes that would be required (noted by italics for new text and strikethrough for removed text) would be minimal and have pretty much zero effect on the actual content of the article. Then, change the "etymology" section to a "name" section, and add a section about the clade versus group debate there - or move the paragraph about this in the "description" section up there. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
oppose counter to numerous reliable sources which indicate that birds are dinosaurs. Reflects outdated or inaccurate terminology. An example of inaccuracy: "bird-like dinosaurs survived the extinction..." Birds have existed since the Jurassic! deBivort17:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
agree with minor reservations. That birds have existed since the Jurassic is totally irrelevant to a claim about survival into the Cenozoic. What the reliable sources do indicate is that birds have dinosaur ancestors and thus are part of the clade Dinosauria. de Bivort has cited writers who express this fact by saying that birds are dinosaurs, a way of putting the matter that is fashionable in some circles, though this locution is not so much in vogue as to prohibit others, like Varricchio et al. (2007) cited above, from using "dinosaur" in a sense that excludes birds. (I believe that I have successfully defended my interpretation of their usage.) Of the available locutions, preference should be given the one that answers most directly to the reason typical readers come to the Dinosaur article rather than engaging in a partisan campaign to alter common linguistic practice. Peter Brown (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Two things: 1) relevance of birds having evolved in the Jurassic: "bird-like dinosaurs survived" is misleading; "birds survived" is correct, as birds already existed at that point. The proposed term "bird-like dinosaurs" is consistent with the scientific consensus that birds are dinosaurs, but is redundant and bad style. 2) As I said above Varricchio et al. (2007) use the very term you want to get rid of. As scientists and experts in the field, they subscribe to my perspective, not yours. Please try to find another source if you can. deBivort18:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the text should say "birds survived"; that is one of my "minor reservations". Since "dinosaur" really has become ambiguous among paleontologists, researchers like Varricchio do have to use "non-avian" to make themselves clear to those who include birds among the dinosaurs. It is very significant, though, that the qualification is not made in the paper's abstract; apparently they expect the typical specialist reader to share their meaning of "dinosaur" without that restriction. An even better example is Butler et al. (2011); in the title, the abstract, and the introductory discussion, the authors use "dinosaur" freely in a sense that excludes birds. Only in the results section does "non-avian" pop up. One who comes to the article expecting "dinosaur" to be used in a sense that includes birds will need to adjust expectations when reading these sections, a burden that the author and the journal have reason to refrain from imposing on the typical reader. Peter Brown (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
References that use the term "non-avian dinosaurs" will never make your case that birds aren't dinosaurs. Numerous reliable sources say "birds are dinosaurs." If you can find a current, reliable source that says "birds aren't dinosaurs" then we can consider the next round of criteria for inclusion, such as WP:WEIGHT. Until then, I don't see how any modifications are justified. deBivort20:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
"A dictionary is reliable." What the heck is a [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bird-footed+dinosaur "bird-footed dinosaur"? I think they mean "bird-hipped"... but then why define them as "theropods", as they do in the definition? The Theropoda are saurischians, not ornithischians. Here's a great example of why we can't really rely on dictionaries in this topic: they're outdated, they often mirror each others' content, and they occasionally contain some content that was, as is the case with "Bird-footed dinosaur", never correct. Be careful about making assumptions about dictionaries in this topic area. (The same can be said about making assumptions about museum displays, below). Firsfron of Ronchester21:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Firs, if you don't know what the heck a bird-footed dinosaur is, it isn't really fair to assume that the dictionary means something that would render the entry inconsistent. The description in Nature by Xu et al. (2009) of the theropod Limusaurus inextricabilis was picked up here in the National Science Foundation News which, along with other popular sources, called it a bird-footed dinosaur. Since the emphasis in both Nature and the popular sources was on the similarity of the manus of this theropod to that of birds, the characterization was entirely reasonable. Though dictionaries, like any other reliable sources, occasionally make mistakes, this is not what happened here. Peter Brown (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Peter, where to begin? The manus is the 'hand', not the foot. A pes is the foot. Your sentence indicates that, based on the similarity of the manus of a bird to a manus of a theropod, it's entirely appropriate to call a theropod a bird-footed dinosaur(!). Peter, you just haven't done the research to see the problems with what you're saying or the problems with the bigger proposal (which includes incorrect statements like "Some bird-like dinosaurs survived the extinction event that occurred 65 million years ago...", an error of millions of years. Paul (2002) erected the Avepoda ('"bird-footed" theropod' in Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds; he made it clear in that definition that it did not refer to all theropods, unlike the online dictionary definition, which definite it as "theropods". The term Ornithopoda ("bird-foot") refers to a different branch of Dinosauria. Firsfron of Ronchester19:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
If there is any problem with understanding a term ("bird-footed dinosaur" in this case), it should be assigned the meaning that makes the predominant sentences utilizing the term true (or at least believed by the users). We have on hand two sources, the dictionary you cite and NSF News, whose statements become true if "bird-footed dinosaur" is equivalent to "theropod" and not otherwise. You have suggested that "bird-footed dinosaur" is equivalent, rather, to "ornithischian". Can you produce any source indicating that anyone has ever used "bird-footed dinosaur" in that sense, a sentence that someone actually produced that requires the equivalence of the bird-footed dinosaurs with the ornithischians in order to be true? At most, you have offered a speculation that people who cannot tell feet from hips might use the term that way. We have two cases supporting the equivalence of bird-footed dinosaurs with theropods, admittedly an anemic sample, but much better than a sample of zero for the equivalence of bird-footed dinosaurs with ornithischians.
Yes, I am well aware what "manus" and "pes" mean, at least as applied to amniotes. (I have a bit of a problem with elpistostegalians.) I quite agree that "bird-footed dinosaur" is an illogical synonym for "theropod" and I do retract my claim that the equivalence is "reasonable". But usage in English, as in all natural languages, is often illogical! and it is the job of dictionaries to report meaning determined by usage as it actually occurs, not in some cleaned-up version. Would "bird-handed dinosaur" make more sense? Sure, but that's not a phrase anyone actually uses. Googling "bird-footed dinosaur", with the quotes, yields 129,000 hits; googling "bird-handed dinosaur" yields exactly zero. Like it or not, the former phrase — not the latter — is a synonym for "theropod", and the dictionary reflects that fact.
You seem to see a conflict between the dictionary's implication that "bird-footed dinosaur" refers to all theropods and the fact that "Avepoda" refers only to some. I don't see the difficulty.
I am not defending the claim that bird-like dinosaurs survived the end-Cretaceous extinction. Yes, that's wrong. I am concerned, here, only to rebut the claim that the treatment of "bird-footed dinosaur" is a good example of the unreliability of dictionaries.
"You have suggested that "bird-footed dinosaur" is equivalent, rather, to "ornithischian"."
What on earth?! That's not remotely what I suggested. No, I said "Ornithopod" means "bird-foot".
"Can you produce any source indicating that anyone has ever used "bird-footed dinosaur" in that sense, a sentence that someone actually produced that requires the equivalence of the bird-footed dinosaurs with the ornithischians in order to be true?"
If you mean ornithopod (and not ornithischian! Get your clades straight if you want to debate!), absolutely: from Ludvigsen, R (1996). Life in Stone: A Natural History of British Columbia's Fossils, UBC Press, page 143: "In a display of coal pebbles [...] was part of a single toe bone of an ornithopod, or bird footed, dinosaur". And from Dinosaurs of the World: Plateosaurus-Sauropelta, page 494: "He was able to identify the remains as those of an ornithopod (bird-footed dinosaur)." Less relevant are the Kingfisher Children's Encyclopedia [13] and similar tertiary sources.
It seems sort of silly to request citations for something which is uncontroversial: Ornithopoda, not 'Theropoda', means 'bird-foot'. The Ornithopoda weren't theropods (they belonged to an entirely different branch of the Dinosauria; I'm sure you understand that), and Avepoda also does not equate to Theropoda. The definition is wrong, as you must know by now: the only sources using that term to refer to theropods are mirrored online dictionary definitions and a solitary press release from 2009. Google searches pull up many hits because that incorrect content is mirrored infinitely. Firsfron of Ronchester00:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Your argument seems to boil down to: "ignore the primary and secondary scientific literature, follow dictionaries." Why again should we dismiss the writings of actual paleontologists? deBivort09:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't strawman me. I never said to dismiss paleontologist. You are demanding that we only respect the subset of paleontologists who agree with you and ignore everyone else. I'm saying that we explain the paleontological definition, but exclude birds for most of the articles. Respecting reliable sources requires respecting all of them, and not the biased set of them that you approve of. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your stance is completely unclear to me. I thought the point of this effort was to remove the term "non-avian dinosaur" from the article. In its current form, the term "non-avian dinosaur" appears 11 times, and the term "dinosaur" 457 times. We can infer that there are roughly 446 instances of the term "dinosaur" being used in a compatible way with your proposal, and dictionaries. Conversely there are only 11 times where the usage is specific to the numerous, current, reliable secondary sources that say birds are dinosaurs. It sounds like the article respects all sources, and if there is any bias, it is in your direction, not ours. deBivort21:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
oppose Removing/replacing phrases such as "birds are dinosaurs" which is so mainstream it is listed in countless major museum displays (e.g. AMNH) is ridiculous. There's nothing inaccurate or non-consensus about the opening. I do agree however about replacing "avian dinosaurs--better known as birds--evolved from" with just "birds evolved from" as it has the same (inaccurate) meaning. Saying avian dinosaurs evolved from theropods is like saying human mammals evolved from primates. Saying humans evolved form primates is slightly better but still wrong (humans are primates, birds are theropods). MMartyniuk (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Dictionaries are 100% consistent in saying all dinosaurs are extinct. Dictionaries reflect the mainstream way more than museum displays do, which are often designed by the same paleontologists trying to rewrite the dictionaries (and failing). Ego White Tray (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Support. The proper thing to say about birds is that they evolved from small theropd dinosurs in the jurassic, and only a few species pulled through the extinction event marking the end of the Mesozoic. After all, birds, unlike e.g. frogs and lizards, appear to have been hit hard by the event. I guess they payed the price for high energy requirement.Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Though I like a few of the proposed changes (I can list them if anyone cares), it is very inappropriate to base such articles on dictionaries rather than actual scientific papers. FunkMonk (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
If that's the main objection, your opposition is puzzling. Ego White Tray has mentioned dictionaries on this page, but his actual proposal does not cite them. I do wish that he would retract the business about bird-like dinosaurs surviving the end-Cretaceous extinction; no dinosaurs survived it, at least not by very many years. Peter Brown (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
It is clear that a number of paleontologists who write for lay readers hope to persuade them to use the term "dinosaur" in a sense that includes birds. So far, they have not succeeded. As Petter Bøckman as pointed out, "people understanding the term 'dinosaur' as including birds is probably in the per mil range or less among English speakers." These paleontologists may yet succeed; it was not an easy task to convince the 17th century public to call the Earth a "planet" or to persuade the public of the 18th and 19th centuries to stop calling whales "fish". Despite some holdouts, though, these shifts in lay conceptions were largely achieved.
There can be no objection to encouraging the public to accept vocabulary and conceptualizations that have become common among specialists. Is this really the story for "dinosaur", though?. Petter has claimed (his point #3, above) that "the use of phylogenetic nomenclature in general is ubiquitous in dinosaur palaeontology"; while I normally defer to his expertise, my own (admittedly limited) poking around in the literature suggests another pattern. While dinosaur paleontologists generally pay lip service to phylogenetic nomenclature, their actual use of the term "dinosaur" seems to have more in common with the public's conception. When they remember, they will write "non-avian" before "dinosaur" in making generalizations not intended to include birds, but often they do not remember or, if they remember, do not care. Their publications are intended to communicate, and this can be achieved by using terms in a sense generally shared by authors, editors, reviewers, and readers. Though a few purists may find the usage objectionable, "dinosaur" in the paraphyletic sense is such a term.
I have cited Butler et al. (2011), "Sea level, dinosaur diversity and sampling biases". The article is not concerned with birds, but its five authors have not made a mistake in choosing their title, since they know that the the title will not mislead their likely readers or the many other specialists who see the title in the "References" sections of later articles. It is simple to find other examples. Ray Stanford and coauthors recently published an article entitled "The first hatchling dinosaur reported from the eastern United States", a title that does not strike readers as absurd only because they do not expect "dinosaur" to include birds. Grigorescu (2005) says of material from the Haţeg basin that it "does not belong to birds, but to theropods", with no suggestion that it could be both. Chiappe and Witmer have a book out entitled Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of the Dinosaurs, a title that deliberately evokes the image of birds and dinosaurs as separate groups, one flying above the other.
Further multiplication of examples would be easy, but these will do. As a perfunctory nod to the cladists, paleontologists often toss in the term "non-avian" here and there as a redundant ornament in their publications, but they freely use "dinosaur" without that qualification in their titles and in other places in their articles, understanding that reviewers and readers will naturally understand that they are not talking about birds.
What then of the paleontologists who attempt to persuade the public to include birds in the scope of the term "dinosaur", the "PhyloCode posse" in Petter Bøckman's phrase? If I am correct in the foregoing, this endeavor is a dishonest abuse of the esteem in which the public holds scientists. They are saying, "We scientists see things this way, and we're experts, so you should see things the same way," when in fact scientists generally do not see things in the way described. A scientist who writes for a lay readership should be attempting to bring popular understanding into line with that of the scientific community; where the understandings are already aligned, the responsible course is to leave matters alone, even if the writer disagrees.
Why should scientists who are scrupulously honest in their technical work practice this sort of deception in their popular writings? And why are they not roundly criticized by other professionals who are not guilty of this sort of hypocrisy? I can only speculate.
Perhaps the members of the PhyloCode posse are driven by an evangelistic passion to disseminate their point of view and do not give sufficient thought to the fact that they are trading, illegitimately, on their prestige as scientists. Though they may disapprove of the way other paleontologists regularly use language, they acquiesce since these others are also members of the elite, but this tolerance does not extend to the masses. Members of the posse may even have a selective blindness to the unapproved way that their colleagues use terms, seeing all paleontologists as fellow cladists. These colleagues may hesitate to challenge the posse's popularizations partly because they do not want to get involved in the highly charged debate around the PhyloCode and partly because there is no obvious forum in which they can present objections. Perhaps someone deeply familiar with the course of dinosaur studies in the past twenty years could write an exposé for The New Yorker ? It hasn't happened yet.
It is doubtless impossible wholly to prevent Wikipedia from being used as a tool for the promotion of the cladist agenda. Ego White Tray is to be commended for making an attempt to at least reduce the influence of the PhyloCode posse. Even if he (or she?) is totally unsuccessful, there will be other efforts, some of which may fare better.
1) Sorry, but there is no cabal. Calling other editors "evangelistic," "trading on prestige," "elite," "agenda" driven, etc. etc. etc. is insulting - and while you haven't named anyone explicitly - it's clear who you mean, and so I consider this to border on a personal attack. I am growing very tired of interacting with you when it seems you are incapable of assuming good faith. 2) When you provide current, reliable sources that say explicitly "birds are not dinosaurs," then perhaps you will have offset the multiple current reliable sources that say "birds are dinosaurs." At that point, we can consider WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. deBivort23:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Personal attack? I am critical of a subset of dinosaur paleontologists; is this not clear? Specifically, some among the paleontologists who write for the public about dinosaurs, not including (as far as I know) any Wikipedia editors. Your user page indicates that you are an entomologist. If you have publications concerning dinosaurs, I am certainly unaware of them. Peter Brown (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was perhaps too defensive. I disagree that there is a movement of the type you are describing. I have seen cladistic systematics from the inside, in my own (arachnological) research, even going to the Willi Hennig meeting a couple times, and I can say that there is no explicit goal to push an agenda. People believe these things and favor this nomenclature out of a sincere belief that it is the best way to characterize the world scientifically. I see no evidence of agendas other than public education. But all this personal experience is, in principle, immaterial. There are abundant, reliable, secondary (and remember that's the preferred form of reference WP:WPNOTRS) sources saying that birds are dinosaurs. Therefore, this perspective must be included in the article. It can be offset by the perspective that "birds evolved from dinosaurs, but are not dinosaurs" only to the extent that sources to that effect can be identified (WP:DUE). deBivort23:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of paleontologists and authors among the above who have opposed the proposed revised opening that contains errors (or who write dinosaur articles for WP). Now that you are aware of that, let's not talk of "agendas" again... those types of comments truly can be seen as personal attacks, which I am quite certain you did not intend. Firsfron of Ronchester23:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Firsfron, this is not a matter of "errors", merely of wording. No-one her has ever proposed to to somehow "hide" the phylogenetic nomenklature, nor to casting doubt on the phylogeny as we now know it. The phyolgeny can be expressed adequately both ways. Claiming that Peter Brown argues for a "revised opening that contains errors" is a strawman argument.
As for the "explicit goal to push an agenda" of the PhyloCode community, I would like to just leave this little article here. If you do not find it support the point that there is an agenda, then I can post a number of articles by de Queiroz that states the agenda quite openly if you like. Petter Bøckman (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
No, it is a matter of errors, pure and simple. The above proposal was to include error-ridden sentences such as "Some bird-like dinosaurs survived the extinction event that occurred 65 million years ago". This type of proposal doesn't meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. During this discussion, it has become more and more clear that you three editors, though highly intelligent, tenacious individuals acting in good faith, don't really know a lot about the article's subject. Mistaking ornithopods for ornithischians, mistaking a manus for a pes, citing children's coloring books and a single press releases (which is not peer reviewed) as "evidence" supporting your POV, claiming the infallibility of online dictionaries, etc., all indicate an unfamiliarity with the subject. The editors who have worked on dinosaur articles on Wikipedia for the past 5-8 years, reading and citing peer-reviewed sources, have universally (yes, universally!) opposed the changes that you three propose, and have given you specific reasons why they oppose those changes: the proposed changes are wrong, as shown in the literature.
I have invited the three of you to join the project and begin working on articles. That invitation remains open. There are a thousand short articles which could easily be expanded, using reliable, peer-reviewed sources. The amount of energy being spent here could be better used to help articles with real factual inaccuracies, and working with peer-reviewed sources would expose you to literature in the field of paleontology.
Above there are several claims of "pushing agendas" and other bad-faith assertions. You have accused me of making a straw man argument ("Claiming that Peter Brown argues for a "revised opening that contains errors" is a strawman argument."), but you three do indeed support revising the article with content that is not correct. That's not a straw man.
The into text suggestion was by Ego White Tray, not Peter Brown, and the errors were quickly pointed out for correction, so cut out the strawman already, will you? As for joining the project, the type of argumentation demonstrated in this thread is the reason I usually stay stay well away from anything dino-related. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I confess to getting a bit angry here. I pride myself in being careful in my terminology. When I write "manus" I mean manus; it is the manus of Limusaurus inextricabilis that is the focus of the Xu et al. article. When I write "ornithischian", I mean ornithischian, a group that includes non-ornithopod dinosaurs like Triceratops. Please assume that I mean what I say. Also, drop your patronizing tone; you have no evidence that we are unfamiliar with peer-reviewed sources.Peter Brown (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I'm sorry I've upset you. I'm a big fan of the nice work you've done on Tetrapod since August. The last thing I want to do is offend an editor actually interested in (and willing to) improving this article. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester19:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
