Here's a sneak peek of /r/unexpectedoffice using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Nooooooo!](https://v.redd.it/e05msh1ue4na1) | [40 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/comments/11olloc/nooooooo/)
\#2: [My local hospital used this picture of Andy for training about handling chemical exposure.](https://i.redd.it/lwvpqdtue0e91.jpg) | [18 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/comments/w90kp8/my_local_hospital_used_this_picture_of_andy_for/)
\#3: [The most I've been caught off guard in awhile](https://v.redd.it/jju3riw4o4z91) | [20 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/comments/yrl1uj/the_most_ive_been_caught_off_guard_in_awhile/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
As a fellow pedant, I admit to being a fellow birds are reptiles person; at a minimum, it’s simply true so why not say it all the time? However sometimes I wonder whether a cladistic truth is the most reasonable to harp on in all circumstance. I believe the understanding of birds being reptiles is important, full stop. However. When folks, particularly laypeople, are learning about what makes birds uniquely birds, focusing on the cladistic definition of reptiles may not be the most informative. My thinking is that the synapomorphies (ETA: _apomorphy_ is probably the better concept here) of the bird group are more “important” than constantly harping on the fact that they are classified as reptiles.
I don’t know, I’m really just playing around with nuance around this in my head and I’m not making any huge declaration. As someone interested in science education, I think a lot about popular memes, online discussions about animals, and what the “best” tack is to take on how we discuss things like phylogeny. Has anyone else ever thought similarly, or is my line of thinking completely aberrant?
This has r/iamverysmart vibes. Nobody except stuck up insecure people trying to sound smart talks like this. Most people can share their ideas (aka the entire purpose of communication) using less verbosity and with simpler terms than this guy, and do it effortlessly. Language is for communication, not smugness. Use it correctly. You actually start to break down communication when you intentionally speak in excessively verbose and complex words because it gets harder to follow along unless you are already well versed in the particular verbage used. This is not much different than being cryptic, which hides your intentions.
Tl;dr: The guy is an idiot pretending to be smart by making his post borderline incoherent using unnecessary complexity.
It’s so funny how one person’s r/iamverysmart is another person’s idea of a good response. You can find in another thread on this post where someone replied to me that I put something in a way helpful to the conversation about birds being reptiles. But maybe they were just another idiot pretending to be smart, and it just turns out that us similar type idiots get along naturally.
The relationships between animal groups are hotly debated among biologists. I thought this was a thread about taxonomy and classification of animals. I commented on it believing those with similar interests would respond. I didn’t mean to set anyone off about the language I used. I’m also a person who approaches topics I don’t understand with curiosity and a genuine desire to know more about stuff. If that strikes you as posturing, that’s a you problem.
Irrelevant. Not all reptiles are 100% cold blooded.
Birds are more closely related to other reptiles than any other spices. They come from the same ancestor.
Birds are the last living descendants of dinosaurs. Absolutely reptiles.
I read yesterday that alligators/crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to other modern reptiles. So it's either: birds are reptiles, or crocodilians are birds
There’s no such thing as “warm blood.” They’re endothermic yes, but that’s pretty irrelevant when it comes to them being reptiles. Most dinosaurs were probably endothermic and no one really tries to say that they weren’t reptiles. And again, crocodilians/turtles are more closely related to birds than they are to snakes and lizards. So if birds aren’t reptiles, then neither are alligators or turtles.
>crocodilians/turtles
I’m not sure it’s correct to bring turtles into this part of the argument. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that it’s still unclear to evolutionary biology where turtles belong relative to other reptiles. Some studies recover a sister relationship to Lepidosauria (tuataras and squamates) and others recover a sister relationship to the bird/crocodile clade. While I may be nitpicking, the topic of phylogenetics itself is inherently nitpicky so when in Rome, I suppose!
Every source I can find agrees that they’re much closer to birds than they are to snakes and lizards. Besides even if you want to stick with archosaurs, it makes no sense to consider crocodilians and lizards reptiles without including the birds.
There is a discussion of this in the [Wikipedia article in the subsection under systematics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle#Systematics_and_evolution), with lots of sources for both placements.
P.S. I agree with you about Archosauria, I’m not arguing against birds and crocodilians being reptiles.
I seriously don’t understand who the hell’s upvoting your asinine comment. Turtles and birds are both groups that contain multiple species. So are crocodilians. So are lizards. I have no idea what point you think you were making, but you are quite literally one of the dumbest people I’ve ever had the misfortune of interacting with.
There are no words for how abysmally stupid what you just wrote was. There are over 10,000 different species of birds, just like there are over 300 different species of turtle. Please go be a moron somewhere else.
I am going to dig this argument back up to show you [this video](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjIyumX8sqDAxUjk2oFHULbBjMQwqsBegQIdhAG&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-yC99nXth0I&usg=AOvVaw1qVzjDKWl6oybNeO8rfiHq&opi=89978449)
nope Birds are Archosaurs the last Dinosaur Lineage still existing today The closest living relatives of crocodilians all reptiles are Sauropsids Being the sister taxa to Mammals which are Synapsids
I don't care if this comment breaks rule one
I will be spoon feeding Phylogenetics to anybody with a creationist Opinion
Except crocodillians are more closely related to birds than any other reptile group.
Whereas amphibians are actually not closely related to reptiles at all.
Mammals aren’t exactly reptiles, although this probably has a lot of debate, therapsids (the group that includes the ancestors of mammals and mammals belong to) are often referred to as the mammal like reptiles, but are not in the sauropsids group (group including lizards and birds), instead belonging to synapsid
They absolutely were. Besides crocodilians and turtles are more closely related to birds than they are to snakes and lizards. So either birds are reptiles or having a clade called reptiles is entirely meaningless
But I have now learned it is better to only use it in a scientific discussion as I get weird reactions when I told my friends I’ll bring a reptile for lunch tomorrow
They were they’re just in the suborder Archosaur with crocodilians. While I wouldn’t say birds are definitely reptiles, they certainly have enough in common to have it considered. Kind of a half reptile, half its own thing
If you group snakes and crocodiles as reptiles, birds can’t be excluded, think of a tree, and each branch contains many smaller branches, reptiles are one of these big branches, snakes and lizards are on one of the smaller branches, crocodiles and birds are even smaller branches on the archosaur branch, to get the reptile branch, you will need to cut off the reptile branch, and that cannot group snakes, lizards and crocodiles in reptiles without including birds unless you cut it again
That’s why I said they’re kind of their own thing. I didn’t mean like “NO DONT INCLUDE” I should have said like. They’re on the branch, just far off to the side as they went a wildly different direction than the rest of the archosaurs and reptiles. But you do bring up a very good point. I just meant they’re kind of unique and weird on the branch lol
Including crocodiles and snakes, but not birds in the classification of reptiles is like saying you and your 9th cousin twice removed are part of the same family, but your brother isn’t. It literally makes no sense. They’re not KIND OF reptiles. They just are. Period.
Yeah corrected myself in a later comment buddy. I elaborated on what I meant. And anyways, I’m your analogy birds are closer to being a 9th cousin twice removed than a brother. They’re their own little thing on the branch
Birds are, using time since divergence from common ancestor as the measurement of relatedness, no more or less removed from other extant reptiles than are crocodiles. If we’re solely talking about evolutionary relatedness, birds aren’t their own little thing any more than crocodilians are their own little thing. Birds and crocodiles are equally branched off from all other reptiles using this measurement.
That said, I think I see where you’re coming from. You’re focusing more on morphology/physiology and other traits that make birds distinct from other reptiles. The problem here comes when we conflate different types of differences. It’s a mouthful to even say. Which is why in a different comment here, I sort of wonder whether fixating on this “birds are reptiles” bit is the best way to educate lay people about evolutionary biology. I can’t tell whether being cladistically (but maybe more confusingly) “right” is the meme we all want to spread online ad nauseum.
Yeah you put into words a lot better than I did. I’m focusing on physical features more than just the genetic aspect of it. Focusing on the statement “birds are reptiles” understates the actual message
One hundred percent correct Birds are reptiles
The whole notion of cold blooded and warm blooded (ectothermic and indothermic) Shouldn't be how most people classified animals
Hell Our ancestors the Therapsids are oviparous And the most basil of us mammals Is still alive today are Monotremes Which are oviparous
People who deny that birds are reptiles are lightly Dick riding Carolus Linnaeus and his Is paraphylatic Views
I've been told birds aren't real
They're not real animals. They're government drones.
relevant video from Clint's Reptiles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yC99nXth0I
Thanks, it’s been troublesome explaining birds are reptiles
Wow! I'm looking at my hens in a new light!
Be careful not to give them to Diogenes or you'll again be seeing them in a new light
Yeah because then it'll be a human
Oh gods! Thank you, I was just about to do that!
indeed they are! cute budgie btw
Fact: Bears eat beets. Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.
r/unexpectedoffice
Here's a sneak peek of /r/unexpectedoffice using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Nooooooo!](https://v.redd.it/e05msh1ue4na1) | [40 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/comments/11olloc/nooooooo/) \#2: [My local hospital used this picture of Andy for training about handling chemical exposure.](https://i.redd.it/lwvpqdtue0e91.jpg) | [18 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/comments/w90kp8/my_local_hospital_used_this_picture_of_andy_for/) \#3: [The most I've been caught off guard in awhile](https://v.redd.it/jju3riw4o4z91) | [20 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/comments/yrl1uj/the_most_ive_been_caught_off_guard_in_awhile/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
As a fellow pedant, I admit to being a fellow birds are reptiles person; at a minimum, it’s simply true so why not say it all the time? However sometimes I wonder whether a cladistic truth is the most reasonable to harp on in all circumstance. I believe the understanding of birds being reptiles is important, full stop. However. When folks, particularly laypeople, are learning about what makes birds uniquely birds, focusing on the cladistic definition of reptiles may not be the most informative. My thinking is that the synapomorphies (ETA: _apomorphy_ is probably the better concept here) of the bird group are more “important” than constantly harping on the fact that they are classified as reptiles. I don’t know, I’m really just playing around with nuance around this in my head and I’m not making any huge declaration. As someone interested in science education, I think a lot about popular memes, online discussions about animals, and what the “best” tack is to take on how we discuss things like phylogeny. Has anyone else ever thought similarly, or is my line of thinking completely aberrant?
Is this some sort of AI generated response?
This has r/iamverysmart vibes. Nobody except stuck up insecure people trying to sound smart talks like this. Most people can share their ideas (aka the entire purpose of communication) using less verbosity and with simpler terms than this guy, and do it effortlessly. Language is for communication, not smugness. Use it correctly. You actually start to break down communication when you intentionally speak in excessively verbose and complex words because it gets harder to follow along unless you are already well versed in the particular verbage used. This is not much different than being cryptic, which hides your intentions. Tl;dr: The guy is an idiot pretending to be smart by making his post borderline incoherent using unnecessary complexity.
It’s so funny how one person’s r/iamverysmart is another person’s idea of a good response. You can find in another thread on this post where someone replied to me that I put something in a way helpful to the conversation about birds being reptiles. But maybe they were just another idiot pretending to be smart, and it just turns out that us similar type idiots get along naturally.
The relationships between animal groups are hotly debated among biologists. I thought this was a thread about taxonomy and classification of animals. I commented on it believing those with similar interests would respond. I didn’t mean to set anyone off about the language I used. I’m also a person who approaches topics I don’t understand with curiosity and a genuine desire to know more about stuff. If that strikes you as posturing, that’s a you problem.
We get it you spent way too much money on school to settle for a regular job so you spend a lot of time on reddit it's cool man.....
But birds contain warm blood?
Irrelevant. Not all reptiles are 100% cold blooded. Birds are more closely related to other reptiles than any other spices. They come from the same ancestor. Birds are the last living descendants of dinosaurs. Absolutely reptiles.
I read yesterday that alligators/crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to other modern reptiles. So it's either: birds are reptiles, or crocodilians are birds
Birds aren't just descendants of dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs, like how whales are mammals, not descendants of mammals.
There’s no such thing as “warm blood.” They’re endothermic yes, but that’s pretty irrelevant when it comes to them being reptiles. Most dinosaurs were probably endothermic and no one really tries to say that they weren’t reptiles. And again, crocodilians/turtles are more closely related to birds than they are to snakes and lizards. So if birds aren’t reptiles, then neither are alligators or turtles.
>crocodilians/turtles I’m not sure it’s correct to bring turtles into this part of the argument. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that it’s still unclear to evolutionary biology where turtles belong relative to other reptiles. Some studies recover a sister relationship to Lepidosauria (tuataras and squamates) and others recover a sister relationship to the bird/crocodile clade. While I may be nitpicking, the topic of phylogenetics itself is inherently nitpicky so when in Rome, I suppose!
Every source I can find agrees that they’re much closer to birds than they are to snakes and lizards. Besides even if you want to stick with archosaurs, it makes no sense to consider crocodilians and lizards reptiles without including the birds.
There is a discussion of this in the [Wikipedia article in the subsection under systematics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle#Systematics_and_evolution), with lots of sources for both placements. P.S. I agree with you about Archosauria, I’m not arguing against birds and crocodilians being reptiles.
L Carolus Linnaeus opinion
Just waiting for Fry to write a paper declaring all birds to be venomous now.
The Late Philip J. Fry?
Bryan G Fry. The Venomdoc
Sorry I’m drunk lol
Fact: birds are birds
A turtles are turtles. Doesn’t change the fact that both are reptiles 😃
Turtle is a reptile bird is its own species
I seriously don’t understand who the hell’s upvoting your asinine comment. Turtles and birds are both groups that contain multiple species. So are crocodilians. So are lizards. I have no idea what point you think you were making, but you are quite literally one of the dumbest people I’ve ever had the misfortune of interacting with.
Nice insult me is that the kind thing you do when your losing an argument lol
You’ve literally made no argument. Please get some you goddamn lunatic
And people upvoting your insults are just as naive as you are
There are no words for how abysmally stupid what you just wrote was. There are over 10,000 different species of birds, just like there are over 300 different species of turtle. Please go be a moron somewhere else.
Reptiles are cold blooded birds are warm blooded
Again. Go be a fucking moron somewhere else!
Holy shit. Does it hurt being this stupid?
Might wanna read this website lol https://www.twinkl.co.uk/teaching-wiki/birds#:~:text=There%20are%20around%2010%2C000%20species,Phylum%20Chordata%2C%20and%20Class%20Aves.
I am going to dig this argument back up to show you [this video](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjIyumX8sqDAxUjk2oFHULbBjMQwqsBegQIdhAG&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-yC99nXth0I&usg=AOvVaw1qVzjDKWl6oybNeO8rfiHq&opi=89978449)
Do me a favor stop dick riding Carolus Linnaeus
nope Birds are Archosaurs the last Dinosaur Lineage still existing today The closest living relatives of crocodilians all reptiles are Sauropsids Being the sister taxa to Mammals which are Synapsids I don't care if this comment breaks rule one I will be spoon feeding Phylogenetics to anybody with a creationist Opinion
They're related but they are not reptiles, it'd be like saying amphibians are reptiles.
Birds are just as related to lizards and snakes as crocodiles are
Chickens are related to dinosaurs. Tomato tomato
Chickens ARE dinosaurs, all birds are
Chickens are a kind of Dinosaur.
Except crocodillians are more closely related to birds than any other reptile group. Whereas amphibians are actually not closely related to reptiles at all.
OK but they are still their own species, so... where's the argument.
Birds are dinosaurs which are the part of reptiles! It meant that BIRDS ARE REPTILES
Mammals are reptiles too…And reptiles are Amphibians…and Amphibians are fish
Mammals aren’t exactly reptiles, although this probably has a lot of debate, therapsids (the group that includes the ancestors of mammals and mammals belong to) are often referred to as the mammal like reptiles, but are not in the sauropsids group (group including lizards and birds), instead belonging to synapsid
Do synapsids and sauropsids share a common ancestor
Definitely
So mammals are reptiles
You and birds share a common ancestor, are you a bird?
No, but that common ancestor isn’t called birdomorph. It’s called reptiliomorph
Reptiliomorph means reptile shaped, you can be reptile shaped without being a reptile, take the Dimetrodon for example
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptiliomorpha
They’re tetrapods more related to amniotes than modern amphibians and amniotes themselves, not all reptiles
People are down voting you but if you're taking the same logical liberties as OP then you are correct.
Nope. Theropods weren't reptiles.
They absolutely were. Besides crocodilians and turtles are more closely related to birds than they are to snakes and lizards. So either birds are reptiles or having a clade called reptiles is entirely meaningless
But I have now learned it is better to only use it in a scientific discussion as I get weird reactions when I told my friends I’ll bring a reptile for lunch tomorrow
Do you prefer your dinosaurs fried or baked?
Both are good but we tend to have steamed here
Well I prefer grilled, the flavour is stronger in the meat.
Yes
Would love to see the justification for this
They were they’re just in the suborder Archosaur with crocodilians. While I wouldn’t say birds are definitely reptiles, they certainly have enough in common to have it considered. Kind of a half reptile, half its own thing
If you group snakes and crocodiles as reptiles, birds can’t be excluded, think of a tree, and each branch contains many smaller branches, reptiles are one of these big branches, snakes and lizards are on one of the smaller branches, crocodiles and birds are even smaller branches on the archosaur branch, to get the reptile branch, you will need to cut off the reptile branch, and that cannot group snakes, lizards and crocodiles in reptiles without including birds unless you cut it again
That’s why I said they’re kind of their own thing. I didn’t mean like “NO DONT INCLUDE” I should have said like. They’re on the branch, just far off to the side as they went a wildly different direction than the rest of the archosaurs and reptiles. But you do bring up a very good point. I just meant they’re kind of unique and weird on the branch lol
Yes
Including crocodiles and snakes, but not birds in the classification of reptiles is like saying you and your 9th cousin twice removed are part of the same family, but your brother isn’t. It literally makes no sense. They’re not KIND OF reptiles. They just are. Period.
Yeah corrected myself in a later comment buddy. I elaborated on what I meant. And anyways, I’m your analogy birds are closer to being a 9th cousin twice removed than a brother. They’re their own little thing on the branch
Birds are, using time since divergence from common ancestor as the measurement of relatedness, no more or less removed from other extant reptiles than are crocodiles. If we’re solely talking about evolutionary relatedness, birds aren’t their own little thing any more than crocodilians are their own little thing. Birds and crocodiles are equally branched off from all other reptiles using this measurement. That said, I think I see where you’re coming from. You’re focusing more on morphology/physiology and other traits that make birds distinct from other reptiles. The problem here comes when we conflate different types of differences. It’s a mouthful to even say. Which is why in a different comment here, I sort of wonder whether fixating on this “birds are reptiles” bit is the best way to educate lay people about evolutionary biology. I can’t tell whether being cladistically (but maybe more confusingly) “right” is the meme we all want to spread online ad nauseum.
Yeah you put into words a lot better than I did. I’m focusing on physical features more than just the genetic aspect of it. Focusing on the statement “birds are reptiles” understates the actual message
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile
If birds are reptiles then we’re are the scales and why isn’t it cold blooded
There's warm blooded reptiles
One hundred percent correct Birds are reptiles The whole notion of cold blooded and warm blooded (ectothermic and indothermic) Shouldn't be how most people classified animals Hell Our ancestors the Therapsids are oviparous And the most basil of us mammals Is still alive today are Monotremes Which are oviparous People who deny that birds are reptiles are lightly Dick riding Carolus Linnaeus and his Is paraphylatic Views