File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Could crocodiles be considered dinosaurs? They've been around just as long and are also reptilian.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
Crocodiles are closely related to, but aren't dinosaurs. If you want to look at it from a relitivistic point of view, birds are technically dinosaurs.
>> Anonymous
>>306336
It's not that retarded of a question and seems innocent enough.
>> Anonymous
They're Archosaurs, like dinosaurs and birds, but they aren't dinosaurs.

Birds could be considered dinosaurs though.
>> Anonymous
Dude, no, just no. They aren't dinosaurs at all. They are lizards.
>> Demyx's Blue-Marine !!vjyCRKGc15d
>>306371
They're not lizard either. They're crocodilians.
>> Anonymous
Maybe a taxonomic point of view would help:

* Birds are theropods
* Theropods are dinosaurs
* Dinosaurs are archosaurs
* Archosaurs are diapsids
* Diapsids are sauropsids

ergo: Sauropsida>Diapsida>Archosauria>Dinosauria>Theropoda>birds

Within Sauropsida we have: turtles, tuatara, lizards, snakes, crocodiles and dinosaurs (incl. birds)

Within Diapsida we have: tuatara, lizards, snakes, crocodiles and dinosaurs (incl. birds)

Within Archosauria we have: crocodiles and dinosaurs (incl. birds)

Within Dinosauria we have dinosaurs (incl. birds)

Questions?
>> Anonymous
If dinosaurs were warm blooded, could you really call them reptiles?
>> Anonymous
>>306401
Endothermy evolved in the ancestral archosaur and was lost in crocodiles. So if you don't call dinosaurs reptiles because their ancestors evolved endothermy, it doesn't make taxonomic sense to call crocodiles reptiles either. But if you call crocodiles reptiles, you should logically call birds reptiles as well, since they are dinosaurs. Which is BTW the reason why the word "reptile" has fallen out of favor in the scientific community. It's pretty much an obsolete term replaced by "sauropsid".