File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
It's that time again, guys.

ITT sea monsters and dinosaurs!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Here is a dinosaur. Too bad none of them ever lived in the sea.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>208182
LIES. Are you retarded or something? There were plenty of water-dinosaurs.
>> Anonymous
moar?
>> Anonymous
>>208339
O RLY? Name one.
>> Anonymous
>>208339
what are you retarded?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>208182
fuck yeah giganotosaurus
>> Fox !Kk7Kal.fX6
>>208339
"sea dinosaurs" didn't exist.
they were sea-dwelling reptiles
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This thread is now about Giganotosaurus.
>> Anonymous
>>208404
What the fuck is the difference between a giant land lizard and a giant sea lizard?
>> Anonymous
>>208448
one lives on land and the other lives in the sea
>> Anonymous
>>208448
Nothing.

Dinosaurs, on the other hand, are not lizards. Retard.
>> Fox !Kk7Kal.fX6
>>208460
which raises the question (for me, at least. being the retard i seem to be) what do you classify dinosaurs as?
flying reptiles weren't dinosaurs
swimming reptiles weren't dinosaurs
but land reptiles were
i don't much get it myself
>> Anonymous
hey guys, how come no one ever posts photographs of dinosaurs? Only shitty drawings and 3-d images..
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>208483
>> Gunlord !.YMO7aNBcQ
>>208465
For some reason or another, IIRC dinosaurs were put in a different clade than other 'saurs. I took a class on dinosaurs last year but promptly forgot everything I learned after I managed to pass it. I wish I still had my old textbook, then I'd be of more use...
>> Anonymous
>>208465
why arent whales fish?

it has to do with something specific one has that the other doesnt

for all intents and purposes if you call a sea monster from that time a dinosaur nobody will give a shit, except obsessive compulsive wikipedia thumpers, but in reality they are technically not dinosaurs

but so long as ive mentioned wikipedia

>The term "dinosaur" is properly restricted to a certain group of terrestrial reptiles with a unique upright stance (superorder Dinosauria), and therefore excludes the pterosaurs, as well as the various groups of extinct aquatic reptiles, such as ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and mosasaurs.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>208496

I believe that comes from their distinct hips; bird-hipped and lizard-hipped.

It isn't really as simple as sea, land, or air (though it probably used to be); there are a number of skeletal and other structural similarities which cause them to be placed in certain groups; they just happen to fall into the categories we know and love.
>> Anonymous
>>208483

If you mean animatronic dino photos, I guess it's because those are made specifically for people to look at up close, while 3d renderings and drawings are for observing.
>> Anonymous
>>208483
0/10
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>208483
EPIC FAIL
You now must clone your own dino, and post pics of it to reverse this fail.
>> Anonymous
>>208509

i think you may have been trolled
>> The Jesus !s9TuhIvCTY
     File :-(, x)
I think by now everyone has laid their two cents in worth down for the difference between dinosaurs and what have you.
det kraken
>> E noni mos !6ts7WxNHwc
     File :-(, x)
>> E noni mos !6ts7WxNHwc
     File :-(, x)
>> E noni mos !6ts7WxNHwc
     File :-(, x)
>> E noni mos !6ts7WxNHwc
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>208521
Ia ia.
>> Nagi
>>208465
>>208490

In a technical sense, dinosaurs are reptiles. But by that same technical sense, so are birds and mammals, in that they all came from a reptilian ancestor (archosaurs on the dinosaur/bird side of things, synapsids on the mammal side).

In basic, common vernacular, however, it's become rather inappropriate to refer to dinosaurs as reptiles, because the more we learn about them, the more distant they get from the standard traits of all other reptiles. After all, you don't really see very many endothermic, upright-walking, herding, feathered lizards or snakes. So nowadays, just like reptiles are reptiles and birds are birds, dinosaurs are...dinosaurs. They're the middle ground between reptiles and birds, but for the sake of everyday speech, they're still so radically different from both that it's really not appropriate to lump them in with one or the other entirely.

As for marine reptiles, the reason they are not dinosaurs is because the various marine reptile families all evolved out of reptilian groups completely unassociated with dinosaurs or even archosaurs. Mosasaurs are actually evolutionary brothers to monitor lizards, while plesiosaurs and pliosaurs make up a separate extinct branch, and ichthyosaurs make up yet another extinct branch.

And just for giggles, pterosaurs are a bit closer to dinosaurs than marine reptiles are, but they branched out of basal archosauria separate from the dinosaurs and crocodylians. Pteranodon is as much of a dinosaur as a salt-water crocodile is.
>> Anonymous
>>208541
so should we stop referring to crocodilians as reptiles as well? and aren't turtles also an outgroup, in that they branched off from the line that led to lizards, archosaurs, and therapsids?

fucking linnaean classification. it usually works fine for existing species, but it wasn't built to handle phylogeny.
>> Anonymous
>>208541
AFAIK Synapsids (Theropsids) being classified as a separate class than Sauropsids means mammals are no longer technically reptiles as earlier ancestors are no longer considered 'reptiles' proper. They're just 'amniotes'.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>208566
Well, if you want to get all sciency, there isn't actually such a thing as a "reptile" anymore. Not in the taxonomic sense. The animals commonly known as reptiles are all sauropsids. But not all sauropsids have ever been considered reptiles (birds being excluded). Modern cladistic taxonomy uses groupings based on ancestry, so every creature sharing the same ancestor belongs in the same group. If we had such a grouping (or clade) called reptiles that included all the "oldfashioned" reptilians, we would have to include birds as well. Pretty much nobody wants that, so the old Reptilia was trashed.

That's also the reason why birds are dinosaurs: they have the same common ancestor as all dinosaurs. Similarily bats are mammals because they share a common ancestor with all mammals. And because both bats and birds share a common amniote ancestor, they are also both amniotes. It's all a lot less confusing when you look at it as a branching tree.

Picture related, as it is a genuine sea dinosaur.
>> Anonymous
>>208735
My point was that according to modern cladograms the ancestors of synapsids weren't reptilian, so unlike birds, mammals aren't technically descended from reptilian ancestors.

Taxonomically, 'reptile' and 'Sauropsida' are synonymous.
>> Anonymous
>>208798
Yet Sauropsida includes birds and Reptilia doesn't. Problematic, huh?
>> KZN
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
ts ts ts, noone thought of Moby?
>> Anonymous
>>208985
Moby's a dick, and you know it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>208988
>> KZN
     File :-(, x)
>>208988
I lol'd, and I shouldn't have.
>> KZN
     File :-(, x)
>> KZN
     File :-(, x)
>> Hyper Cutter !XQ6W0CNp/o
>>If we had such a grouping (or clade) called reptiles that included all the "oldfashioned" reptilians, we would have to include birds as well.
And possibly mammals, since iirc turtles aren't particularly close relatives of *anything*, so a group including them would cast one hell of a wide taxonomic net...
>> Guodzilla
>>208520
Iz dat some Shadow over Innsmouth
>> Anonymous
Am I the only one gets terrified by these threads?
>> Anonymous
>>209028
Where is its weak spot?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Probably the largest animal ever.
>> Anonymous
>>209725
Actually turtles (testudines) are and remain in sauropsida. They're not even parareptiles. Some studies place them very close to or even inside diapsida, which would mean that their lack of skull openings is a later development and not an ancestral trait at all.

Mammals otoh will never be part of sauropsida (and thus reptiles of any sense), because synapsids split from the basal amniotes before they became sauropsids.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>209854
Whoops, almost forgot to post a Dakosaurus I found...
>> Anonymous
guys, reptiles are a paraphyletic group, no point arguing about terminology here, "reptile" is just a name. Although i think dinosaurs should be in their own group, along with birds, since they were probably warm blooded and unlike other reptiles at the time.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>208339
>> Guodzilla
>>209854
I thought that the chelonians (testudines) are actually the descendants of highly-evolved pareiasaurs, one single group of which survived the Permian extinction event.
Many scientists think that the most distant ancestor was a pareiasaur named "anthodon," which had vastly flattened ribs and what looked like the beginning of a shell. The next known step was a creature named "triassochelys," which as far as we know was the earliest known chelonian.
>> Anonymous
>>209874
Huge fish is huge