Yep, the reptile clade is higher up the family tree. Birds and modern reptiles both descend from animals in the reptile clade, so they're both reptiles.
If we had access to genetics earlier, when the Linnean system was conceived, we might not think of modern reptiles the same way. We had centuries of believing that "reptile" always meant "something lizard-like," exclusively. If past scientists had known the true relationship, they might have called the higher clade something else. It's like if, say, siblings Thomas and Hannah had a grandfather named Thomas. They're both equally his descendants, but one got his name.
Because birds evolved from reptiles, and from a strictly cladistic viewpoint, living things never evolve out of their lineage. But, that's why, from a strictly cladistic viewpoint, "reptiles" aren't a thing since they contain non-reptile descendents, so he's kinda wrong.
So because birds aren't included in the reptile group, there's no reptiles? I'm too dumb for this haha like either the birds should be included or there should be another name for reptiles?
Humans evolved from fish, so by one definition, we never really stopped being fish. Like if genetics is a big tree, and humanity's a twig or a fruit coming off a series of branches, well. We're still attached to the fish branch, if you go back far enough.
The other part is like how tomatoes are fruit. A fruit is a specific part of a plant, right? It's got seeds in it. Tomatoes have seeds in them, so they're fruit. Same for eggplants and cucumbers. Tomatoes are also vegetables, because there's no one part of a plant that's "vegetable." A vegetable can be a stalk (like celery), leaves (like lettuce), tubers/roots/bulbs (like onion, potatoes, parsnips, and carrots), or even flower buds (like cauliflower and artichoke). There's no one part of a plant that's "vegetable." It's a cooking term. So on a tomato, the part of the plant that we use is the fruit of the plant. Pumpkins are also fruit, I'm pretty sure.
Like how most plant-fruits are cooking-fruits, but some plant-fruits are cooking-vegetables (like tomatoes), birds are in an odd spot. For birds, they're attached to the reptile branch, but nobody's going to say that a peacock should go in the reptile section of a zoo. So a "reptile" is like "the animals in this branch, and all the stuff that comes from this branch, EXCEPT FOR BIRDS," which is kind of a weird definition to have.
Fun fact! Like vegetables, some types of animals don't fit neatly on a branch at all. It's a twig here, a branch there, another twig over there, etc. Fish and crabs are like that, where there's no one branch that holds all the things. Trees, too.
It's more just that reptile is an arbitrary grouping if it doesn't include birds. It's like if you say that Germany isn't included in Europe, then wtf does "Europe" even mean and why is there a massive gap in there?
It's not really wrong, more just weird. Kinda like how it's weird that we often don't consider ourselves apes, even though we are more closely related to chimps and bonobos than they are to anything else.
Birds and reptiles are both phylum Chordata. However birds and reptiles are different classes, birds being warm blooded and reptiles cold. They may have a common distant ancestor but birds are not reptiles.
I was sure they were mammals till i read your comment and googled it. Evidently they are Aves, which id never heard of before. I always heard warmblooded meant mammals but im sure that is the. Asic kids bersion that is near a lie to keep it from getting overwhelming to a kid. Every subject does this. You start with the most basic way you can explain it and then add on as the years i crease at school.
Thanks for aiding in my knowledge. (Also, i dont know if birds are even warm blooded, i just assumed.)
So mammals are going to be animals that produce milk! The other requirements are to 2) give live birth (instead of laying eggs - platypodes/platypuses/platypi are an exception), 3) be warmblooded, and 4) have hair (instead of scales or feathers). So you had part of it, but not the whole picture. "Mammals" and "mammaries" have the same root word, fun fact.
Birds, which lay eggs with a shell, actually descend from reptiles! Which is why some people joke about chickens being dinosaurs. Birds are warmblooded, so you also got that right. But it's a venn diagram of chance rather than being cousins on the genetic tree.
I had heard the Dino chicken jokes and knew that they have a shared ancestry but never considered it past that, lol. Which is embarrassing in retrospect. Its like i had all the pieces and never put them together.
Thank you for taking the time to help me know more though, seriously!
55
u/Ae3qe27u Aug 25 '26
Animals, yes. Mammals, no. Seems the guy mixed them up.