this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
314 points (96.7% liked)

Science Memes

18186 readers
2286 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Endmaker@ani.social 69 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

~~All dinosaurs are birds~~

All birds are dinosaurs

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Reptile Wikipedia:

In evolutionary taxonomy, reptiles are gathered together under the class Reptilia (/rɛpˈtɪliə/rep-TIL-ee-ə), which corresponds to common usage. Modern cladistic taxonomyregards that group as paraphyletic, since genetic and paleontological evidence has determined that crocodilians are more closely related to birds (class Aves), members of Dinosauria, than to other living reptiles, and thus birds are nested among reptiles from a phylogenetic perspective. Many cladistic systems therefore redefine Reptilia as a clade (monophyletic group) including birds, though the precise definition of this clade varies between authors.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 days ago

IMO it's either basically just lizards, which i think is perfectly fine since dinosaurs and even crocodilians aren't that reptilian to me.
Or reptile has nothing to do with phylogeny and is instead just a physical description, like "fish" and "tree".

Really the only thing that seems particularly similar between lizards and crocodilians is that they have a splayed posture and scaly skin, which is kinda like grouping together humans with ostriches and kangaroos because we walk upright on two legs..

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I kinda know what some of those words mean.

Can I get a picture?

[–] pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de 33 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

Which is especially weird if you’ve ever held a bird in your hands and looked at its feet up close: birds are scaly!

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Any particular words you don't know? Probably the most likely ones are para- and monophyletic. For a taxon (scientific grouping) to be a valid clade, it needs to be monophyletic, meaning it contains the most recent common ancestor of the group's other members and all known descendants of that common ancestor. Paraphyletic, by contrast, means not all the descendants are in there. For example, imagine if the mammals just randomly excluded the bears – that would be paraphyletic, because the bears also share a common ancestor with the other mammals.

So a monophyletic group of your family tree might include your grandmother, all her children, and all their children's children, etc. A paraphyletic one might exclude Gertrude and her kids because she got drunk and stole and wrecked the LeBaron and we fucking know she did it and we don't talk to her after that.

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

That was a brilliant explanation, thank you.

para- and mono-phyletic were indeed the problem words. I can tell they are related to phylum but “phylum” doesn’t mean much to me except to know that it’s a word for some grouping of species.

The other part where I was snagged is the significance of cladistics and the new/old classification methods. I knew both terms as “words for groups of species and hadn’t dug further.

Between the family tree example and the diagram — got it, thanks to you and your sibling reply.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 31 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Birds are reptiles in the same sense that people are fish.

[–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org 3 points 1 month ago

No, your a sexy terrapin

[–] Enkrod@feddit.org 2 points 4 weeks ago

Fish is not a valid cladistic term. Birds are reptiles in the same way that people are vertebrates would be about equivalent and correct.

[–] Klear@quokk.au 29 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago

Okay, so give us the IQ 150 take on why dinosaurs are reptiles, with particular note to birds.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

usually, in biology we use monophyletic groupings, like all descendants of rodents will always be rodents.

however, those terms "lizard/fish" are not monophyletic, because otherwise all vertebrates would be fish. those are paraphyletic (group includes some descendants of a common ancestors).

there are already polyphyletic, where we have descendants of multiple sources, ie, Herbivores would be polyphyletic.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The fundamental problem is that cladistic terms will kind of inevitably become general descriptors of any lifeform that looks/behaves similarly, which is immediately clear when you look at any scifi/fantasy stuff.

If an alien animal fills the same niche as salmon do on earth, then we're gonna call it a salmon, and poof suddenly it's no longer monophyletic.

it would be a Venusian salmon. same way we have birds and animals with the same name across continents. An Indian porcupine is not related to an American porcupine, but "Indian porcupine" is still monophyletic, and just saying "porcupine" is more informal, though technically paraphyletic.

We actually do informal cladistics. " fox " isn't a species but a genus "common fox" is Vulpez vulpez which is a species, while fox refers to all the genus.

[–] menas@lemmy.wtf 14 points 1 month ago

Transitivity Rex

[–] tagoth@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

This meme had strong Clint's repiles vibes until it was etymologically wrong in the third row

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 days ago

And my axe! Oh, that didn't make two worms, just one dead worm in two pieces..

[–] LSNLDN@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 month ago

This is why I love science memes - daily new information presented in an enjoyable format that I know I can one hundred percent trust because science.

[–] huf@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago

birds are fish

[–] SleepyPie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Do birds have more brain myelination than reptiles? How do the compare to mammals?