Most of the time when we think of birds, we think of the things that make them birds, and not the things that make them dinosaurs. But that is because we often have the relationship between dinosaurs and birds reversed in our little primate minds; Much of what is bird-like is not exclusive to birds, but rather, to a larger group of dinosaurs. Birds have taken these particular traits in novel directions, but these traits existed independently of all the birdiness we usually attribute to our feathered, flying, bipedal friends, long ago, before the Great Extinction.
You’ll hear people tell you that birds are dinosaurs, and that is supposed to blow you away and make you go all gaga about birds and evolution. People also say that hyraxes are elephants, but they are so distant in their relationship that it is little different than saying that deer are a type of pronghorn antelope. It is much stranger and illustrative of the ways of evolution to point out that whales are a form of “hoofed animal” (unlikely but true). Also, there are reasons why statements like this are scientifically incorrect even if there is ‘some truth’ to them. The idea that birds are dinosaurs could be thought of as a trivial fact of evolution … birds are really no more dinosaurs than whales are bovids, functionally, even though they actually are, phylogenetially … but that would be missing a greater and very interesting point. It is much more interesting to consider the fact that some (actually, many) dinosaurs were bird-like, and of course, this similarity had to do with their common ancestry.
For example, there seems to have been dinosaurs that used feathers as their body covering. In nature, you’ve got your leathery skin (like elephants or crocodiles), you’ve got your fur (like beavers and red deer), you’ve got your scales (like fish and pangolins) and you’ve got your feathers (like many theropod dinosaurs …. oh, and birds). We know that feathers on birds facilitate, in fact allow, bird-like flight. There are other uses of feathers but flight is key in birds, and it is easy to imagine that feathers evolved to facilitate flight. If so, then other uses (as insulation, armor, signalizing to con specifics, feathering the nest, etc.) are convenient secondary uses. And, that may be true regarding recent evolution of feathers. Indeed, flightless birds have feathers and they use them only for these other uses, and there are probably features of modern feathers that evolved long after the other dinosaurs disappeared in that great cosmic collision 65 million years ago. However, it would appear that during one fairly long period of time in the past there were a number of species (of dinosaur) that used feathers in a number of ways such as those just mentioned (and possibly other ways), and one subgroup of these dinosaurs would later be birds. Some of those other groups, which have left no progeny, may even have used feathers to facilitate gliding or some sort of flight, but we can not assume that flight was the reason that feathers first evolved. Almost certainly, it is not.
Also, there may have been some dinosaurs that you would never look at and say “what kind of bird is that?” sporting bird-like lungs. Birds have interesting lungs that allow a more or less continuous flow of air across surfaces that exchange gasses between the atmosphere and the blood. Some dinosaurs used this technique as well. There was probably a time when running faster and for a longer period of time was strongly selected for and highly efficient lungs therefore evolved in these dinosaurs. Or may be there was some other reason that efficiency in breathing was extra important. It is very easy to see the super efficient lung of birds as a great adaptation to flight, and it is, by most definitions of “adaptation,” but the features that make bird lungs unique in the world today were probably already in place and being used by a bunch of different dinosaur species, a subset of which were in the “bird clade” and the others absolutely, definitively, not. I would guess that there are aspects of the bird respiratory system that have been fine-tuned, perhaps significantly, as flight became increasingly important, but the basic idea of pushing a more or less continuous stream of air across gas-exchanging tissues may have been well in place before anything you’d call a ‘bird’ emerged, and used by non-bird dinosaurs.
Bipedalism is somewhat rare these days in the animal world. Among mammals, bipedalism is found in several rodents, a number of marsupials, and one primate. Facultative (occasional, used when needed) bipedalism occurs in one group of carnivores. But overall, it’s not common if you exclude bird and bats, the two main flying vertebrate groups. But bipedalism is a feature shared by many dinosaurs that did not fly, and counts as another example of a trait we link to birds found broadly in many dinosaurs that were bird relatives before birds ever flew.
It is probably helpful to have a sense of how birds and dinosaurs (or should I say, “other dinosaurs”) relate to each other on a phylogenetic tree. In words, modern birds are called Neornithes. Neornithes together with some now extinct close relatives to the modern birds is referred to as Avialae. A larger group that includes Archaeopteryx, is called Aves. Aves together with some dinosaurs form the group Theropoda (the Theropods). The living forms that are most closely related to Theropods are the Crocodilia (crocs and gators), and together, Theropods and Crocodilia (sometimes spelled Crocodylia) are members of the grop Archosauria, which includes all the extinct forms we call dinosaurs as well as pterosaurs (probably). Which means that Archosauria gave rise to flight at least twice. That’s actually a somewhat simplified version of what happened, and may obscure the key point, so let me state it a different way.
A four-legged somewhat croc-like ancestor gave rise to:
- More croc-shaped creatures
- More four-legged creatures including many famous dinosaurs;
- Flying dinosaurs (Pterosaurs)
- Two-legged creatures, which included many famous two-legged dinosaurs like T-Rex
- A bunch of dinosaurs that had various features that birds are now famous for, which included a bunch of things that went extinct and were not birds but were birdlike in important ways
- Birds
Birds have feathers, interesting respiratory systems, and are bipedal, and these (and some other bony features) were shared with this larger group that included but was not limited to birds. Meanwhile, birds of today have a number of features that evolved within the bird-only subgroup, such as a beak without teeth. Certain other features are of unknown relations. Did the unique bird brain exist in any of these non-birds, or for that matter, in any other dinosaurs? What about colorful feathers used for various purposes? The nature, distribution, and evolution of bird song is unclear.
One of the most interesting differences between birds and dinosaurs has to do with their eggs. A subset of dinosaurs including birds had changes in their skeleton that allowed for larger egs and/or more eggs to be managed by the female, for instance. Perhaps birds were able to have all their young hatch with greater synchrony and to incubate more quickly or to greater maturity than other dinosaurs. This is a topic we’ll come back to.
In the meantime, rest assured that not only are birds really dinosaurs, but that this is much less strange than it sounds when you realize that very many dinosaurs, typically not the ones you see on TV and in movies, were actually very bird-like in some rather unexpected ways.
For more information see the following sources:
Interesting as always thanks Greg 🙂 Are you familiar with Alan Feduccia’s theory that birds separated before dinosaurs evolved? I haven’t read his work but Colin Tudge mentions it in “Consider the birds” (aka “The secret life of birds”). He thinks the digits that evolved in to the three toed feet in dinosaurs are different digits than in birds, and that the fossils with real feathers are real birds (and not dinosaurs), while the fossils with developing feathers are actually dinosaurs with feather like fur. I hope I’m not butchering this theory too much – this is just what I remember from a book that has a couple of pages on the actual theory. Your thoughts?
Jeremy, my understanding is that Feduccia’s ideas differ from those represented here in two main ways: 1) the bird dino split would be farther down the dinosaur tree near the base rather than within theropods, and 2) the bird-like features seen in what are considered to be theropod dinosaurs are actually convergences from that bird lineage on theropods. This would mean that every single bird-like theropod, when comared to the other theropods, would have to sort out cladistically as being from a different clade, because they are only theropod-like because of convergence. This could easiliy end up as a rather confusing story because strange things happen when there is a lot of convergence, and there is a fairly deep time depth here as well, which makes it all very much more difficult. It doesn’t seem to work out that way, however. He’s probably wrong.
Excellent post, as usual, Greg. This is a subject that fascinates me, to the degree that I’ve just finished Gary Kaiser’s earlier book The Inner Bird (which I highly recommend, in addition to your other mentioned references), and am currently wading through Chiappe and Witmer’s Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs. I’ve also downloaded a copy of Heilmann (whose theory seems to comport better with Feduccia’s ideas than with a theropod origin of birds), just for historical context. An awful lot of really cool avian/theropod paleontology has taken place in the last 20 years, and I wonder how Heilmann would’ve felt had he known about all the new material.
The line between bird and dinosaur has become so blurred recently, it’s been hard at times to separate some of the more recent fossils functionally from birds. If we’re going to define birds as “things that evolved from dinosaurs and had the ability to fly”, then I’d say yes, some dinosaurs were birds and vice versa. If we’re going to define them as only those things in clade Aves, nestled at the very top of clade Maniraptora, I’d have to say birds are undeniably dinosaurs. According to one phylogeny, I believe that Alvarezsaurids had been included at the base of clade Aves at one time, and in another they’re back at the base of Maniraptora, which further blurs the line of “what is a bird”? You mention the classic “first bird” of Archaepteryx, but functionally, this fossil has the same morphology as much of the small dinosaurs in Maniraptora, complete with a hyperextendable toe found in many of the dinosaurs we consider “raptors”. One of the primary factors in calling Archaeopteryx a bird in the past was the preservation of its furcula (aka “wishbone”), but even T. rex had a cartilaginous furcula. Even if you define birds as only those animals in Neornithes, is not Confusciusornis, toothless fully-flighted bird outside that clade? With what we know about fossils, genetics, and phylogeny, the line becomes so blurred that it’s difficult to assign such terms like this to animals that evolved having no idea they were being assigned terms. In such, I believe it only appropriate to include “birds” in the most inclusive term we have for the greater clade of extinct animals they belong to – Dinosauria.
While this argument certainly has its place, the one thing I do know is that Pterosaurs were NOT Dinosaurs (flight only evolved once among the Dinosaurs, though the verdict’s out on whether some were secondarily flightless). If I had to find an all-inclusive term that includes Pterosauria, I guess I’d call them Archosaurs. lol
hello
i think birds are a desendent of dinosaurs cause i once watched this bird/ dinasours atchelogical discoveries channel on bbc 2 and then he said that birds are really a desndent from dinosaurs because of teridactles which were around the cretacious perioud which was home to other donosaurs e.g teranasaurus rex or triceratops thses are proved possobly you can also find this out on the internet just type in are birds desendent from dinasaurs on wikipedia number one then click the first link to website it shows a load of archelogical proof that birds were desendents from dinasours birds dont eat the same things as dinasours but wait what about kestrels or perigrines they eat meat which dose actuatly proove my point this true information email me for more info at lukeluffrum99@hotmail.co.uk then i will answer all of your questions so keep them comming in non stop please thanks and goodbye to my fans topics and illustartions please ask me so dont forget write it down any were you want you will then see
bye fans.
Thanks, Greg. Very interesting. I remember reading that one of the refutations of the dinosaur-to-bird hypothesis was that dinosaurs shared a diaphragm with other archosaurs, such as crocodilians, and that birds have a very different respiratory system (as you mentioned in your post) that seems unlikely to have developed from the diaphragm-driven lung, as it would be an evolutionary hurdle that could not be overcome by natural selection. Richard Dawkins describes well these limitations (with the eye) in Climbing Mount Improbable. The detractors of the dinosaur-to-bird hypothesis instead favour an earlier branching of birds from a pre-dino ancestor. There is also some debate over the difference in forelimb digits that birds and dinosaurs possessed.
Personally, I am of the opinion that birds are direct descendants of a group of therapod dinosaurs, as the similarities appear to be more compelling towards a direct ancestry, than convergent evolution. I would love to hear your take on the debate.
I had been wondering for a long time, since I went to Canobee Lake Park they had showed us a Cuckooburra-I don’t know how to spell-and they claimed it was a Dinosaur.Now I thougt about this for a while and did some research,and i DO believe that birds are dinosaurs.
eample:Archeaopteryx,They have feathers,and they have bird-like feet,but it DID have claws on it’s wings and it had teeth.
I believe Birds are Dinosaurs.
——-
KAT
Pterosaur are not ‘flying dinosaurs’! Jeez.
Whales are NOT necessarily a form of “hoofed animals.” I’m familiar with Indohyus, but I would not have the audacity to put them in the same group as whales and dolphins when there’s so few fossil remains to go on. Stop saying something’s true when it’s still just a theory, you’re as bad as the theists.
Glenn! Whales are members of the group Cetartiodactyla. It shares this group with the Artiodactyla. At the time of that split, there probably were no hooves, so this is meant somewhat tonguein cheek. But I hav yet to show a person a probably-correct taxonomic (phylogetic) tree with whales on it where they din’t go “Wut? That’s rong!”
Hi, Greg. Could you comment on my earlier post that refers to some of the supposed refutations of the theory of direct ancestry between Aves and Dinosauria? Many thanks.
Greg, I see you’ve replied to others. Could you explain why you state that pterosaurs are ‘flying dinosaurs’? That’s like saying bats are birds, or whales are fish. The internet is a valuable source of information for people of all ages, and it’s wrong to misinform people.
Jon, in the previous paragraph, Greg makes a distinction between pterosaurs and dinosaurs, mentioning that they are both members of the Archosaur clade. While saying that pterosaurs were “flying dinosaurs” is inaccurate, it is not of central importance to the article.
Jon, Pterosauria, the group that includes all gthe Pterosaurs, and Dinosauromorpha, make up most of the members of a large group that includes the crocs and all kinds of other things. They are not dinosaurs any more than an Aye Aye is a woodpecker. Yet, the Aye Aye is still a primate woodpecker and the Pterosaurs are flying dinosaurs.
Wesley, your comment brings up a lot of complex and detailed questions probably better addressed by a dinosaur fossil expert. (Sorry, I thought it was rhetorical or I would have addressed it). My impression is that there are a half dozen or so (as you mention) reasons to argue over putting a bird-dinosaur spit earlier or later, but that new fossil finds and new analyses keep favoring the idea that birds arose well within the Dinosaurs. My understanding of the digit problem is that this may be a problem with identifying which bone is which in fossils vis-a-vis living creatures, developmentally. I suppose we need to find in situ control genes in developing dinosaurs… that would be cool.
Thanks for the reply. I’m not sure whether the Average Joe would interpret it that way but I see where you’re coming from. I like your website by the way, very interesting, it was just that one comment that raised my eyebrows.
I should probably adjust the text to make it more clear or even write a whole blog post on the question of phyogeny and cladism vis-a-vis the rest of the (often more interesting) science. Incorrect phylogeny has hampered science quiet a bit in the past (and still does) but the level of correction and resolution has been so great that we risk attendance to phylogeny sometimes wagging the dog.
About that ban on paraphyly, or “cladistic fundamentalism”:
1. Accordingly a genus cannot be classified so as to have evolved from another genus, nor a family from another family, etc. This appears to contradict evolution, where truly every genus came from another. *slams palm into forehead*
2. You may lose respect from potential graduate advisors if you mention this, politely/inquisitively. You will not therefore be accepted.
I like what Robin and Honey Badger have to say on this topic:
“Originating from an ancestor is not the same as being that ancestor. Evolution is about one organism evolving from another, not one organism remaining another.”
http://www.explorebioedge.com/bio-bullets/item/79-are-birds-really-avian-dinosaurs.html
@Ornithophile; yes but this is about cladistics. The question is, if you have an evolutionary tree, can you draw a circle around “dinosaurs” that starts at the common ancestor of all dinosaurs (but nothing else) and includes all their descendants, and if you can, what else is in the circle. Birds and Dinosaurs are a clade. Dinosaurs without birds are not.
Dinosaurs died and now birds represent the now it is hard to believe but it is also true a meteor. Had kill them plus the cold they are cold blooded they are mammals. So thast why they are cold blouded??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Good question. I think there were “cold” and “warm” blooded dinosaurs, and birds are not warm blooded or cold blooded in the mammal-reptile sense. They can vary their temperature but make their own heat.
i wish dinosaurs were still here!
One simplistic, though not scientific, way of ‘proving’ birds are dinosaurs: if birds were extinct, would we have classified them as dinosaurs today. The answer is a pretty overwhelming yes.