Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
The New Dinosaur Family Tree Explained
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 08. 2024
- You may have heard that dinosaur classification has been changed recently, and in this video I'll explain what has happened and how this affects our views of dinosaurs overall.
►Like and subscribe for more videos!
►Subscribe: bit.ly/1MKmgG0
►Follow me on Twitter: / bengthomas42
►Like my page on Facebook: / bengthomas42
►Follow me on Instagram: bit.ly/1PIEagv
►Follow me on Google+: bit.ly/1ObHejE
Music by M. Holloway: goo.gl/qaiJ3J
Images by:
John Conway
Bob Nicholls
Mark Witton
Saurian artwork
SV-POW
Michael B. H
Zhao Chuang
Scott Hartman
Eva K. (Wikipedia)
Baron et al.
Alexander Lovegrove
It's been a couple of years now. How is this new arrangement holding up?
by now this video has joined it
A simpler explanation for 3:52 would be that pneumatic was the ancestral characteristic and it was lost in Ornithischia. (edit: I see you have suggested this further down in the comments.)
I am baffled. The evidence seems to point to the old scheme being superior. What is the advantage of the new scheme?
birds are theropoda, some theropoda like deinonychus have a bird pelvis, perhaps the bird pelvis evolved in theropoda and then other ornithischians came.
Read "The Dinosaurs Rediscovered" by Michael J Benton. He's a UK paleontologist and in the book he explains the different schemes and why they were changed/overruled etc. Besides that, it's a really fascinating book and if you're interested in dinosaurs, paleontology and the science that goes into it, it's a great read!
You mean aside from the complete lack of Triassic ornithischians despite having a plethora of large sauropodomorphs and even neotheropod coelophysoids since the Carnian? Well, theropods and primitive ornithischians looking like chickens with arms and coelurosaurs constantly reovolving bird-like hips are the most solid ones. The only real issue with the ornithoscelida theory is ornithischia's lack of pneumaticity which could have evolved secondarily since they started in a niche of small herbivores where bone pneumaticity was redundant.
@@nickkorkodylas5005 just because we don't have definitive Triassic Ornithiscian fossils, doesn't mean they don't exist. Fossilization is rare, and Ornithiscian ancestors may not have been very common or were generally in enviroments that don't preserve fossils. We don't have definitive fossils of many placental mammals groups until after the K-Pg extinction, despite many different placental mammals groups having their last common ancestor living well into into the Cretaceous according to molecular clocks, no definitive fossils of Xenarthrans, Afrotheres, primatomorphs, stem ungulates, stem carnivorans/pangolins, stem bats or stem rodents. There is many other animals that have ghost lineanges, and Ornithiscians might be one.
I would like to think the evolution of feathers are independent to each clade. It's like how some pterosaurs have hair like filaments similar to mammals despite being unrelated distantly.
who cares? not going to solve our problems. if we survive past superintelligence we can figure paleontology out.
Atleast, they didn't have Boobs.
First of your videos I've watched and I can say you have a new subscriber, the level of information given here is very good and presented very clearly with good narration as well as entertaining art.
Keep up the good work man, looking forward to watching your other videos.
Wow, thank you for the very kind words! I'm glad you enjoy the format of my videos, it's good to know that it works :)
Ben G Thomas
I also agree with
Lewis Carlin BUT cut out the "music", ( no needed ), to have a clearer listening of your explanations.!!!
You, Sir, got then a new subscriber to your chanel
Lewis Carlin ooo
It seems likely bipedal carnivory (or at least omnivory) is a conserved trait at the level of all dinosauria. Many small, basal members of dinosaur groups have a superficially therapod-like body plan, with two legs, smaller arms, and dentition suggesting at least omnivory. So therapods and hererosaurs didn't necessarily need to evolve the same habits and body plan independently under the new model.
Somehow your video let the old tree appear more plausible. Might be because you didn't say anything specific about why the change was suggested.
Slight correction: Herrerasaurs and Theropods wouldn't be an example of convergent evolution. That would, rather imply that the ancenstrial animal to both saurischians and ornithischians had the Herrerasaur-Theropod bodyplan.
Firstly, you give no further evidence to support your claim. Secondly, we know both ornithischians and sauropods evolved from bipedal ancestors, showing convergent evolution to be even more likely.
Christian Schiller I am sorry I meant the ancestor of sauropods ornithiscians and theropods, not just the latter too.
Oh, that actually makes a lot of sense now.
I wish to be smarter than I am now
THE KID
I agree with you!!!
The new arrangement does satisfy my OCD having modern birds being classified under ornithischians now.
they still aren't classified under ornithischians, they are just closer together
Stupid, they are from Theropods.
Well, which one is more likely to happen, from a genetic perspective: That pneumatic bones evolved twice within dinosauria, or that the pneumatic bone trait is lost in favour of solid bones? Do we have any genetic perspective to add to this? Birds are theropoda, and so we should be able to look at the genes that produce their pneumatic bones, and deduce something about how likely these changes may be..
It's a shame we have no living descendants of any of the other dinosaur groups, to compare to.
Birds did not come from dinosaurs or therapods. They came from reptiles that predated the dinosaurs. They share a common ancestry but are not directly related. Fully functional flying birds were present at the same time the first therapods walked the Earth. Bird fossils are not as common in the triassic but they are and the reason more fossils do not exist is due to the fact that bird bones were smaller than dino bones so they did not get preserved as well.
Also mammals ruled the Earth before Dinosaurs did. They preyed on the early dinosaurs. These Gorgons disappeared before the rise of dinosaurs.
The history of the Earth is far stranger than the Academy would have us believe. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually we discover that life on Earth is not quite as old as we think.
@Kevin Hagen - they lactated milk. A characteristic of mammals. They may have even given birth to live young. Evidence for this is actually no evidence of eggs in the fossil record from Gorgons. They were also endothermic and probably had hair on their bodies. They were basically early mammals but mammals they were.
hunter hornet
Lack of evidence isn't in and of itself evidence. As for lactation and live birth, monotremes lay eggs so at some point mammals and their ancestors did as well before they split apart.
Gorgonopsids were unlikely to have made it to the point where we'd classify them as true mammals, they were the first theridonts to die out. They were succeeded by the very species that went on to become our common ancestor.
They're essentially prototypes, and unsuccessful ones at that.
hunter hornet I don't get why you're so confident about your birds aren't dinosaurs hypothesis, it's not supported by evidence and doesn't make logical sense either. The closer a non-avian theropod was related to birds the more it looked like birds. How do you explain that?
@@DiamondxReigns Birds have definitely descended from dinosaurs as they share many similarities with other theropods like pneumatic bones and feathers and a wish bone also there are no fossils of birds from the triassic as they weren't even alive back then also gorgonopsids are to primitive to be considered mammals and they never at any point lived with dinosaurs.
What about having theropods, sauropodomorphs and hererrasaurs as a group of 3 on the sauriscia clade? How viable is that?
Can I request an update on this topic?
but isn't skeletal pneumaticity found in pterosaurs aswell?
yes, i believe it is
phineas Smith Yes it is, which would seem to suggest that perhaps the common ancestor of Ornithodirans was pneumatic, and therefore it was secondarily lost in Ornithischians, so it just kinda adds to the mess. More fossils are needed!
phineas Smith
Pterosaurs are not dinosaurs.
Simon Sozzi They're still archosaurs, and still evolved from the same common ancestor that dinosaurs and crocodilians evolved from.
Andre Marchand indeed
0:32 so glad I grew up with this
4:34 and not this
0:44 I believe "pachycephalosaurs" is not pronounced "others".
C'mon Ben, what kind of child were you if you didn't say "pachycephalosaurus" as easily as "cake"?
Good sum-up, and excellent pieces of paleoart.
I'm digging your videos! Great stuff. For my part, I can't help but think that there are a number of basal traits in Dinosauria that re-emerged multiple times and that trying to differentiate lineages by hip phylogeny (or any single physical trait) is an outdated approach.
Given the time period, why couldn't Herrerasaurus be some kind of basal ornithischian/therapod/sauropod offshoot, not successful enough to form it's own suborder but indicative of the variety of traits rattling around in their genes and the variety of life in the Triassic? Hell, before the mid-late Triassic, there were all kinds of strange dinosauriformes wandering around. Talking about Herrerasaurus, it would make sense if it was simply 'basal to the root' given it's non-pneumatic bones... that is, that the therapods and saurapodomorphs split off after Herrerasaurus. Especially given that "prosauropods" (basal sauropodomorphs) definitely had pneumatic bones (at least some of them did) and that split occurred later.
On a separate note, I don't quite know how to say it right but I don't think convergent evolution alone explains the re-emergence of traits with dinosaurs. Clearly, the environment dictated what forces were exerted on animals and how they adapted as a result but these weren't unrelated animals. They shared ancestry and appear to have shared a genetic toolkit of characteristics that re-emerged when conditions were right (Therizinosaur for example is so reminiscent of early prosauropods that it was missclassified for years). I can't back that but... I sure wish we could perform genetic analysis on dinosaurs. Much as I like to see a challenge to the pubic classification of dinosaurs, I don't think it's particularly more valid to use pneumaticity than hip structure for classification.
This was great, alot of great points throughout the video.
It's so difficult to find a good informative channel. Well, this channel popped up between my recommended content. I'm glad it did. I subscribed. Thankx so much.
Thank you for your kind words! It means a lot :)
Excellent Professor, I Subscribe to your boundless Knowledge n wisdom.
You really know your stuff well.
Subbed! amazing channel bro, keep up the good work.
Thank you so much! We will! :)
Wow I need to update my dinosaura news. This video was posted 2 years ago and I didn't know about it.
Yep but as far as I understand most scientists still side with the old arrangement, still, this is an idea to keep an eye on and rebuttals and supporting papers are still coming out.
I love your channel, guys! Thanks for the awesome content!
Great video! This answered a lot of questions.
Thanks, glad I could help :)
Cool vid, I wasn't even aware that this happened. Evolution is very exciting for me.
What about those that are still classified as theropods but still have lizard-like hips? Such as the carnosaurs, megalosaurs, etc.?
Pneumatic(Hollow) bones are not present in other dinosaurs?
Anyone know if this study still holds up in 2021?
Now, classification of dinosaurs will be as changing and arbitrary than classification of mushrooms ...
@Brandein Guerrero To me also, but I presume that some scientists did find that way to justify their pay ...
Pneumatic bones could have been the result of convergent evolution due to sauropods needing more lightweight bones in certain portions of the upper body to put less strain on the lower body.
Great vid dude 👍.
What's a Herrerasaur ? What are some examples of this lineage?
Herrersaurids were small, basal members of the dinosaur group that had gone extinct by the end of the Triassic period. They include animals such as Herrerasaurus and Staurikosaurus, and seem to have a mix of characteristics that makes their exact relation to other dinosaurs not particularly clear.
That dino shaved his legs?
Can't we just say dinosaurs are large creatures who lived during a certain time period and were probably all unrelated to each other? They weren't all reptiles and not all had feathers. Just like today, we have different animals like mammals, birds, fish
This is.. Bad for sauropods. Think about it. Poor sauropods, they're the last of that lineage for almost a hundred million years, surrounded by other less related species.
If you feel sorry for the sauropods, check out the poor tuatara ;(
Ben G Thomas the tuatra, true. Poor species. But I feel like they own it, it's become their thing, so they're really pretty much legends
what about the poor monotremes from Australia
Mylo Rooster
What about the droid attack on the Wookies?
Professor Oak
They Killed Them All! Not Just the Men, but the Women and Children Too.
Who was the Wacko that painted the feathers on the Dinosaurs?
Evolution I suppose, because dinosaurs had feathers.
Why do people want to badly to put the feathered Dinos together? Considering real birds are in Ornithischia, it's pretty easy to tell it's convergence, so any group could have them.
2:00 Couldn't the ancestral state be carnivorous and similar to both therapods and herrerasaurs?
very interesting!!!
good vids i subbed
+HOLLOW NANO Thank you :D
Dinosaurs were originally defined as everything since the common ancestor of Megalodon and Iguanodon is that still the case because if so that would mean sauropods are not dinosaurs anymore
I'm pretty sure you meant Megalosaurus instead of the largest shark that has ever lived
@@robertjackson1813 Ducking autocorrect
How are herrasaurs different from Theropods?
Paleozoic Productions herrerasaurs had a very similar overall bodyplan to Theropods but similar bodyplan does not necessarily mean closely related. The adaptations that Theropods developed were more subtle than the adaptations developed by Sauropods and Ornithischians.
Do you have an update on this video?
Good subject, and very interesting video.!
It is a pity, that a useless music did NOT let us listen the explanation !!!
I tried very hard to listen the voice, almost blocked by that useless "music".!!!
Please, do it again, with more volume in the voice, and WITHOUT that UNESSESARY "music".!!!
I am very interested in this comments, as soon as I hear them.!!!
A Rodrigues actually I can hear the voice, its louder than the music, I think you might need to check your ears (no offense, im just saying)
THE KID
You are wrong, friend.!!!
That music IS NOT needed.!!!
This is supposed to be a scientific discussion about paleontology, ( for grown ups ), not kindergarden/Walt Disney's style.
And if I need to check my earing, you need to check your wise guy
brains !!!
I am a senior cityzen, and I dont have to take commemts like that from brats!!!
AND I REPEAT: NOT NEEDED "MUSIC", and respect other's opinion...
A Rodrigues
lmao
Have this new classification been widely accepted yet?
No, it's a proposed classification.
On another note, this is why ceratopsians such as psittacosaurus had feathers, they were related to theropods, and feathers did not evolve through a common ancestor of saurischian and ornithischian dinosaurs.
Also why ceratosaurus and carnotaurus had horns, like ceratopsians, even though they were theropods.
This was an example of convergent evolution, the split off from different lineages. However their horns were for different purposes.
A common theory is that the horns evolved for sex.
Wow, Herrera pelvic bones look a hell lot like the ones on a Sauropod.
I don't understand any of this...what does it mean?
It makes sense to me that when science uses a "tree" to describe evolution, they should take into account that most trees are three dimensional... which could explain more trait mixing.
Billy G Diaz this is true, I like it.
I mean what other diagrams you could think of? Obviously a tree, we are talking about ancestors and descendants as much as in family trees lol. It is all consistent.
If we could identify the genes that allow for pneumaticity and are able to confirm or deny their existence in modern birds then it might be possible to determine whether theropods are closely connected to the ornithopods.
Please Complete All Fields well there was one T. rex vertebrate that has bone marrow inside the bones so maybe?
So we just ignore the similar parts between sauropod and theropods?
Also,a recent study had showed that these two theories are quite equal in terms of anatomical evidence. Through both are weakly supported.
We don't ignore them, because they are explained by the common ancestor having the Theropod-Herrerasaur-Sauropodomorph bodyplan
Eshanosaurus deguchiianus But you could also say that for this new family tree. You could say that there are features shared by the original ornithischians and theropods were because the ancestor of all three family groups of dinosaurs were very theropod-like. Maybe one day there will be a theory saying theropods were the ancestor of both sauropods and ornithischians.
Where prehistoric life in general is concerned there is, inevitably, a good deal of educated guesswork involved. Almost certainly, some dinosaurs had feathers and others did not; some were warm-blooded and others were not; and some were brightly coloured while others were drabber---much like the animals that are around today. And I find it hard to think of birds as dinosaurs; DESCENDED from dinosaurs yes, but actual dinos---no, not really.
Wales becoming Wales didn't stop him from being mammals
Amazing how this could impact human origin studies. :)
So apparently i needed to watch dinos for dummies first lol
So they changed the taxonomic order for dinosaurs based on the fact that Ornithiscians are "bird hipped" and that chickens and other birds are the descendants of T-rex and the like which is a therapod and a saurischian? Makes sense word wise
The world where I grew up now longer exists :(
Prince Kalender oh! Which time period are you from then?
@@lukeskywalkerjediknight2125 when there were saurisquians and ornitisquians.
wait wait here are huerras realated to sauropods?!!
L'oreal, because I'm worth it
+maxlancaster579 What has Mexico done to you?
I don't like that you talk about this like it's the objective truth or like ti's now the most widely accepted classification because it's not. There's a lot of problems with it, and remember that the evidence to support it is mostly based on lack of evidence.
The feathers thing is not a good example. Remember that other archosaurians like Pterosaurs also had feather-like structures, which suggest the last common ancestor between pterosaurs and dinosaurs already had primitive versions of proto feathers. This would mean that any dinosaur could have had feathers, regardless of their more specific lineage.
Yes, the paper makes some pretty good points but also misses other important pieces of the puzzle. For now, I don't think there's enough acceptance within the scientific community to consider this "The new family tree" or change textbooks. It is, however, a very significant piece of work that could lead to some more concrete discoveries in the near future.
David LS I think you misheard him; he said that it will likely change in the future, he’s just pointing out the new discovery and the potential errors it can occur
Source?
Everyone that doesnt like it but knows it will change nothing:
(That crying tumbsup cat)
Herrarasaurs are not dinosaurs only two vertibrae were on the hip of Herrarasaurs, which were only closely related to dinosauria
why is it all lines do not converg on flying?
That doesn't make sense
It's funny how pterosaurs have pneumatic bones as well
Does that mean pterosaurs could be dinosaurs and more closely related to theropods and ornithiscians than the latter two are related to sauropods? I mean if pterosaurs can produce "proto-feathers/pycnofibers" and sauropods cannot-could all those people calling pterosaurs "flying dinosaurs" have been correct all along
No, because pterosaurs are still outside the dinosaur clade, whereas sauropods, whichever family tree you go with, are still within dinosauria.
No you're not suggesting that at all
Elephant in the room, this just opened up a huge possibility of sentient species coming from the Herrerasaur group. They showed up in a early stage of Dinosaurs evolution, much like the mammals that became primates
If the Theropods brought the rise of birds then something advanced could have come from Herrerasaurs, something dragon like. Dragons resembel Sauropods and every culture has stories about them being like real people. Its not that if fossils of a dragon like species are found, it could mean that we aren’t the only conscious lifeforms on this planet. I’d rather focus on that theory then finding out if life even exists elsewhere in the universe.
no just no
Crab trunk suction did you hear? Rabbit ears
What the literal fug are you going on about.🤨
Head should face right doesn't matter about the tree block lol
the power of science hey. With so much to know I therefore don't know very much. On that basis I choose not to commit a belief rather than to simply go with what's said of things. Makes sense to me and so I don't accept things blindly. And even then when read up on all that is to know on a subject, is the information actually the case. Something can certainly seem water tight when run through a filter. So much of this world is made up of lies from media to history so it's hardly a stretch to think lots of other things are too. Who knows, not me or anyone in fact unless consulting something designed to conform to a 'truth'. But who knows
I didn't hear any of the reasons why it needed changing. I only heard reasons why the old version was better :)
It's crazy to think about the creation of earth and it's life .
Yep, who knew a bunch of rocks clumping together in an early solar system create such... interesting forms of matter.
This would change what actually is a dinosaur, as the definition is any animal closely related to t-Rex and Triceratops, leaving sauropods out.
Indeed, that's why the paper has proposed a new definition which includes animals closely related to Diplodocus as well.
Ben G Thomas this video have me a bit headache. This new classification is too complex.
Ben G Thomas so birds evolved from ornithisius group?
No Sauropods are still lizard hipped dinosaurs. They will be dinosaurs unless there is enough evidence to show that bird and lizard hipped dinosaurs evolved independently from the Archosaurs.
apply the razor and it is obvious.
I kinda already had a suspicion that this was true years ago. Too bad I didn't say or do anything about it tho.
Maimasuarus did not have feathers
I just googled it liar, there's no such animal!
Great video, not fan of the monotone voice though. It removed a bit of my dinohype!
So... The dinosaurs you suggest they were not extinct by a meteor? They evolved?
Birds are the only extant Dinosaurs, having evolved from a heavily specialized branch of Theropod Dinosaurs in the mid/late Jurassic period
The great majority of them died after the meteor strike but then the birds that were less than a certain measure of weight manage to survive and diversify after that
do you want to play a game?
So some dinosaurs didn’t go through puberty?
Maybe orniticians no way I write that word simply lost that trait later in evolution
You spell it like this: Orn-ith-isch-ians
Now write them together: Ornithischians
So is this officially accepted by the paleo community? This is how dinosaurs are going to be assigned now? I'm lost...lol
It's more of a suggestion for how dinosaurs should now be classified. It's definitely gaining more support now and it seems fairly likely that a classification along these lines will turn out to be true. But keep in mind that it will probably change again once we have more fossils of early dinosaurs that allow us to clear up the confusing mess of early dinosaur evolution :)
Gotta love science! It took me quite a while to wrap my head around the fact that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, but were in fact dinosaurs. Ha! This will take some getting used to too. (I have to imagine the same unease to many when the birds-from-dinosaurs theory was first gaining traction).
...just released from a mental institution.
Called the police, said it was like Jurassic Park over here, velociraptors all over my garden.
On my roof, in my tree, everywhere.
Dinosaurs looking for a possibility to eat me.
At first they didn´t believe me, many psychiatrists don´t know paleontology.
Birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, but were in fact dinosaurs.
This will take some getting used to too.
But if dinosaurs evolved hips then how did they get onto the Ark hmmm?
They didn't, nothing did, it's that simple.
Troll fail.
theropods are lizard hipped not putting it in sauriscia does not make scence
you shoulda had pictures explaining the tree. woulda been simple and added so much to the content. ive lost respect for you dude. you need to make things appealing and not just science talk. im extremely interested dont get me wrong, but eveyone prefers pleasant visuals
Awesome violin music. Reminded me of the good time I had at a funeral.
Ok so dinosaurs were warm blooded like birds.
Holy crap are you serious that is old news yes they were warm-blooded that's been known since like the 1980's ! A little late to the party aren't we?
I'm more confused now.
Simon Sozzi I'm even more confused, I guess I'll just study ornithology now
Yeah but dinosaurs are animals and not trees wthwth
I really hope this is a joke.
Nope.. No, I can't accept that somebody is this stupid, this must be a light-hearted joke.
Not a paleontologist, but until pneumaticity is solved I will not accept these changes.
Well okay my language is a bit harsh, I would hate to sound like the creationists in the comments, however pneumaticity seems like a big hurdle for this new schema to overcome.
I'm having fried dinosaur for dinner tonight.
Enjoy ;)
That rex in the thumbnail is the ugliest piece of SHIT I've seen. It doesn't even have arms. Anyways this video helped a lot
You can't tell that an emu has arms but they have them that's what the artist is trying to show with his image
cap
wow
subbed :)
F1r3D1n0 FP23 Thank you :D
Ben G Thomas np homie
Mutant birds from Atlantis.
MY LIFE IS A LIAR...
Old one is better. I don’t think anyone likes this new tree.
T. rex did not have feathers. It annoys me when they put feathers on them.
like if you think hells Creek Dino's are the best
Haha, it certainly does have some great dinosaurs!
Jennifer Fuentes I'm kinda split between Hell Creek and the Morrison Formation. That and Chubut and Chenini are up there.
Chinle. Because dinosaurs get all the attention, and the weird and wonderful world of the late Triassic was full of equally amazing, non-dinosaurian fauna worth studying.. in addition to some great specimens of Coelophysis and other hints at the mystery of early dinosaur evolution.
(Cough) (cough)………all Alaskan formations…………
Andrewsarchus was an ancestor of sheep and was a carnivore; theropods and ornithischians might be similar.
Who said that Andrewsarchus was an ancestor of sheep? Maybe a very distant cousin, but the structure of its skull (with its reduced eye sockets) look more basal to cetaceans, not modern hoofed mammals, which have well defined eye sockets.
CurbYrDogma - as much as the new arrangement of the dinosaurs are once again changed; Andrewsarchus is an ancestor of sheep are modern birds are to theropods. Ungulates which include modern sheep and goats, contain relatives of pigs and hippos which are theorized to be relatives of Andrewsarchus.
An "ancestor" would indicate a direct lineage (i.e. your great grandfather). Andrewsarchus would be an ancestral cousin (i.e. your great-grandfather's third cousin once removed) meaning it was related to the ancestors of even-toed ungulates, but its lineage is believed to be more closely related to hippos and cetaceans, for the reasons I stated above. Hippos and cetaceans are on a different branch of the Artiodactyl taxonomic tree than ruminants, which include deer, sheep and cattle.
Andrewsarchus' only close living relatives are whales
Andrewsarchus was an evolutionary dead end.
nope nope nope my life a lie
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
Eduardo Freitas Ass study of nuclear provverinces found inclosed in goins kinjajou in san lovarae 5698
Unmm mmm i didnt right that weird comment that has my name 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱
*ske1337al*