# Dinosaurs... or are they? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [June 14, 2000, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dinosaurs-or-are-they/22339 "2000-06-14T14:06:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mustapha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Mustapha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mustapha)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dinosaurs-or-are-they/22339/1 "2000-06-14T14:06:47Z")
Another puzzler from the Pterosaur/Dinosaur debate. Those beasties that were called dinosaurs were divided into two groups: Saurischians and Ornithischians. I vaguely remember that they were divided based upon their hip structure which was either lizard-hipped (Saurischian) or bird-hipped (Ornithischian). But “modern birds descended from saurischians”… Figure that one out! ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dinosaurs-or-are-they/22339/2 "2000-06-14T14:55:55Z")
Welcome to the SDMB, and thank you for posting your comment. Please include a link to Cecil’s column if it’s on the straight dope web site. To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space **before** and **after** the text of the URL). Cecil’s column can be found on-line at this link: [Pterosaurs aren’t considered true dinosaurs. Why not? (30-Jun-1995)](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_214.html) The column ( **including** Slug Signorino’s illustration) can also be found on pages 214-216 of Cecil Adams’ book “[_Triumph of the Straight Dope_](http://www.straightdope.com/otheroutlets/books.html)”. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dinosaurs-or-are-they/22339/3 "2000-06-14T15:11:51Z")
By the way, Mustapha, I forgot to respond to your comment \<\\> That does seem surprising at first glance, now that you mention it. I think that Archaeopteryx was most closely related to theropods, which were saurischians, so zoologists think that birds are descended from theropods. I suppose “bird hips” evolved twice, in the same way that flight evolved three times in vertebrates, as mentioned in Cecil’s column. ---
**Author:** ![Beruang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/77aa72/32.png) [@Beruang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beruang)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2000, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dinosaurs-or-are-they/22339/4 "2000-06-14T17:44:05Z")
Yup, that’s pretty much what happened. The illia of Archaeopteryx and other early birds are much more lizard-like than those of their descendants. ---
**Author:** ![Mustapha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Mustapha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mustapha)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2000, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dinosaurs-or-are-they/22339/5 "2000-06-15T06:32:33Z")
Hi guys! I read some news about Archaeopteryx a few months back, that it had been debunked. The famous fossil that started it all, a small saurian creature with feathers, turns out to have been just one fossil on top of another. (Yes I do know there are other -opteryx fossils out there) I read the article in the BBC’s excellent science pages, but sadly I can’t seem to find the article in question. > **[Science & Environment News - BBC News](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science_and_environment)** > > Get the latest BBC Science and Environment News: breaking news, analysis and debate on science and nature in the UK and around the world. Does anyone else know of the report in question? ---
**Author:** ![Floater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dc4da7/32.png) [@Floater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Floater)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2000, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dinosaurs-or-are-they/22339/6 "2000-06-15T11:15:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > I read some news about Archaeopteryx a few months back, that it had been debunked. The famous fossil that started it all, a small saurian creature with feathers, turns out to have been just one fossil on top of another. > \*\* IIRC that was not an Archaeopteryx. It was a fossil from China that had been fabricated to look like a birdlike lizzard just to attract the interest of prospective buyers. Lars ---
**Author:** ![Mustapha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Mustapha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mustapha)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2000, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dinosaurs-or-are-they/22339/7 "2000-06-15T12:22:36Z")
Aah. Much obliged, I thought I was going mad there. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2000, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dinosaurs-or-are-they/22339/8 "2000-06-15T12:23:18Z")
As Floater said, that was something different. It was a recent fossil that claimed to show a different intermediate form between dinos and birds. Its debunking in no way affected the theories and fossils that already existed before that one was “discovered.” ---
**Author:** ![Mustapha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Mustapha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mustapha)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dinosaurs-or-are-they/22339/9 "2000-06-26T03:57:46Z")
In the interests of furthering arguments everywhere, I offer this link from the BBC’s science pages. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid\_802000/802009.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_802000/802009.stm) The basic gist of the article is that feathers may have evolved much earlier than first thought, and therefore birds may not be directly descended from dinosaurs per se.