# What color were dinosaurs? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [November 26, 2008, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-color-were-dinosaurs/474596 "2008-11-26T19:29:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2008, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-color-were-dinosaurs/474596/41 "2008-12-09T21:26:53Z")
[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch] So, in a lot of ways, the distinctions being made today are the result of refining the way we think about relationships. Linnaeus was a creationist, so he grouped organisms together based largely on appearance, or modes of life, rather than any actual relationships. Today, we try to group organisms based on relationships, and the result is that a lot of older definitions for things like “bird”, “reptile”, “amphibian”, “dinosaur”, etc. wind up getting re-worked in the process. [/QUOTE] That’s all well and good, but it sure makes it hard to be an interested layperson. 😉 > [@Grendel's Father](#): > > However, it is based on relationships, not appearance or physical characteristics, and from what we know about mammal evolution, this means there are extinct non-mammals with hair and milk that would probably have been considered mammals if they were alive today (Castorocauda, for example). I note there is a broader classification called “mammaliformes”, which includes the mammal ancestor and the clade to which Castorocauda belongs. So one could argue it’s a choice of which word is used where. But yes, I see your point. The confusion comes in with things like saying birds are “reptiles”. You’re leaving a lot of laypeople in the dust. But I suppose it’s no different than the IAU declaring that Pluto is no longer a planet. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-color-were-dinosaurs/474596.md?page=2)