What color were dinosaurs?

[Irishman]

@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.

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.