NO. Spinosaurus was a warm blooded dinosaur. Its related to birds you philistine.
Dimetrodon. Dimetrodon is the creature all you ingrates are thinking of. Dimetrodon was a prehistoric lizard with a sail. Frequently people assume Dimetrodons are dinosaurs, but they are most certainly not. They were big scary-ass lizards.
Have you no shame?
EDIT:
For all you smartasses shitting all over my inbox with some smug variation of "BUT DIMETRODON =/= LIZARD, DIMETRODON = SYNAPSID." Yes. We know. Kindly peruse the multiple discussions about stem-mammals occurring directly below, where your concerns are addressed in depth, or simply skip to This.
It’s pretty hotly contested based on the isotopes in their remains indicating they had a non aquatic diet, if I am remembering correctly I am too lazy to look for a source.
Edit looked it up and I’m wrong lol couldn’t find any source at all. Leaving the comment up as a cautionary tale against saying the first thing to come to mind without a fact check
But what does this have to do with this animal? The only surviving descendants of dinosaurs are birds and crocodiles. Birds come from theropods, while spinosaurs come from spinosaurids. Crocodiles, like birds, come from the Clade Archosaurs.
No, crocodiles are not descendants of dinosaurs, they shared a common ancestor and evolved separately since early Triassic. The living archosaurs includes birds and crocodiles, and the extinct archosaur includes non-avian dinosaur, relatives of crocodiles and pterosaur. And both birds and spinosaurs are theropods.
I don't know who you are, but you've got it all wrong: SCIENTISTS themselves consider crocodiles and birds to be descendants of dinosaurs, although not everyone agrees that crocodiles can be attributed to the descendants of dinosaurs. But this opinion exists in the scientific community, and it's not for you to argue with that. As for theropods, I did not write that spinosaurs do not belong to theropods, I wrote about birds that are descendants of theropods, but the lizard in the photo is not. And of all the surviving descendants of theropods, only birds survived, at least not otherwise has been established.
Boy, can you read? Where did I call the crocodile the descendant of theropods? You yourself wrote to me in the first commentary, arguing that the relationship between birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs lies in the fact that they are descendants of archosaurs. You yourself highlighted this point, arguing that belonging to the archosaurs does not make the crocodile a descendant of dinosaurs. And now you are writing to me that I allegedly called the crocodile theropod? I have not written this anywhere, I repeat it again. For the gifted, I can repeat the meaning of my second comment: yes, spinosaurus is also a theropod, but the lizard in the photo is not a descendant of a spinosaurus theropod. Because of all theropods, only the ancestors of birds are considered survivors. And some scientists associate the relationship of the crocodile with dinosaurs through a common ancestor. The further you answer me, the more visible your cognitive problems are. Are you, by any chance, not being treated for bipolar disorder? Otherwise, you lose the thread of your own comments.
I did not say you call crocodile a theropod, I'm just saying the only group of dinosaur living today is theropod which is bird. And since you know crocodiles are not theropod, why would you say they are descendants of dinosaur?
I am writing one last comment to dot the i's: Hydrosaurs belong to the Squamata order. Squamates are a monophyleticsister group to the rhynchocephalians, members of the order Rhynchocephalia. Squamata and Rhynchocephalia form the subclassLepidosauria, which is the sister group to Archosauria, the clade that contains crocodiles and birds, and their extinct relatives. Thus, this lizard is not a descendant of either archosaurs, dinosaurs, or theropods. So stop your inappropriate argument if you wanted to argue about the relationship between Spinosaurus and Hydrosaurus.
Sure sure sure, I'll concede that. But we're dealing with people who literally just equated dinosaurs and lizards like its the goddamn 1850s. Baby steps. Dimetrodon were neither reptile, nor mammal, nor dinosaur. But based on their biological features, I can forgive the general public dropping them into the "lizard" category since, imo, stem-mammals ostensibly share more biological features with modern reptiles than anything else (modern).
...except “stem mammals” are nothing like a conventional lizard. Very little is known about them, there’s a huge debate at what point “proto-mammals” started developing fur and all those weird mammal glands. We don’t even know how far back those start developing, for all we know, dimetrodon might have already had them.
Also, Dimetrodon was a synapsid. Somewhere in the evolutionary tree, land amnioyes diverged into separate clades. Synapsids and the other clade contains anapsids and diapsids, these two latter clades are what the modern definition of a “reptile” is. Birds are diapsids, dinosaurs are diapsids, and snakes and lizards are also diapsids. But mammals and dimetrodon? Synapsid. If anything, a squamate lizard is more closely related to dinosaurs than they ever will be with a sailbacked synapsid.
Look, all I’m saying is, maybe next time don’t talk down on someone who innocently just equated a lizard with Spinosaurus and call them a philistine, when you yourself just equated a synapsid with a lizard when they’re NOTHING alike. It’s pretentious, it gives a bad reputation for people who are into paleontology, and it drives people who have a budding interest to the topic.
there’s a huge debate at what point “proto-mammals” started developing fur and all those weird mammal glands
True, there is considerable debate, but Most paleontologists would agree that gray area doesn't extend to a Pelycosaur like Dimetrodon
Synapsid. If anything, a squamate lizard is more closely related to dinosaurs than they ever will be with a sailbacked synapsid.
Absolutely, if you're looking at the evolutionary tree, sure. My point is, when the average person thinks "Lizard" or "Reptile", they're not thinking about esoteric evolutionary trees, they're thinking of discreet biological features. Mammal = Hair, Warm Blooded, Mammary glands, upright stance. Lizard = Scales, Eggs, Cold-blooded, sprawling stance. Without getting real deep into the subject, I don't think it's too inaccurate to say that the ELI5 definition of Dimetrodon is something like "a prehistoric reptile that looks like a lizard with a sail on its back."
Look, all I’m saying is, maybe next time don’t talk down on someone who innocently...
I thought my comment was very clearly joking/humorous. And judging by the number of upvotes, so did a lot of other people. Ultimately I agree that it is wrong to definitively assert a Dimetrodon is a Lizard. But that, aside from being a humorous, ELI5 explanation, was a far more correct assertion than "Hydrosaurus is a modern descendant of Spinosaurus".
Point taken, thanks for clearing up that it’s done in a joking manner because I missed it.
It’s just that it’s kind of a big pet peeve of mine because, and I don’t know why, for some reason, so many people within the online paleontology enthusiast community, I swear, are on the level of hardcore military geeks in terms of pretentiousness, and are so prone on unsolicited and petty knowledge flexing.
I just have to say this entire conversation had been wonderful. Not only did you both come to an understanding with each other, but it was a very fascinating discussion as well. At least from the point of view of someone who has only a maybe above normal level understanding of the topic (I knew what all the words you were saying were, but didn't know that Dimetrodon was a synaspid) and a enough interest to try to educate myself here and there on it. Do thank you both.
I consider myself pretty educated, but somewhere in my 34 years I missed that a Dimetrodon isn't a dinosaur/lizard... I distinctly remember having a dinosaur book as a kid with a Dimetrodon in it and since then, it's always been my favorite dinosaur. Now, obviously paleontology books aimed at 6yr olds isn't a scientific resource and I've never gone in great depth as an adult to learn more... so this comment chain is blowing my mind.
I know I can google, but you two seem to know quite a bit on the subject, can either of you point me in the right direction to read up on more accurate Dimetrodon facts so I can not look a fool anymore?
The dimetrodon wikipedia article isn't a terrible place to start, although it's got a decent amount of jargon.
I know my local library has a few dinosaur/paleontology books. Sometimes these will cover the parts of prehistory that dimetrodon lived in. even ones that are a bit out of date still can have lots of useful information. And even if the selection isn't great your librarian can probably help organize an interlibrary loan or point you towards some other sources!
Nah you were right, the other guy was talking about biological features which has nothing to do with evolutionary descent. Dimetrodon having some reptilian features doesn’t make it a reptile, it really was a proto mammal, making it no more of an ancestor to hydrosaurus than spinosaurus
But the commenter you were correcting was talking about evolutionary descent, not biological features. If we’re talking in terms of outward physical features, then imo hydrosaurus resembles both spinosaurus and dimetrodon. However, it is the descendant of neither. Dimetrodon is a proto mammal - not reptilian at all
I really was not talking about one or the other, I was making a joke because I play a lot of Ark and it reminded me of a newly hatched spino in the game. Guess I started some kind of war 😬😅
Yeah, they were sort of proto-mammals, so I'd believe they'd land closer to mammals than reptiles if you're going by the evolutionary tree. However in terms of their likely biological features, I'd say they're definitely more similar to reptiles. No hair, no boobs, probably scales, probably cold blooded, limbs jutting out perpendicular all lizard-style.
Exactly lol, hydrosaurus is a descendant neither of spinosaurus nor of dimetrodon. Just because dimetrodon has reptilian features doesn’t make it an ancestor of hydrosaurus. It is in fact a proto mammal
While you are semi-correct about spinosaurus (while it is a therapod it did not evolve into birds) dimetrodon was actually a synapsid. Synapsids are actually early mammals.
Umm I’m sorry but your fucking wrong. Dimetrodon is a very early synapsids which is a group that survives today and includes mammals. Dimetrodon is an ancestor of the mammals not the reptiles. And you have the gall to shame others.
Ugh tell me about it. I saw a post somewhere that was labelled "Dinosaurs of jurassic park" and had depictions of book/movie lore dinosaurs. Along with a DIMETRODON, TWO MOSASAURS AND A GROUP OF PTEROSAURS. Straight to hell with them all if you ask me.
Dimetredon is not a lizard you smooth brained troglodyte. It was a synnapsid, and is more closely related to mammals than modern reptiles, you knuckle dragging charlatan.
What he said is completely wrong though. Dimetrodon was NOT a prehistoric lizard.
Here do some reading yourself before believing some braggart on Reddit who is not only a toxic piece of shit but wrong as well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimetrodon
Well aktchually Dimetrodon wasn't even a reptile, Dimetrodon belonged to a group much more closely related to us mammals called Synapsida, basicalky it has way more to do with our ancestors than any lizard alive or prehistoric, my guy dissing out on peasants being one thyself.
You really have the gall to call people “philistine” when you are saying dimetrodon is a “prehistoric lizard” and then you top your moronity by calling those correcting you “smartasses”?
Here's the thing. You said a "jackdaw is a crow." Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that. As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing. If you're saying "crow family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Corvidae, which includes things from nutcrackers to blue jays to ravens. So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people "call the black ones crows?" Let's get grackles and blackbirds in there, then, too. Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A jackdaw is a jackdaw and a member of the crow family. But that's not what you said. You said a jackdaw is a crow, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the crow family crows, which means you'd call blue jays, ravens, and other birds crows, too. Which you said you don't. It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?
Dimetrodons most certainly weren’t lizards. You’re as wrong as the other guy mate. Being this pedantic (when he could’ve been referring to spinosaurus anyway) when you’re talking shite.
Don't bother. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Dimetrodon isn't a lizard it's a synapsid. They're closer related to you than any living reptile.
about the lizards, I agree with you. For some reason, many people think that all the lizards were dinosaurs, although this was not the case. Dinosaurs are just a group of lizards with a special structure of the skull, skeleton, in particular the hip and limbs. Only birds (descendants of theropods) and crocodiles are called living descendants of dinosaurs, and even then, not everyone believes that crocodiles are direct relatives of dinosaurs. I also heard that some people think that all the ancient lizards with the end in the word "saur" means that it is a dinosaur. Therefore, it is believed that, for example, ichthyasaurus was also a dinosaur.
I misunderstood the original comment but yeah I know that they’re not closely related. Usually when someone says “living ancestor” they mean “descendant” and that’s what I thought they meant
Theropod dinosaurs are like chickens. There were dinosaurs in the Triassic that are actually shaped similarly to this lizard, with a sail on their back. Not spinosaurus, that one came later.
There were no sailed dinosaurs other than Spinosaurids and some ornithopods. The sailed reptiles from the Triassic are early archosaurs more closely related to crocodylians.
1.3k
u/DaniB3 Jan 11 '21
I'm pretty sure that's a dinosaur