/anthro/ - Anthropomorphic

6bf7521fb56994d3323fe5652287fb0e041d7178916fb6efea2810974979afd0.gif U A
[Hide] (149.3KB, 236x260) Reverse

>they're reptiles

>they're reptiles
No, just no.

bird.jpg U A
[Hide] (14.2KB, 454x331) Reverse

>>125177
>>125186
They're literally reptiles though, why wouldn't they be? They share the same ancestor as any other reptile that mammals don't. Reptile doesn't just mean "green and cold blooded"

>>125188
Err. Wrong. That's not what Ms. Moreno from 2nd grade told me ergo you are wrong. Birds are birds. Simple as. Sorry.

call birbs reptiles:  guaranteed reppeys

>>125188
Call them avians like a normal person.

>>125191
So are crocodiles avians too, retard?

Because they tend to be covered in feathers, which are more similar in composition and purpose to fur than they are to scales. Considered by whom?

360_F_1669967653_mj23BYciYHU9nmOpCpR4hInWpsFwyPBx.jpg U A
[Hide] (35.8KB, 661x360) Reverse

>>125209
Birds literally have scales

>>125226
And what do they have that covers most of their scales?

About_WildBird-mobile.jpg U A
[Hide] (84.5KB, 480x330) Reverse

>>125228
For the vast majority of bird species absolutely nothing, very few birds grow feathers on their lower legs and feet 
I'm starting to think the 'boo has never seen a bird in their life

>>125175 (OP) 
They are not reptiles, they evolved from the same common ancestor as reptiles but they themselves are not reptiles . A reptile would have fully scaly skin, birds do not have this, only having scales on their feet. Having scales at all is not the defining factor of a reptile, otherwise fish, insects, and even some mammals like pangolin/armadillo would be considered reptiles

>lust inducing image
>irrelevant time-wasting question

>>125235
>they evolved from the same common ancestor as reptiles but they themselves are not reptiles
This isn't how it works at all, you're giving the definition of a reptile then saying they aren't reptiles.  "Reptile" is a classification based on evolution that tells you what an animal's ancestor is. No actual definition of reptile means "has fully scaly skin", the only context I can imagine this being used is in some elementary class where kids are just being taught what animals are, which is both extremely simplified and outdated, but kids also wouldn't be bothered to distinguish the difference between a pangolin and reptiles so this is just a completely absurd definition of reptile.

>>125226
Look at your knuckles.

imagesbirb.jpg U A
[Hide] (17.2KB, 492x403) Reverse

>>125226
proof of our ancestor :)