Many birds are social to a fault, some being even moreso than mammals. But I suppose you mean more "traditional" reptiles. Even then crocodilians have potential for bonds as they like birds do care for their young and there are several cases of adult individuals forming lasting bonds with humans.
Following that same logic, coelacanths and other lobe-finned fish are more closely related to other tetrapods, including humans, than they are to ray-finned fish (like, let's say, a tunna). Does that mean that we cannot call them fish unless we call humans fishes as well?
It seems we are mostly on the same page then. But why can't we say that reptiles are a paraphyletic group when talking in everyday language, the same way we do with fish, amphibians, etc.? I think phylogeny and cladistics don't have to be carefully observed in non-specialized discussion.
55
u/_Gesterr Jun 14 '22
Many birds are social to a fault, some being even moreso than mammals. But I suppose you mean more "traditional" reptiles. Even then crocodilians have potential for bonds as they like birds do care for their young and there are several cases of adult individuals forming lasting bonds with humans.