This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Yay, Nul Nul! That you for finding the quote.
Nul Nul: No problem. :)
Large Blunt Object: Seven obvious aversions listed as subverted... Christ.
TTD: You know, that happens a lot. I guess some Tropers are enthusiastic teens who don't fully understand the difference. Were We Any Different? XD
Indigo: Is there a definition page lying around somewhere that explains the difference between aversion and subversion for those who don't have the difference between the two commmitted to memory?
Nul Nul: Not A Subversion and part of Averted Trope.
Robert: If dinosaurs are reptiles, mammals still aren't, hence the edit. The current thinking is that none of our ancestors were reptiles, to the extent that the term means anything. Birds are Dinosaurs, and their nearest living relatives are crocodiles, whose ancestors were warm-blooded. The second nearest relatives are the lizards and snakes, collectively. Turtles are more distant still, with mammals and their ancestral groups coming in fourth. If dinosaurs are reptiles, so are birds, but not mammals. Indeed, contrary Hollywood science, none of our ancestor would have looked like reptiles; they never had scales.
TTD: This is a bit much to address after two chocolate martinis (^_^) but (A.) what about mammal-like reptiles and (B.) since when does having scales mean you are a reptile? (Take a look at the back of your hand if you suffer winter skin.)
Robert: For all but the very earliest mammal-like reptiles, now less misleadingly called synapsids
, a living specimen would not look particularly reptilian. Not everything with scales is a reptile (consider fish), but they are among the more obvious features of the typical reptile.
TTD: Like I said, "after two chocolate martinis". What I'd meant was, since when are scales one of the defining traits of a reptile? Anyway, thanks for the Science Marches On alert. (I'll admit I'd always skipped the obligatory chapter about Cynodont and pals to get to the dinosaurs.)
Robert: The defining characters of reptiles vary, depending on who you ask. A popular definition these days is any animal more closely related to crocodiles than to cats, or equivalent, which doesn't refer to any physical features. Those that do use features that fossilise well. However, reptile style scale are restricted to true reptiles, originating after they split from mammals. Our last common ancestor had skin like a frogs; scaleless, with glands in. Reptiles lost the glands and grew scales, suitable for arid climates. Proto-mammals grew hair and used the glands for sweat, a different path.
Another interesting thing is that crocodiles appear to be descended from semi-warm blooded speedy reptiles, the opposite direction of evolution to what people expect - but I digress.
TTD: "Crocodiles appear to be descended from semi-warm blooded speedy reptiles, the opposite direction of evolution to what people expect - but I digress."
Ah, Hollywood Evolution. And, indeed, since when is one metabolism "better" than another?
The dinosaur paragraph is starting to Bug Me, since there's something about it that rings false. (Last I heard, either Dinosaurs get their own class or Archosaurs do (and Archosauria would include crocs, dinos and birds, and a handful of less popular animals — but not the seagoing animals.) Pondering that actually made me curious about just what "counts" as a reptile and what doesn't, so I headed over to that other Wiki... and learned for the first time in all my years of biology-geekery that the Reptile designation is f***ing arbitrary:
"Mammals are a clade, and therefore the cladists are happy to acknowledge the traditional taxon Mammalia; and birds, too, are a clade, universally ascribed to the formal taxon Aves. Mammalia and Aves are, in fact, subclades within the grand clade of the Amniota. But the traditional class reptilia is not a clade. It is just a section of the clade Amniota: the section that is left after the Mammalia and Aves have been hived off. It cannot be defined by synamorphies, as is the proper way. It is instead defined by a combination of the features it has and the features it lacks: reptiles are the amniotes that lack fur or feathers. At best, the cladists suggest, we could say that the traditional Reptila are 'non-avian, non-mammalian amniotes'."
So in other words, there's Mammalia, Aves (or, more correctly, Dinosauria; or, more correctly, Archosauria), and Everybody Else Who Lays Their Eggs On Land. D-a-a-a-ng.
I'm cutting the dinosaur/archosaur/whatever it is this week bit, since it's just too much trouble, but there really ought to be something in the description about this.
Robert: Archosaurs are birds+crocodiles, i.e all descendants of their last common ancester. Dinosaurs are birds+triceratops, a subclade within the archosaurs. The two aren't synonyms. There is a valid clade that includes all the living 'reptiles', the sauropsida, which are everything more closely related to crocodiles than cats. This excludes the mammal-like reptiles. However, it's probably simplest if we don't attempt to explain this ourselves, but just direct people to a good explanation. The intricacies of cladistic taxonomy arenot exactly our field.
TTD: "The two aren't synonyms." I know that. :/
It is really too complicated to get into here, so let's not even bring it up in the trope page. Moving on, then, pictures? (See below.)
Trouser Wearing Barbarian: I think that it might be worth noting that the public perception of dinosaurs as being oversized reptiles (however outdated or inaccurate it might be) is one of the reasons why they're considered scary. Why else would the same people who find scaly raptors horrifying think that feathery raptors are Nightmare Retardant?
Diddgery: Removed a bit that refers to Bangaa as "the only playable race in Final Fantasy Tactics [Advance] that appear as enemies." Whoever added that clearly hasn't played the game - while the first battle is against two Bangaa, you often wind up fighting enemy clans that include all sorts, including the cuddly Moogles.
Monsund:That was talking about Final Fantasy XII not Final Fantasy tactics advance.
Freezair For A Limited Time: I know they're actually amphibians, but where do frogs fit into this continuum? Frogs are probably one of the few animals I know of that get used to play "sinister" (or at least "gross") and cute in equal measures.
TTD: Frogs are a bit of an odd duck as obviously they aren't reptiles (unless Your Writers Failed Biology Forever), and they are also cute (and thus aren't covered by What Measure Is a Non-Cute?). Hm... Not sure what to do there and, honestly, would anyone but us care for a What Measure Is A Non Mammal trope page? (Let's be honest, you can trace most of the worst cases of this trope, Non-Cute, and Most Writers Are Human to that.)
Trouser Wearing Barbarian: What Measure Is A Non Endotherm? Birds aren't mammals, either, but they're never portrayed as Always Chaotic Evil like reptiles and amphibians are.
Danel: A lot of these examples... the one that really leaps out at me is the Star Fox one. One of the enemies is a reptile. And? Most of them aren't - there are wolves and pigs, and the main villain is a monkey... I think it's too weak if we just have this as 'reptilian villains'. From the description, it seems to be that reptiles are specifically Always Chaotic Evil, or at least have a tendency towards this.
arromdee: The link in the Cool Water for Ana Anaconda example doesn't work.
Also, I think we shouldn't put dragons in here at all. It's true that dragons are usually described as reptilian, but helpful dragons have been around in fiction for a long time, and are no more subject to this than turtles.
Bio geek moment: Is it really accurate to say that warm-blooded/cold-blooded are "outmoded"? I'd say "oversimplifications", because it's still true that MOST reptiles/amphibians are "cold-blooded" (poikilothermic ectotherms) and MOST mammals and birds are "warm-blooded" (homeothermic endotherms). Slow growth isn't *defining* for cold-bloodedness, just usually associated.
TTD: Yeah, they are outmoded. What you say is true, but I was hoping this trope's introduction would help educate. (And I'll try to find a new link for Ana, seeing as that is possibly the most Wallbanger-y example on the page.)
Robert: There are studies that show its relatively easier to induce fear of snakes, compared to most other stimuli. That's not quite the same as instinctive fear of snakes, but the difference is minor.
TTD: I was hoping somebody would bring this up because I don't want to delete that whole well-done paragraph about instinctive fears - but I swear every professor in every Psychology class I took in college (and a ton of issues of Ranger Rick) assured us that fear of snakes (and rats and spiders and ect., though we're not talking about them) is very definitely not the least bit instinctive. Are you saying that Science has Marched On? (Or did they all lied to me? <:( )
Robert: They simplified things for you. People aren't born with a phobia of snakes, but studies show aversion to snakes is significantly easier to induce than of most other objects. That is, fear of snakes isn't instinctive, but susceptibility to that fear is inbuilt.
Chris X: Do we need a picture for this? I do suggest something of a snake's head, possibly to add the text about "HISSSSSS!!!". But then, that may attract too much Nightmare Fuel...
TTD: No, that'd be Completely Missing The Point.
I haven't got a clue as to how to post images but how about this lovely portrait of C.O.B.R.A. from GI Joe
◊ with the caption, "At this point, just once, couldn't we see the H.A.M.S.T.E.R. Organization or the K.I.T.T.E.N. Cult?"
A screenshot of the Go Diego Go Anaconda episode would be even better, if anyone can find one.
(Later) I know Image-Uploader fu! >:o
Mike: I'm trying to figure out why the page quote is attached to a link to "Freud Was Right". I'm... just not seeing it. If someone would care to explain, that would be helpful.
