serpentari wrote:
i am very sorry if i am necroposting, or out of my place as a forum newbie, but well, 2 sorts of dinosaurs do look a bit out of place in a breed of birds^^ there was something about "more awesome flying thing", but those dinos are not flying, and also the conception of awesome, or ausome, can vary))) not to devalue the effort that was put into those lists. i'd rather be hummingbird than get yellow-bellied something xD no offence, please)
The list IS kinda whacky.
Its basically birds. But includes non birds that are related to birds by occupation, but not by blood (butterflies), but it also includes creatures that are related to birds by blood, but NOT by occupation (flightless dinosaurs). Doing either thing is a stretch. Doing both is going too far IMHO.
The two dinosaurs are both raptor type dinosaurs which are related to the small feathered non avian dinosaurs that evolved into modern birds back in the Mesozoic. So even though they didn't fly they are related to birds. However the list includes "butterflies" which DO fly, but are NOT birds and not even related to birds. So to my mind, you could include raptor dinosaurs and not flying insects, or you could include flying insects but not include raptors. Do one, or do the other, but not both.
Have the list start with the emu egg, and include a butterfly here, and a bat there, but be mostly flying birds, go through ever bigger flying birds, have the penultimate be eagles, and culminate with "condor".