"Birds are dinosaurs, that is, they are the direct descendents of an ancestor that spawned the dinosaurs, yet palaeontologists typically refer to dinosaurs while explicitly not referring to birds. Thus one should formally call them non-avian dinosaurs (basically all dinosaurs except birds)."
"First off the rhamphorhynchoid pterosaurs (or more properly ‘rhamphorhynchoids’ as the quotes denote it as paraphyletic) which often come up here in my frequent posts on pterosaurs. As with non-avian dinosaurs, the term persists as one of convenience as basically it’s easier to write than “non-pterodactyloid pterosaurs”."
Note the sleight of hand.
The author says:
"Birds are dinosaurs, that is, they are the direct descendents of an ancestor that spawned the dinosaurs".
In other words, birds did NOT evolve from dinosaurs but rather (according to the author) birds and dinosaurs evolved from some OTHER unnamed "common ancestor".
But the author does not make this point clear at all. In fact, he misleadingly compares it to the paraphyletic (ANCESTRAL) rhamphorhynchus relationship which is a true ANCESTOR relationship - an ancestor of pterodactyls.
He talks as if they were the same type of relationship.
Of course it is not the same relationship at all - they are opposites.
NOTE: Birds are not even related to dinosaurs. Cladistics makes it even more difficult to establish correct ancestry. In this post I am just showing the absurdity of cladistics. If we just kept to ancestor/descendant relationships we would not have these cladistic obfuscations.
An excellent analysis of issue with cladistics: