The science actually points to Scow being partially correct. Chordates generally regarded as dinosaurs are the predecessors to modern-day avians, reptiles, and mammals. They gave rise to synapsids, which gave rise to therapsids, which gave rise to mammals. Birds evolved from theropods like raptors. Dinosaurs are generally considered to be reptiles by the scientific community, but evidence supports that most didn't conform with current classification. Sauropods, for instance, often had air sacs along their necks, similar to several species of bird. Classification is always difficult with precursors, particularly extinct ones.

Why don't full helmets make sense? There are countless examples.

Either way as others said it makes no sense to restrict Argonian and Khajiit armor while ignoring the massive size differences between the other races.

I say allow them to wear 'em, but make them race appropriate when worn by a beast race in much the same manner that the male and female versions of the same suit of armor can look quite different depending on who is wearing it.

I'm well aware of this, but it irritates me when people call them birds. They are not birds. People watch Jurassic Park once and think they're paleontology experts...(or worse, go to art school and think they're biologists). Humans had an ancestor that was ratlike. That does not make humans rats, or rats primates, or dinosaurs birds. Their classification may change as people learn more about them, but to say they are the exact same thing as a chicken is wrong.

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac285/Rellac/ArgonianOpenHelms.jpg

You are talking internal skeletal structure. I'm talking the muscle and fat structures. The balls of the feet on a digitigrade creature are further forward than on a plantigrade creature.

I've never watched Jurrassic Park, though I still find it amusing that their artistically modified Velociraptor (Scaled up, and moved to another continent) was later proven correct (Hello, Utahraptor!)

From my independent study of palaeontology, I've come to the conclusion that classifying them as "Reptiles", while technically still correct, is unacceptably misleading, especially considering how we now know Dromeosaurids (Theropods such as Velociraptor and Utahraptor/"Hollywood's Velociraptor") were feathered, and most evidence points to them being warm-blooded animals. Also, birds are genetically closer to Theropod Dinosaurs than any reptiles still around today.

Personally, I think dinosaurs need to be re-classified as Dragons, for greater accuracy and less confusion. One interesting note: we have no proof that at least some of them (especially sauropods) did not breathe fire... but that's just guessing on my part.

I would agree they need a category of their own, but Dragon is not what I had in mind. I don't see how classing them with a term that defines a mythical creature is less confusing.

Correction: A term that defines a legendary creature.
And Dinosaurs are also mythical legendary awesome-warm-blooded-lizard-creatures with way too many natural weapons. That just so happen to have once existed. And, Dragons and Dinosaurs have always been the same thing, on some level. Chinese dragon bones, anyone?

Some dinosaurs were even giant flying lizards!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotUsingTheZWord

Dinosaurs used to be acknowledged as Dragons until Scientists coined the term "Dinosaur".

They should be able to 'wear' them (as in gain the benefits), but not have it show up on their character. In essence, a combination of the two.

I'm not too sure on this one. While on one hand it fixes all the gameplay issues, on the other hand it's extremely unrealistic and silly.

:confused: