Let's talk about Balaur!

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

Well, I just wanted to start a thread about the incredible Balaur, the dromaeosaur with 2 sickle claws each foot and one on each hand! I've heard some sources saying that it might just a herbivorous bird, but don't take all the fun out of it! Leave your thoughts on this incredible dromaeosaur below.

[stargatedalek]

But it wasn't a dromaeosaur....
I'm skeptical that it was a true bird, but it wasn't a dromaeosaur.

We can't really say the diet without the head unless we have gut contents or it's from a group that's very specialized. Balaur has no skull, or gut contents, and birds and their close relatives have varied diets.

It always bothers me when people just say Balaur had two sickle claws, they really aren't at all like dromaeosaur claws and were definitely not for the same purpose. It would be more accurate to say Balaur has raised toes with very large claws.

*edit*
I stand corrected, they likely weren't raised in life at all, but rather preserved that way because the toes are longer.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/blogs/assets/tetrapod-zoology/File/Balaur-reconstruction-Csiki-et-al-2010-600-px-tiny-June-2015-Tetrapod-Zoology.jpg

[Neosodon]

According to Prehistoric Wildlife it is a dromeosaur. Most paleo artists depict it as a dromeosaur also. But I think this one is the best artistic wise.


But here is what we do know of it. The long fingers and the short toe bone with the long claws would give it a powerful grip. It was 2 meters long.

It was most likely a hunter of small animals and dinosaurs like Leptoceratops.  If the claws were not at least slightly raised as it walked they would just stick into the ground. Most Dromeasaurs used their sickle claws as puncture weapons. Balaur had 4 of them so they would not be as effective as penatration weapons. It would most likely use them more as tools to grip onto prey or to climb trees. Since the sickle claw is a trait only found in dromeasaurs I would say Baluar is most likely one too.

[stargatedalek]

It was not a dromaeosaur, it was an avialan. Prehistoric Wildlife is a GOD AWFUL SOURCE DO NOT USE IT JUST DON'T PLEASE. You might as well be citing Primeval or The Carnivora Forum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaur_bondoc

[Flaffy]

One does not simply reference a source with stuff like this:

[BlueKrono]

Stargatedalek, when you say it was an "avian" are you meaning "true bird"? I always thought it was a dromaeosaur, but is there anything between them and birds? Either way, I've learned a lot more than I knew yesterday from this thread.

[Ravonium]

BlueKrono, I think she means a member of the clade Avialae, which includes any theropod more closely related to birds than dromaeosaurs or troodonts, The Wikipedia page she linked us to says that Balaur is a member of this clade.


I will say, I'm not surprised you are confused about this.

[Neosodon]

It was not a dromaeosaur, it was an avialan. Prehistoric Wildlife is a GOD AWFUL SOURCE DO NOT USE IT JUST DON'T PLEASE. You might as well be citing Primeval or The Carnivora Forum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaur_bondoc

I doubt Wikipedia is much more accurate but their page seems better researched and more up to date in this case. So I don't mind calling it an avalian AKA  dino birds (my prefered term.) But they were still not able to rule out the possiblity "While their analysis could not completely rule out the possibility that B. bondoc was a dromaeosaurid, they concluded that this result was less likely than the classification of Balaur as a non-pygostylian avialan" Dromeasaurs are already closely related to birds so to completely rule out the possibility of it being a dromeasaur is just overconfidence.

Anyways wikapedia also states "Dromaeosaurids are so bird-like that they have led some researchers to argue that they would be better classified as birds." Using bird like features as a reason to classify Balaur as a non dromeasaur is not exactly concrete evidence since dromeasaurs are so closely related to birds to begin with. Balaur could have just been closer to birds than other dromeasaurs.

[stargatedalek]

Stargatedalek, when you say it was an "avian" are you meaning "true bird"? I always thought it was a dromaeosaur, but is there anything between them and birds? Either way, I've learned a lot more than I knew yesterday from this thread.

I think you misread, I said avialan

[Jose S.M.]

While Wikipedia it's not a very reputable source itself, one can check the bibliographic references to see if the information comes from a reputable source. In this case, the apart that thanks about Balaur not being a dromaeosaur references to a scientific study.

[BlueKrono]

Stargatedalek, when you say it was an "avian" are you meaning "true bird"? I always thought it was a dromaeosaur, but is there anything between them and birds? Either way, I've learned a lot more than I knew yesterday from this thread.

I think you misread, I said avialan

So you did, my mistake. Again, a term I was previously unfamiliar with.

[Reptilia]

Did I understand correctly, being part of Avialae Balaur stands between dromaeosaurids and birds?

[Ravonium]

Did I understand correctly, being part of Avialae Balaur stands between dromaeosaurids and birds?

Yes, although being part of Avialae means that Balaur is slightly closer to modern birds than dromaeosaurs.

[Dinoguy2]

Did I understand correctly, being part of Avialae Balaur stands between dromaeosaurids and birds?

Right. Avialae is the group between dromaeosaurids and modern birds. Some people call avialans birds themselves. If you follow that Balaur is a bird, just not a member of the modern bird group (Aves or Neornithes). Personally I think the word "bird" should only be used for the modern bird group, because that's the only group that has all the features we think of as bird features. A lot of scientists agree with me but a lot don't.

[FeatheryFiend]

While Wikipedia it's not a very reputable source itself, one can check the bibliographic references to see if the information comes from a reputable source.

As a member of the Dinosaur WikiProject over there, I can assure you that people tend to be on the look out for uncited information over there; basically nothing can be added without some kind of citation. That's the entire reason the Citation Needed template is used on dinosaur-related articles.

Some stuff slips through, but with a user-edited encyclopedia, that's bound to happen. Most every article under WP:DINO is monitored to make it as accurate and reputable as possible.