Balaur bondoc is a bird

[Balaur]

This is really cool!

https://peerj.com/articles/1032/

[Yutyrannus]

Don't forget this :

[Halichoeres]

That is cool! Thanks for sharing.

[Patrx]

Interesting article - this whole dilemma with Balaur really shows how blurry the dromaeosaur/avialan distinction is! Glad to see some research on the matter.

[Yutyrannus]

Interesting article - this whole dilemma with Balaur really shows how blurry the dromaeosaur/avialan distinction is! Glad to see some research on the matter.

Also, don't forget there is a similar thing happening with troodonts, a few recent studies have placed them within Avialae .

[Tyrannosauron]

Also, don't forget there is a similar thing happening with troodonts, a few recent studies have placed them within Avialae .

Any links to those studies? It'd be a great help with a project I'm working on.

[Yutyrannus]

Also, don't forget there is a similar thing happening with troodonts, a few recent studies have placed them within Avialae .

Any links to those studies? It'd be a great help with a project I'm working on.

Sorry, I don't remember. I think one of them was linked to on the Hell Creek Forum, however it may be rather difficult to find considering how they reorganized it. Also, I think that the first study to suggest Balaur was an avialan may have shown troodontids to be avialans as well, but I'm not certain.

[Tyrannosauron]

Also, don't forget there is a similar thing happening with troodonts, a few recent studies have placed them within Avialae .

Any links to those studies? It'd be a great help with a project I'm working on.

Sorry, I don't remember. I think one of them was linked to on the Hell Creek Forum, however it may be rather difficult to find considering how they reorganized it. Also, I think that the first study to suggest Balaur was an avialan may have shown troodontids to be avialans as well, but I'm not certain.

Thanks! I'll do some database digging and share what I come up with.

[Yutyrannus]

Thanks! I'll do some database digging and share what I come up with.

You're welcome, sorry again that I could not be more helpful.

[Arul]

Beauftiful bird 

[Tyto_Theropod]

Frankly we might as well call all maniraptorans birds, as most of the things people use to describe birds apply to them. The line is certainly a very blurry one, because evolution works that way!

[Takama]

Don't forget this :

Do these birds have actual beaks?  I see no teeth in the top ones mouth.

[Yutyrannus]

Don't forget this :

Do these birds have actual beaks?  I see no teeth in the top ones mouth.

He does have teeth in the picture, they aren't very visible though. I've drawn mine with a beak, however .

[Dinoguy2]

Don't forget this :

Do these birds have actual beaks?  I see no teeth in the top ones mouth.

We don't have any skulls unfortunately, but if they're like Jeholornis and Sapeornis, their closest known relatives, they may have had small, blunt teeth for crushing seeds. Some Jeholornis species lack teeth in the front of the jaws and might have had beaks, but there's no reason to think any non-ornithuromorph birds had beaks unless we find evidence for it (Ornithuromorpha is the group of birds with true beaks, though beaks or beak-like structures evolved several times independently in birds, like in Confuciusornis* and maybe Jeholornis.)

*Confuciusornis is sometimes called the "earliest beaked bird" but this is extremely misleading as its beak is not homologous with modern birds any more than the beaks of therizinosaurs or turtles are. The earliest animal with a real bird beak is currently Archaeorhynchus (which, appropriately, means "ancient beak").

[Tyrannosauron]

You're welcome, sorry again that I could not be more helpful.

Absolutely no need to apologize! I really appreciate your pointing me in the right direction.

[stargatedalek]

If you want to get slightly speculative here, there's honestly no reason to assume dromaeosaurs couldn't have had a sheath over their exposed snout.

[Dinoguy2]

If you want to get slightly speculative here, there's honestly no reason to assume dromaeosaurs couldn't have had a sheath over their exposed snout.

There kind of is though, because it would be evolutionarily expensive while serving no benefit. What use would a keratin sheath be that is not going to come in contact with food? How would new teeth grow through it without becoming dulled on the way through?

Greg Paul traditionally Drew dromaeosaurids with proto beaks but this seems to have been for no reason other than to make them look more like neornithes. Same with stopping the feathers in front of the eyes.

[stargatedalek]

That's way I said over the snout, not inside the jaws.

I don't see whats so wrong with that feather placement? It has evidence to back it up and its been pretty much accepted as the norm. When you say "in front of the eyes" you mean like this correct? http://cdn4.sci-news.com/images/enlarge/image_1630_2e-Acheroraptor.jpg

[Dinoguy2]

That's way I said over the snout, not inside the jaws.

I don't see whats so wrong with that feather placement? It has evidence to back it up and its been pretty much accepted as the norm. When you say "in front of the eyes" you mean like this correct? http://cdn4.sci-news.com/images/enlarge/image_1630_2e-Acheroraptor.jpg

I mean more like this, which is how nearly everyone drew 100% of all feathered theropods up until a few years ago.

[stargatedalek]

Aah yes, the good ol' wet pheasant look! I agree wholeheartedly, I simply can't imagine any reasoning behind that appearance.