Baby Louie identified as new oviraptorid!

[suspsy]

Meet Beibeilong sinensis:

http://gizmodo.com/celebrated-baby-louie-fossil-identified-as-new-dinosa-1795046853?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

I shall have to edit this guest review later today!

http://dinotoyblog.com/2016/11/27/baby-louie-in-egg-dino-discoveries-by-safari-ltd/

[Dinoguy2]

So... this is not Gigantoraptor because a phylogeneitc analysis shows it's more basal. Just like all juvenile species end up more basal than their adult forms when coded into a cladogram (see also: Raptorex). Synonymization with Gigantoraptor in 3... 2... 1...

[ceratopsian]

Thanks, suspsy. I see that PNSO's ZHAO Chuang was responsible for the artwork.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

I agree you can't exactly classify a juvenile by comparing it to adults only. The only way I think it could make sense is if there was a large temporal gap or something.

Also I probably would have called it Beibeilong psihoyosi or something, but like Dinoguy said, let's see how long the name lasts.

[Sim]

So... this is not Gigantoraptor because a phylogeneitc analysis shows it's more basal. Just like all juvenile species end up more basal than their adult forms when coded into a cladogram (see also: Raptorex). Synonymization with Gigantoraptor in 3... 2... 1...

I find it very strange a new species would be named based on an embryo.  There's already disagreement about whether some dinosaur species are growth stages of one animal.  Wouldn't it be even harder to tell if a specimen belongs to the same species as an adult if it's an embryo?  It feels like there's a lack of restraint from some palaeontologists to name new species when there is a fairly high chance they are a growth stage of an existing species.


In another recent thread there was discussion regarding how often pterosaur science is inadequately represented.  In a similar way, here we are in 2017 with yet another oviraptorosaur/dromaeosaurid reconstruction with featherless hands and fingers 2 and 3 not connected.  For oviraptorosaurs and dromaeosaurids there is plenty of evidence from both fossils and extant birds that shows how the feathers attach to the fingers of these animals, and that fingers 2 and 3 would be connected in a patagium that supports the primary feathers.  I don't understand why oviraptorosaur and dromaeosaurid reconstructions with such incorrect wings keep being made.  Do the artists ignore the available evidence from fossils and extant birds?  It seems they actually think it's plausible to reconstruct the forelimbs of these animals like they would for a wingless dinosaur and then just add feathers so it looks like they have sleeves on their arms.  It seems there is a continual lack of research/knowledge regarding reconstructing oviraptorosaurs and dromaeosaurids.

[ZoPteryx]

Yeah, I have my doubts this name will stick around, but at least this specimen is getting the attention it deserves.

Also, anyone else notice their cladogram recovered an ordering of (Velociraptor (Archaeopteryx + Oviraptorosauria)), found that at odds with most studies.  Not that it really means anything, Oviraptorosauria was really what they were testing and it looks pretty solid.

[Bertensgrad]

This is awesome i remember seeing him at the childrens museum and I just found my second replica of him at goodwill this month. Selling him on ebay. I didnt know it was a decently famous fossil just knew the toy was somewhat rare. 

[Halichoeres]

I find it very strange a new species would be named based on an embryo.  There's already disagreement about whether some dinosaur species are growth stages of one animal.  Wouldn't it be even harder to tell if a specimen belongs to the same species as an adult if it's an embryo?  It feels like there's a lack of restraint from some palaeontologists to name new species when there is a fairly high chance they are a growth stage of an existing species.

I think different workers have different philosophies on this. People like the Vickers-Rich team, for example, will give a name to any scrap they find, on the rationale that it's a convenient shorthand when discussing faunas, diversity, etc. The cynical view of this, of course, is that new names get lots of attention, whereas unnamed but interesting fossils usually get a lot less. The corollary is somebody like Richard Thulborn, who did a lot to contribute to our understanding of faunal composition of Mesozoic Australia. For example, he described a dicynodont from Australia (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v303/n5915/abs/303330a0.html) and compared it to Kannemeyeria, but because it was so fragmentary he declined to give it a name. Sure, the paper was in Nature, an appropriate venue, but Thulborn hasn't achieved the fame of the Vickers-Riches even though lots of their contributions are now regarded as nomina dubia. I tend to think Thulborn's approach--wherein a museum accession number is a perfectly adequate identifier for an interesting specimen--is better for science, but it's hard to dispute that giving something a new name is a lot better for your career.

[HD-man]

So... this is not Gigantoraptor because a phylogeneitc analysis shows it's more basal. Just like all juvenile species end up more basal than their adult forms when coded into a cladogram (see also: Raptorex). Synonymization with Gigantoraptor in 3... 2... 1...

I was wondering about that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a Gigantoraptor specimen discovered w/eggs inside its body? If so, couldn't they compare those eggs to Louie's to determine whether they represent the same species?

[stargatedalek]

I find it very strange a new species would be named based on an embryo.  There's already disagreement about whether some dinosaur species are growth stages of one animal.  Wouldn't it be even harder to tell if a specimen belongs to the same species as an adult if it's an embryo?  It feels like there's a lack of restraint from some palaeontologists to name new species when there is a fairly high chance they are a growth stage of an existing species.

I think different workers have different philosophies on this. People like the Vickers-Rich team, for example, will give a name to any scrap they find, on the rationale that it's a convenient shorthand when discussing faunas, diversity, etc. The cynical view of this, of course, is that new names get lots of attention, whereas unnamed but interesting fossils usually get a lot less. The corollary is somebody like Richard Thulborn, who did a lot to contribute to our understanding of faunal composition of Mesozoic Australia. For example, he described a dicynodont from Australia (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v303/n5915/abs/303330a0.html) and compared it to Kannemeyeria, but because it was so fragmentary he declined to give it a name. Sure, the paper was in Nature, an appropriate venue, but Thulborn hasn't achieved the fame of the Vickers-Riches even though lots of their contributions are now regarded as nomina dubia. I tend to think Thulborn's approach--wherein a museum accession number is a perfectly adequate identifier for an interesting specimen--is better for science, but it's hard to dispute that giving something a new name is a lot better for your career.

I prefer an intermediate, many will disagree with me on this but I feel like there are some situations where wastebasket taxa serve a valid purpose. The current state of affairs regarding Allosaurus sums up my stance quite well I feel. I would have Saurophaganax and Torvosaurus as species of Allosaurus, but I'd give most of the A. fragilis specimens their own species.

[Sim]

I prefer an intermediate, many will disagree with me on this but I feel like there are some situations where wastebasket taxa serve a valid purpose. The current state of affairs regarding Allosaurus sums up my stance quite well I feel. I would have Saurophaganax and Torvosaurus as species of Allosaurus, but I'd give most of the A. fragilis specimens their own species.

You meant something else instead of Torvosaurus, right?  Since Torvosaurus is very different to Allosaurus, it isn't even a carnosaur.  Did you mean Epanterias?  Reading the wastebasket taxon Wikipedia page, I'm not sure whether you're suggesting Allosaurus should be made a wastebasket taxon, or whether you're suggesting all the current members of Allosauridae should be made species of Allosaurus?  Making Allosaurus a wastebasket taxon doesn't seem reasonable to me since there are very diagnostic specimens of Allosaurus, but putting all current members of Allosauridae into Allosaurus seems reasonable as they are so similar and they already form a natural group.  I personally think Saurophaganax should be classified as a species of Allosaurus, and that it might actually represent a growth stage of great age of an existing Allosaurus species, which would explain its rarity.  I think this even more after reading the "Other diagnoses" and "Comments" sections for the Saurophaganax entry in The Theropod Database.

[suspsy]

Saurophaganax is most likely a large Allosaurus specimen, but Torvosaurus?

[stargatedalek]

I prefer an intermediate, many will disagree with me on this but I feel like there are some situations where wastebasket taxa serve a valid purpose. The current state of affairs regarding Allosaurus sums up my stance quite well I feel. I would have Saurophaganax and Torvosaurus as species of Allosaurus, but I'd give most of the A. fragilis specimens their own species.

You meant something else instead of Torvosaurus, right?  Since Torvosaurus is very different to Allosaurus, it isn't even a carnosaur.  Did you mean Epanterias?  Reading the wastebasket taxon Wikipedia page, I'm not sure whether you're suggesting Allosaurus should be made a wastebasket taxon, or whether you're suggesting all the current members of Allosauridae should be made species of Allosaurus?  Making Allosaurus a wastebasket taxon doesn't seem reasonable to me since there are very diagnostic specimens of Allosaurus, but putting all current members of Allosauridae into Allosaurus seems reasonable as they are so similar and they already form a natural group.  I personally think Saurophaganax should be classified as a species of Allosaurus, and that it might actually represent a growth stage of great age of an existing Allosaurus species, which would explain its rarity.  I think this even more after reading the "Other diagnoses" and "Comments" sections for the Saurophaganax entry in The Theropod Database.

My goof, I must have meant Epanterias. I was trying to think of what it was and for some reason Torvosaurus came to mind, so I quickly searched it and "Torvosaurus vs Allosaurus" was the recommended search so I foolishly stopped there assuming it must have been the creature I was remembering. Darned mobile "forgets" text input if I tab off for too long.

Allosaurus was a poor example of a wastebasket taxa, 4am me who was operating on marshmallows and Monogatari reruns clearly isn't the sharpest. It's simply not large enough to be a wastebasket taxa. What I meant is that I would prefer fragmentary or potentially divisive remains be assigned a new species or subspecies but be placed in the closest related genus, this prevents "over-saturation" of genera in literature while supplying a reference that can be easily located and catalogued. For a civilian sometimes looking up specimens based on code is problematic, as it can require access to databases and papers that may not be public and the information may not exist elsewhere.

There are only three genera in Allosauridae, one of which is fragmentary anyway, and none of them are very different from each other. I definitely think they should all lie within Allosaurus. But several specimens attributed to A. fragilis display what appears to me (and others) as more than the expected individual variation.

[ZoPteryx]

Link to the paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14952

[Sim]

but it's hard to dispute that giving something a new name is a lot better for your career.

I don't like thinking this, but for some time now I've been getting the feeling that sometimes a new genus or species is named because it's good for a career, even when it doesn't make sense scientifically.  This could explain why it seems bizarre or dubious when a specimen is made a new species, or a new genus rather than species.  Examples of this include naming species from specimens that are probably growth stages of existing species, naming species based on specimens that are very fragmentary, and creating a new genus when the specimen it's based on is almost identical to an existing genus and forms an exclusive group with that genus.

What makes this more frustrating is that there are a number of unnamed species that have been long known from excellent remains!  I'd like to see more of these distinctive unnamed species get named, instead of species being named based on inadequate/very poor remains.  Daspletosaurus horneri had been one of these unnamed species known for many years from good remains, which is one reason I was happy to see it finally named.

[Derek.McManus]

Very interesting thread...it caught my attention because a friends son is called Louie! For what it is worth my rather uninformed opinion is that it would be better to assume offshoots or close relationship to an existing species when there are close similarities rather than declare a new species prematurely.

[HD-man]

So... this is not Gigantoraptor because a phylogeneitc analysis shows it's more basal. Just like all juvenile species end up more basal than their adult forms when coded into a cladogram (see also: Raptorex). Synonymization with Gigantoraptor in 3... 2... 1...

I was wondering about that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a Gigantoraptor specimen discovered w/eggs inside its body? If so, couldn't they compare those eggs to Louie's to determine whether they represent the same species?

I read about that in "Planet Dinosaur": https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/917B%2B9SD64L.jpg

[Dinoguy2]

So... this is not Gigantoraptor because a phylogeneitc analysis shows it's more basal. Just like all juvenile species end up more basal than their adult forms when coded into a cladogram (see also: Raptorex). Synonymization with Gigantoraptor in 3... 2... 1...

I find it very strange a new species would be named based on an embryo.  There's already disagreement about whether some dinosaur species are growth stages of one animal.  Wouldn't it be even harder to tell if a specimen belongs to the same species as an adult if it's an embryo?  It feels like there's a lack of restraint from some palaeontologists to name new species when there is a fairly high chance they are a growth stage of an existing species.


In another recent thread there was discussion regarding how often pterosaur science is inadequately represented.  In a similar way, here we are in 2017 with yet another oviraptorosaur/dromaeosaurid reconstruction with featherless hands and fingers 2 and 3 not connected.  For oviraptorosaurs and dromaeosaurids there is plenty of evidence from both fossils and extant birds that shows how the feathers attach to the fingers of these animals, and that fingers 2 and 3 would be connected in a patagium that supports the primary feathers.  I don't understand why oviraptorosaur and dromaeosaurid reconstructions with such incorrect wings keep being made.  Do the artists ignore the available evidence from fossils and extant birds?  It seems they actually think it's plausible to reconstruct the forelimbs of these animals like they would for a wingless dinosaur and then just add feathers so it looks like they have sleeves on their arms.  It seems there is a continual lack of research/knowledge regarding reconstructing oviraptorosaurs and dromaeosaurids.

I think most artists, and even most consulting paleontologists, simply don't know this stuff. How would you know unless you're specifically combing papers for tidbits about life appearance or reading forums where people talk about them?

And even if you do know, it's often too hard to learn how to do it differently. Look how bad GSPs feathered dinosaurs are now compared to his old school 80s ones. He invented that look based only oni speculation, and was wrong. He can't seem to get the hang of making really bird like dinosaurs look realistic. Artists rarely seek input from other artists until the piece is too finished to change, as well, so if it's a "minor" detail like featheringbthey wont bother. David Silvia's BotM raptors have the same finger issues as this painting and I'm pretty sure that was brought up to him.

[WarrenJB]

I think most artists, and even most consulting paleontologists, simply don't know this stuff. How would you know unless you're specifically combing papers for tidbits about life appearance or reading forums where people talk about them?

Along with other complications and uncertainties. There was that couple of articles by Mark Witton:

www.markwitton-com.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/scientists-please-pay-more-attention-to.html
www.markwitton-com.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/scientist-palaeoartist-collaborations.html

And even if you do know, it's often too hard to learn how to do it differently. Look how bad GSPs feathered dinosaurs are now compared to his old school 80s ones. He invented that look based only oni speculation, and was wrong. He can't seem to get the hang of making really bird like dinosaurs look realistic. Artists rarely seek input from other artists until the piece is too finished to change, as well, so if it's a "minor" detail like featheringbthey wont bother. David Silvia's BotM raptors have the same finger issues as this painting and I'm pretty sure that was brought up to him.

It's like the All Yesterdays/anti-shrinkwrapping movement came a decade too late to prevent - or at least mitigate - the weird 'lizard-faced monsters in gorilla suits' that popped up in palaeoart after the first feathered dino fossils appeared. Too used to following the lead of GSP (the arch-shrinkwrapper, boo-hiss-pitchforks etc. ) and 'showing their work', whether with scales or feathers.
I'd hazard it's the same with claws - folk were following too much outdated pronated bunny-hands imagery (admittedly difficult to see how you could form a wing if you thought theropod hands were held like that) and inaccurate Archaeopteryx reconstructions as examples of feathered dinosaur art; and the dangerous-looking, often huge claws almost demand to be prominently displayed for an impressive illustration. But if there's one tidbit about that aspect of life appearance I'd pass onto budding or unfamiliar palaeoartists, it's this:

www.scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/06/30/clubs-spurs-spikes-and-claws/

[Sim]

I think most artists, and even most consulting paleontologists, simply don't know this stuff. How would you know unless you're specifically combing papers for tidbits about life appearance or reading forums where people talk about them?

There are fossils of these animals that show wing feathers attaching to the fingers e.g.: Caudipteryx, Similicaudipteryx, Microraptor, Zhenyuanlong.  Additionally, the Microraptor gui holotype and the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx are two very widely-known Mesozoic fossils that show the wing feathers attaching to the fingers.  Even just a Google image search for "bird wing structure" shows the wing feathers start on the fingers rather than at the wrist.  I think this basic information about fossil specimens and bird wing structure already helps quite a lot in reconstructing the forelimbs of these animals.  Additional information is necessary to reconstruct the wings well, and doing the things you mentioned can provide that.  However, it seems like research/knowledge of even those most basic things I mentioned is lacking, which is bizarre.

And even if you do know, it's often too hard to learn how to do it differently. Look how bad GSPs feathered dinosaurs are now compared to his old school 80s ones. He invented that look based only oni speculation, and was wrong. He can't seem to get the hang of making really bird like dinosaurs look realistic. Artists rarely seek input from other artists until the piece is too finished to change, as well, so if it's a "minor" detail like featheringbthey wont bother. David Silvia's BotM raptors have the same finger issues as this painting and I'm pretty sure that was brought up to him.

To me it seems the only finger issue present in this oviraptorosaur picture that is also present in BotM raptors is fingers 2 and 3 not being connected, with this only being the case on the figures with scaly hand parts.  On the fully feathered hand parts, fingers 2 and 3 appear to be connected up to the last joint in a way that doesn't seem implausible to me.  I guess David didn't want to change the design of the scaly hands to have the fingers connected, but I wish he had.  Both the scaly and fully feathered hand parts of the BotM raptors have primary feathers attaching to the fingers.