The Swimming "Raptor"

[Ravonium]

Starting to see some skepticism in postings on social media regarding the origins and possible issues with the fossil, and some questioning its authenticity....has anyone else noticed yet? I would not start sculpting new models just yet...

I've noticed it on some comments on news articles as well (not that the comments raise any good arguments).

Personally, I believe that this is going to be the most controversial find in paleontology this year (apart from the curfuffle about tyrannosaur skin).

While I do not believe this fossil is a chimera or a fake, the origins of the fossil may need to be looked into, as it was smuggled, meaning that we do not know the formation it comes from or who originally found it.

[Sim]

Starting to see some skepticism in postings on social media regarding the origins and possible issues with the fossil, and some questioning its authenticity....has anyone else noticed yet? I would not start sculpting new models just yet...

I've seen some of this, but it seemed very vague and not well supported.  Andrea Cau posted these responses on Twitter:

1. https://twitter.com/TheropodaBlog/status/938497879748108289

2. https://twitter.com/TheropodaBlog/status/938830929132482561

The second one links to a very thorough response in English on his blog: http://theropoda.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/technical-post-english-text-do-not-use.html

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Seems ironic, that such a great fossil be found this way...reminds me of the dramatic story behind the famous psittacosaurus specimen.....and look what a treasure trove it has been for the paleo community.

[Loon]

Seems ironic, that such a great fossil be found this way...reminds me of the dramatic story behind the famous psittacosaurus specimen.....and look what a treasure trove it has been for the paleo community.

THE FOLLOWING COMMENT IS A PARODY, DO NOT TAKE SERIOUSLY!
ah...lest we forget the "archaeoraptor" missing link youd evolutionists paroded around all those years ago....how'd that smeagled "fossil" turn out for ya? But keep the faith....and believe what ever archaeologists tell you...

[stargatedalek]

Seems ironic, that such a great fossil be found this way...reminds me of the dramatic story behind the famous psittacosaurus specimen.....and look what a treasure trove it has been for the paleo community.

ah...lest we forget the "archaeoraptor" missing link youd evolutionists paroded around all those years ago....how'd that smeagled "fossil" turn out for ya? But keep the faith....and believe what ever archaeologists tell you...

Wow, so much is wrong with this.

Firstly, no actual paleontologist supported Archaeoraptor. National Geographic journalists did. They published an article on it before it had been formally published in scientific literature or even properly studied, the study that found it to be a chimera was the first actual research done on it.

Secondly, it was a chimera, NOT a fake. It was composed of several real fossils of two feathered dinosaurs and of one bird; Microraptor, a yet unnamed theropod, and Yanornis.

You're implying the fossil was created by "an evolutionist" to try and prove a bird dinosaur relation but that is completely untrue. The person who discovered all of those fossils was unaware of their value and claimed they were one cohesive fossil hoping to make more money from it. Most of these smugglers aren't big pirate companies or whatever else you're imagining, these are impoverished farmers trying to make enough money to survive.

The remains of Archaeoraptor were only known of after the remains of Sinornithosaurus had been documented, and there was plenty of evidence for a bird dinosaur relation long before that. The only reason Archaeoraptor was ever hailed as anything important was because National Geographic wanted to create a stir around it for their own profit.

[Loon]

@stargatedalek I'm sorry, but I was joking, I felt like doing a bit of a parody on creationist comments. Guess I was too good, spelling errors and all.

[stargatedalek]

@stargatedalek I'm sorry, but I was joking, I felt like doing a bit of a parody on creationist comments. Guess I was too good, spelling errors and all.

I initially figured you were joking, didn't make any sense seeing you say that so I decided I must have been confusing you for someone else 

My goof, but hey, maybe someone learned something cool from all that. I learned that that third theropod doesn't have a name yet!

[Loon]

@stargatedalek I'm sorry, but I was joking, I felt like doing a bit of a parody on creationist comments. Guess I was too good, spelling errors and all.

I initially figured you were joking, didn't make any sense seeing you say that so I decided I must have been confusing you for someone else 

My goof, but hey, maybe someone learned something cool from all that. I learned that that third theropod doesn't have a name yet!

Yeah, sorry, just the way that the thread was going figured it'd need a comment like that.

[Sim]

While I do not believe this fossil is a chimera or a fake, the origins of the fossil may need to be looked into, as it was smuggled, meaning that we do not know the formation it comes from or who originally found it.

The Halszkaraptor fossil appears to come from the Djadochta Formation, which is the same formation Velociraptor, Protoceratops and Citipati are known from.  I already knew that even though the Djadochta Formation was an arid environment it did have bodies of water.  I just hadn't realised the Djadochta had water covering an extensive area, which would allow the semi-aquatic Halszkaraptor to exist.  I think a great representation of how the Djadochta Formation would've looked is the environment in Julius Csotonyi's "Djadochta Formation hadrosaur" restoration: http://csotonyi.com/galleries/mesozoic-era/cretaceous-period-4/#!enviragallery1403-1  Even though I'd seen this image before, I think I hadn't realised how extensive the water covering at the back of the image would be, probably because of how often I've previously seen the Djadochta described/represented as a more dry environment.

I don't know how it was worked out that the Halszkaraptor fossil comes from the Djadochta Formation.  I imagine this would be explained in the paper, which I haven't been able to read as it's behind a paywall.

[Faelrin]

This whole thing seems pretty interesting so far. I mean aside from what it looks like, but the mystery of where it came from too. I wonder how things will play out from here.

[ZoPteryx]

I was also a little surprised to see no discussion of webbed feet, but that's probably in the supplement I haven't read yet.

On his blog's Facebook page, Andrea Cau has said webbed feet aren't plausible for this animal due to the "raptor" foot claw, in this reply: link  In an earlier reply to that comment, he said the Halszkaraptor reconstruction doesn't have webbed feet, but it does have webbed hands.

Additionally, in this blog post http://theropoda.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/lode-alla-piccola-halszka-terza-parte.html Andrea has said: Halszkaraptor seems to have swum using its forelimbs.  Its hindlimbs don't show adaptations for swimming, and Halszkaraptor's more upright posture appears to have been required for it to have efficient bipedal locomotion on land.

Surely the other two toes could have been webbed though, or the toes could've been lobed like a coot to give them more flexibility.  Then again, the toes do seem rather long for it's size, perhaps that was enough to provide some propulsion/steering/etc. without webbing.

After reading the supplement, I can confirm that when the main paper was talking about unudulatory swimming, they meant that in the context of prey acquisition, being able to rapidly turn and snap laterally when chasing slippery prey.  It just didn't come off like that in the main text for whatever reason.

While I do not believe this fossil is a chimera or a fake, the origins of the fossil may need to be looked into, as it was smuggled, meaning that we do not know the formation it comes from or who originally found it.

I don't know how it was worked out that the Halszkaraptor fossil comes from the Djadochta Formation.  I imagine this would be explained in the paper, which I haven't been able to read as it's behind a paywall.

According to the paper, the smuggled specimen actually came with documentation of its original locality.  The specific site stated is known for regularly preserving complete skeletons.  The supplement expanded on this and stated that geochemical and structural analysis of the surrounding matrix confirmed its origin.  So did the pattern of decay in the specimen, where the ends of many of long bones are decayed away, a common phenomenon among smaller fossils for that locality.  I don't think confirmation gets much tighter than that.

[ZoPteryx]

Read-only version of the paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24679.epdf?referrer_access_token=qX1cYtkL3ZMS6N8EjJbiC9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mb4AUOLVz95CNI-TMlC3bWKMSbxRnd0RSt3rYmd1aXxAXjjXNT6Yb40U8ZhkGTPJ9dFXDDUM_0RvUnlcFmwoCRWGvP2T2oMQ3Yke60LYMz4arrw2PAnr3-g9x7ySx6pKI0ncyLlRidZRzyivqcPTVU&tracking_referrer=news.nationalgeographic.com

[Ravonium]

According to the paper, the smuggled specimen actually came with documentation of its original locality.

Thanks for the information. I knew that they had reached the conclusion that it was found in the Djadochta formation, but I didn't have an explanation as to how they knew that it was found there, which is why I said that we didn't know the location the fossil was found in.


Am I correct in saying that who originally found the fossil is still unknown?

[Sim]

Surely the other two toes could have been webbed though, or the toes could've been lobed like a coot to give them more flexibility.  Then again, the toes do seem rather long for it's size, perhaps that was enough to provide some propulsion/steering/etc. without webbing.

Would it have needed to use its feet for propulsion or steering in the water though?  I got the impression it would use its forelimbs for these functions.

According to the paper, the smuggled specimen actually came with documentation of its original locality.  The specific site stated is known for regularly preserving complete skeletons.  The supplement expanded on this and stated that geochemical and structural analysis of the surrounding matrix confirmed its origin.  So did the pattern of decay in the specimen, where the ends of many of long bones are decayed away, a common phenomenon among smaller fossils for that locality.  I don't think confirmation gets much tighter than that.

Thanks for posting this, ZoPteryx!  This is great to know.  Thanks also for posting a link to the paper!

[stargatedalek]

Propelling with feet is actually a minority among diving birds, most of them still have webbed feet anyway but they use them while floating at rest. Auks, "aerial divers" (gannets, boobies, etc.), penguins, and even diving ducks all use their wings for propulsion and not their feet.

[ZoPteryx]

Am I correct in saying that who originally found the fossil is still unknown?

As far as I know, that is indeed correct.

Surely the other two toes could have been webbed though, or the toes could've been lobed like a coot to give them more flexibility.  Then again, the toes do seem rather long for it's size, perhaps that was enough to provide some propulsion/steering/etc. without webbing.

Would it have needed to use its feet for propulsion or steering in the water though?  I got the impression it would use its forelimbs for these functions.

True, but as Stargatedalek said, most aquatic birds still have webbed feet, whether they use them or not.  I'm not familiar enough with the osteological correlates of webbed feet to really comment on Halszkaraptor, but its feet and toes certainly look large for its body size.

Propelling with feet is actually a minority among diving birds, most of them still have webbed feet anyway but they use them while floating at rest. Auks, "aerial divers" (gannets, boobies, etc.), penguins, and even diving ducks all use their wings for propulsion and not their feet.

True, but all the aquatic predatory birds with long necks that I can think of (loons, grebes, cormorants, darters, mergansers, etc) use foot propulsion.  I'm not saying Halszkaraptor couldn't have been different, but it certainly is a little odd.

[WarrenJB]

I've finally done what I should do more often, and looked at the literature for a new dinosaur species. (Only the supplementals so far; missed ZoPteryx's link to the full paper) Specifically to get a look at those forelimb conclusions. I think the wording of 'intermediate between penguins and alcids' really undersells just how far out penguins plot on the swimming propulsion graph, and how far that pulls Halszkaraptor out from the crowd, until you look at the figures!

It prods along my thoughts of the appearance of H's forelimbs. I wondered if it was more likely to have tiny, dense feathers like penguins, rather than the large flight feathers of most birds and a lot of non-avians. Looking again at some of the more readily-available restorations, that seems to be what they've gone for. Or, to borrow a term, an intermediate look.
I'd assume other wing-propelled swimmers like alcids plot closer to, or with, other birds because their wings are still also needed for flight? Feather morphology and all. With one notable exception that sprang to mind when I saw the illustrations of Halszkaraptor's stumpy flippers. I know the authors said they stuck to extant birds, and I don't suppose it would've made much difference anyway, but does anyone else think it's a little weird that they left Pinguinus out of the morphometric analysis?

True, but as Stargatedalek said, most aquatic birds still have webbed feet, whether they use them or not.  I'm not familiar enough with the osteological correlates of webbed feet to really comment on Halszkaraptor, but its feet and toes certainly look large for its body size.

Rightly or wrongly, I read the semi-aquatic suggestion, look at the long neck, long legs, and long toes, and think 'heron'.

How well that kind of long-legged wading might've meshed with it's proposed lifestyle, I haven't begun to speculate. But I think the 'duck' meme might colour some thoughts, too.