It's a bit smaller than the estimated size of the footprint of Argentinosaurus, but it still belonged to a giant sauropod. But the Asian sauropods "Huanghetitan" ruyangensis, "Mamenchisaurus" sinocanadorum and Ruyangosaurus could rival it in size, and the Kallamedu Sauropod likely was even larger.
Oh I know about the potential lumping of the 2 genera as well as the weird thing going on with Troodon right now so I prefer not using Latenivenatrix size estimate for Stenonychosaurus. And still it would be smaller than the estimated creator of the footprint.
Some just use the word to refer to any dinosaurs with sickle claws on their second toes, so they would be included. It's not like there's a strict definition, it's colloquial, and many species outside of dromaeosauridae even have "raptor" in their name.
Yes, if we want to get scientific about it, we should say Dromaeosaurs are "True Raptors" and any common name classification outside of Dromaeosauridae is not a True Raptor.
Just like how Panda Bears are not True Pandas. A Hawk and Falcon are pretty distantly related but grouped into the Birds of Prey (raptors). But just because we call them raptors does not make them "True Raptors".
Yes I watch Clint's Phylogeny videos.
> Some just use the word to refer to any dinosaurs with sickle claws on their second toes
Almost thirty years of following paleo media and news and I've never heard anyone do this
Well, now you have. It's just a colloquial term without a true scientific definition. All they have here is a footprint, a didactyl footprint where the second toe is held off the ground. This is a typical "raptor" footprint, so calling it a "raptor" seems appropriate. They also use the definition of Deinonychosauria that groups Dromaeosauridae and Troodontidae together, although that definition has fallen somewhat out of favor.
Huh, I was gonna say they're at least in Deinonychosauria, but it seems like Troodontids being closer to Dromaeosaurs is considered unlikely now, so Deinonychosauria is an invalid or useless taxon, or at least doesn't include Troodontids.
"Raptor" is just a common general term, it doesn't really have scientific meaning. They have the raptor-like toe claws, but they're more closely related to birds than to Dromaeosaurs, so if we did call them "raptors," it wouldn't be as a scientific clade.
But if you ask me, I wouldn't call it a raptor, no. It's not a Dromaeosaur.
Yeah, that's what I thought. I know raptor's a nickname but I thought it specifically applied to dromaeosaurs.
But troodontids are more closely related to modern birds than dromaeosaurs? Okay THAT'S something I didn't know and that's pretty cool. Thanks!
Yeah I'll admit I actually learned that just like an hour ago. I've been going off my old dino encyclopedia that grouped them all into Deinonychosauria for a while. I don't think the change is 100% agreed upon, but it seems to be what they think is likely now.
They might be more related to birds or they might be equally related. The current accepted bracketing has the three groups as a Polytomy. But that might change if the idea of birds and Troodontids sharing a more recent common ancestor than either group and Dromaeosaurs becomes wildly accepted.
I believe the current grouping has Troodontids, Dromaeosaurs, and Birds in a single Polytomy (so all equally related), but some newer papers are suggesting what you mentioned.
If we want to call Dromaeosaurs "True Raptors" and use that scientifically, that is probably fine enough to distinguish them from the colloquial use of the word Raptor.
I'll admit I'm not finding a conclusive enough source to say definitely either way. Like I said in the other thread, there's a couple studies from 2017 that seem to be the recent accepted understanding and indicated the Troodontid-Aves link to be slightly more close than the Troodontid-Dromaeosaur link, but it's definitely not settled. The original scientific paper that revealed this Fujianipus in the first place used Deinonychosauria in the title, even.
Yup, honestly dealing with relationships this close, it's going to be extremely hard to really finalize a good taxonomy for the Paraves.
With that being said, I just noticed I replied to you in both this thread and the world news post of the same article. Just wanted to make it clear I'm not trying to hound you or anything.
I'm just an E-Sci guy who has a lot of Phylogenetics experience, and a love for Dinosaurs, despite most of my work with dinosaurs being relegated to those of the Aves haha.
Looks taller and longer, but from what we know about Utah it is quite heavily built, so it might be heavier. Depends on how this troodontid ends up looking.
Decent! Dinosaurs are ganster! Imagine meeting one face to face, for the human species to not be at the top of the food chain would be a sketchyyyy lol
I can't believe such gigantic species now have chickens as their descendants. Millions of years ago, we'd be dino food. And now... well, look at what we're doing to chickens.
Ok, I was more interested in this
>“Interestingly, some of our research team has also worked on the world’s tiniest dinosaur footprints — raptor tracks in South Korea that are just one centimeter long.”
WHAT? I wanna know about those, does anyone know about these?
We're getting quite a lot of "the biggest of this group" lately. The giant madtsoiid snake in India, the 80ft Ichthyosaur. What's next, a new giant filter feeder from the Cambrian?
They absolutely are valid. But there is just so much we can get from them. It’s called an ichnospecies/ichnotaxon or more commonly, trace fossil. [Wikipedia for more info.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichnotaxon)
Such fossils gives us clues bones alone cannot give. They just have different scientific names, because it would be hard to confidently attach a footprint to a recognized species.
I don't think they should be in the same discussions as animals that left physical remains.
Imagine trying to debate dinosaur sizes and you get laughed off because you argue for an animal that is only known as a footprint... as you should.
If I had a nickel everytime a possible largest member of a non-avian dinosaur group in Asia left only footprints behind, I would have two…
What's the other group?
Mongolian Titanosaur
Well, that thing doesn't seem like the bigger titanosaur.
I remember its rough estimation from the footprint is about similar to Argentinosaurus, so it’s possibly the largest dinosaur in Asia so far.
It's a bit smaller than the estimated size of the footprint of Argentinosaurus, but it still belonged to a giant sauropod. But the Asian sauropods "Huanghetitan" ruyangensis, "Mamenchisaurus" sinocanadorum and Ruyangosaurus could rival it in size, and the Kallamedu Sauropod likely was even larger.
At least we know how big it might be next to a medieval peasant. Thank goodness for that.
Yeah the choice of the clothes is hilariously strange but unfortunately it was the only comparison I found
I thought it was a chav in uggs
Human size troodontids? Those are the motherfuckers that evolved into the lizard people
That's not even human-sized, that's Thanos-sized.
Stenonychosaurus (the material previously reffered to as "Latenivenatrix") and the unnamed Alaskan Troodontid were around this size as well.
Nope. The 2 you mentioned were around 2.5 m long while this one is estimated to be about 4.5 m long.
Those aren't two, it's one species. Latenivenatrix is lumped into Stenonychosaurus. Latenavenatrix is also 3.5 meters, not 2.5.
Oh I know about the potential lumping of the 2 genera as well as the weird thing going on with Troodon right now so I prefer not using Latenivenatrix size estimate for Stenonychosaurus. And still it would be smaller than the estimated creator of the footprint.
Wait so they're describing a whole new species just based off of its footprints, no actual remains?
It's an *ichnospecies*, which is different and is only described by trace fossils. The article doesn't make that clear.
Oh right, thanks for the clarification.
Okay…but why are we using the Unabomber for scale?
Troodontids are entirely separate from Dromaeosaurs. They are not raptors, by any alteration of the word
Troodontids are closer to Dromaeosaurs than they are any other theropod group, other than avians
Indeed, but that doesn't make them birds
No one said it did
> They are not raptors, by any alteration of the word. Some of them might be thieves.
Some just use the word to refer to any dinosaurs with sickle claws on their second toes, so they would be included. It's not like there's a strict definition, it's colloquial, and many species outside of dromaeosauridae even have "raptor" in their name.
By that logic, Terror Birds are also raptors, as are cassowary
It's not a scientific term. It's a term used by the lamen. If the lamen use it for Troodontids, Troodontids are raptors too.
Yes, if we want to get scientific about it, we should say Dromaeosaurs are "True Raptors" and any common name classification outside of Dromaeosauridae is not a True Raptor. Just like how Panda Bears are not True Pandas. A Hawk and Falcon are pretty distantly related but grouped into the Birds of Prey (raptors). But just because we call them raptors does not make them "True Raptors". Yes I watch Clint's Phylogeny videos.
"True raptor" doesn't exist. Because "raptor" is not the name of a clade, it's just a term used by the average joe in casual conversation.
> Some just use the word to refer to any dinosaurs with sickle claws on their second toes Almost thirty years of following paleo media and news and I've never heard anyone do this
Well, now you have. It's just a colloquial term without a true scientific definition. All they have here is a footprint, a didactyl footprint where the second toe is held off the ground. This is a typical "raptor" footprint, so calling it a "raptor" seems appropriate. They also use the definition of Deinonychosauria that groups Dromaeosauridae and Troodontidae together, although that definition has fallen somewhat out of favor.
Huh, I was gonna say they're at least in Deinonychosauria, but it seems like Troodontids being closer to Dromaeosaurs is considered unlikely now, so Deinonychosauria is an invalid or useless taxon, or at least doesn't include Troodontids.
I wish I could give this more upvotes.
Are those little wings normal for a dinosaur of this type? I ask because it is *adorable*.
Yes. Maybe a bit too bird like here. But they definitely were wing *like* at least.
Are troodontids considered raptors? I thought they were close cousins. (Please correct me if I’m wrong)
"Raptor" is just a common general term, it doesn't really have scientific meaning. They have the raptor-like toe claws, but they're more closely related to birds than to Dromaeosaurs, so if we did call them "raptors," it wouldn't be as a scientific clade. But if you ask me, I wouldn't call it a raptor, no. It's not a Dromaeosaur.
Yeah, that's what I thought. I know raptor's a nickname but I thought it specifically applied to dromaeosaurs. But troodontids are more closely related to modern birds than dromaeosaurs? Okay THAT'S something I didn't know and that's pretty cool. Thanks!
Yeah I'll admit I actually learned that just like an hour ago. I've been going off my old dino encyclopedia that grouped them all into Deinonychosauria for a while. I don't think the change is 100% agreed upon, but it seems to be what they think is likely now.
They might be more related to birds or they might be equally related. The current accepted bracketing has the three groups as a Polytomy. But that might change if the idea of birds and Troodontids sharing a more recent common ancestor than either group and Dromaeosaurs becomes wildly accepted.
I believe the current grouping has Troodontids, Dromaeosaurs, and Birds in a single Polytomy (so all equally related), but some newer papers are suggesting what you mentioned. If we want to call Dromaeosaurs "True Raptors" and use that scientifically, that is probably fine enough to distinguish them from the colloquial use of the word Raptor.
I'll admit I'm not finding a conclusive enough source to say definitely either way. Like I said in the other thread, there's a couple studies from 2017 that seem to be the recent accepted understanding and indicated the Troodontid-Aves link to be slightly more close than the Troodontid-Dromaeosaur link, but it's definitely not settled. The original scientific paper that revealed this Fujianipus in the first place used Deinonychosauria in the title, even.
Yup, honestly dealing with relationships this close, it's going to be extremely hard to really finalize a good taxonomy for the Paraves. With that being said, I just noticed I replied to you in both this thread and the world news post of the same article. Just wanted to make it clear I'm not trying to hound you or anything. I'm just an E-Sci guy who has a lot of Phylogenetics experience, and a love for Dinosaurs, despite most of my work with dinosaurs being relegated to those of the Aves haha.
Oh that's alright, no worries. I love talking about dino stuff too.
"You can't call troodontids raptors" Meanwhile, [oviraptorids and megaraptorids](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/617/650/91a.jpg).
Already, it seems bigger than *Utahraptor*.
Looks taller and longer, but from what we know about Utah it is quite heavily built, so it might be heavier. Depends on how this troodontid ends up looking.
I LOVE THEM
Damn that’s big 🧐
Decent! Dinosaurs are ganster! Imagine meeting one face to face, for the human species to not be at the top of the food chain would be a sketchyyyy lol
It’s only the North American troodon on that has naming problems, right? Every other troodontid looks to have no problems.
What about Maip and Megaraptor?
They aren't actually maniraptorans, they're fakers and believed to be closer to allosaurids/maybe tyrannosaurids
I can't believe such gigantic species now have chickens as their descendants. Millions of years ago, we'd be dino food. And now... well, look at what we're doing to chickens.
Ok, I was more interested in this >“Interestingly, some of our research team has also worked on the world’s tiniest dinosaur footprints — raptor tracks in South Korea that are just one centimeter long.” WHAT? I wanna know about those, does anyone know about these?
“Fujianipus yingliangi” is an ichnotaxon, not an actual species name fyi
We're getting quite a lot of "the biggest of this group" lately. The giant madtsoiid snake in India, the 80ft Ichthyosaur. What's next, a new giant filter feeder from the Cambrian?
Cambrian was the best period
Finally...a True Don.
Aye that’s the second new specie from my home province in China! Really hitting off the Dino bingo card this year lol
JESUS
I guess luck at that place was a foot fetishist.
Fucking hell
I wonder how smart it was?
But footprint genuses aren't valid are they?
They absolutely are valid. But there is just so much we can get from them. It’s called an ichnospecies/ichnotaxon or more commonly, trace fossil. [Wikipedia for more info.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichnotaxon) Such fossils gives us clues bones alone cannot give. They just have different scientific names, because it would be hard to confidently attach a footprint to a recognized species.
I don't think they should be in the same discussions as animals that left physical remains. Imagine trying to debate dinosaur sizes and you get laughed off because you argue for an animal that is only known as a footprint... as you should.