HOME | DD
Qilong — The Last Oviraptorosaur
by-sa
Published: 2011-07-15 20:49:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 4146; Favourites: 40; Downloads: 107
Redirect to original
Description
Known only from a few specimens from the Hell Creek Formation, and partially associated with the infamous Tyrannosaurus rex, the so-called "Triebold-raptor" is a large caenagnathid, and likely represents a new taxon. Suggestions may be that it merely represents a new species of Chirostenotes, although this is based on lumping a large amount of variation from the Campanian and Maastrichtian into a single type of caenagnathid. Very little of the foot is actually known, and what is shown here is based on a single large toe and part of a hallux (inner toe), and one metatarsal.This was largely done after Scott Hartman's reconstruction, [link] , although I did refer to my own notes and several high quality photographs. Not my best work. Expect the skull portion to change more drastically when better data comes in.
Related content
Comments: 29
I was surprised to find out what a large animal this guy actually is. Nice skeletal too, just waiting on more data on the thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, we should have more of that in the next year or so. And I appreciate your comments. As I said, I'm not too happy with this piece, but it was created for the purpose of increasing "completeness" among oviraptorosaurs in general.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hey, is this the one we now call Epichirostenotes?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. That's the top skeleton here: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
With you and Paul and Hartman all restoring it I'm glad so many masters of skeletal restoration are contributing to this fascinating creature.
Yes, there seems to be substantial variation between all your takes on the skull. Hopefully we'll get more material soon and a name, though that's probably asking a lot.
And hopefully this is the end of your artist's block--the world of the past, as well as that of the present, is far too fascinating to be justifiably uninspired.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's just not that high quality as Scott's and Paul's skeletals are. But this doesn't really push my block away ... I've been ... sketching a little lately, but not dinosaur stuff, and not really scanable stuff.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I also suspect this creature is in cahoots with Tyrannosaurus. Cahoots...what a word that is....cahooots. Anywho...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nah! He looks like a Fred to me! How about George Frederick?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Word" has it that while this specimen is likely a new SPECIES, it won't be named with a new GENUS name, in the conventional sense. That means it's going to be called "Chirostenotes [something]." Maybe infernalis or something, in keeping with the Hell Creek.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I read that it's much larger than normal Chirostenotes....maybe....Chirostenotes ultimus or Chirostenotes gigas would work....I wish there were giantish oviraptorids in the Lancian age though.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The authors who are redescribing it are for now being conservative and calling it Chirostenotes pergracilis, with the intention of treating all northern North American caenagnathid taxa as Chirostenotes pergracilis with the exception of "Elmisaurus" elegans and Caenagnathus sternbergi (as Chirostenotes sternbergi or Chirostenotes elegans where "Elmisaurus" elegans is a synonym). Sorry if that seems technical.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, Chirostenotes seems a little wastebasket now, doesn't it? That's from what I seem to read here.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, Chirostenotes is an odd case. The authors will note that there is variation, but whether these represent a single confined lineage or many distinct ones is unknown. Otherwise, this is a taste issue. The specimens all so far stay next to one another in phylogenetic analysis, although very few tests have been made on this point. So while there are new names for material that would otherwise go into this complex, whether they represent distinct phenetic groups is unclear. One is based on a partial pelvis, which turns out to be not that much different from other specimens, and is restricted in how much comparison can actually be made. So this isn't a "wastebasket" case in the strictest sense, although it comes close.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So maybe the specimens of Chirostenotes mightn't even be....I dunno, related to each other, right? Well, Epichirostenotes was Chirostenotes once.....maybe like in the case of Iguanodon, even Chirostenotes is about to be broken up in the near future,
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, the relationships have not been tested in full completeness because the specimens for many other "species" are so incomplete. The best specimens, so far, are the most complete, and these alternately have been referred to new species/genera, or haven't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So then at the end of this issue, we still have the genus Chirostenotes based on only C. pergracilis as valid?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, there will always be a Chirostenotes pergracilis. At least. What other species might be synonyms is up to debate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Woof! Hopefully there'll be a quick revision of its position!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Infernalis? Damned evocative name! COOL!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Check out Bugenasaura infernalis, also from the Hell Creek. Or Stygimoloch spinifer. Some names write themselves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How about the old Dynamosaurus imperiosis? Used to be the name for a rex skeleton.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1