However, Russell's thought experiment has been met with criticism from other paleontologists since the 1980s, many of whom point out that his Dinosauroid is overly anthropomorphic. Gregory S. Paul (1988) and Thomas R. Holtz, Jr., consider it "suspiciously human" and Darren Naish has argued that a large-brained, highly intelligent troodontid would retain a more standard theropod body plan, with a horizontal posture and long tail, and would probably manipulate objects with the snout and feet in the manner of a bird, rather than with human-like "hands". [9] Description [ edit ] Size compared to a human In 2011, Zanno and colleagues reviewed the convoluted history of troodontid classification in Late Cretaceous North America. They followed Longrich (2008) in treating Pectinodon bakkeri as a valid genus, and noted that it is likely the numerous Late Cretaceous specimens currently assigned to Troodon formosus almost certainly represent numerous new species, but that a more thorough review of the specimens is required. Because the holotype of T. formosus is a single tooth, this may render Troodon a nomen dubium. [12] But what would have happened if that asteroid had come along an hour later – missing the Earth altogether?

At Kidadl we pride ourselves on offering families original ideas to make the most of time spent together at home or out and about, wherever you are in the world. We strive to recommend the very best things that are suggested by our community and are things we would do ourselves - our aim is to be the trusted friend to parents.Noble, B. 2016. Articulating Dinosaurs: A Political Anthropology. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

This new species is the largest of the troodontids ever found anywhere in the world, standing nearly two metres at the head and close to 3.5 metres long. It’s about fifty per cent larger than any other troodontids previously known, making it one of the largest Deinonychosaurs (raptor-like dinosaurs) we currently recognise.” The first specimens currently assigned to Troodon that were not teeth were both found by Sternberg in 1928, in the Dinosaur Park Formation of Alberta. The first was named Stenonychosaurus inequalis by Sternberg in 1932, based on a foot, fragments of a hand, and some tail vertebrae. A remarkable feature of these remains was the enlarged claw on the second toe, which is now recognized as characteristic of early paravians. Sternberg initially classified Stenonychosaurus as a member of the family Coeluridae. The second, a partial lower jaw bone, was described by Gilmore (1932) as a new species of lizard which he named Polyodontosaurus grandis. Later, in 1951, Sternberg recognized P. grandis as a possible synonym of Troodon, and speculated that since Stenonychosaurus had a "very peculiar pes" and Troodon "equally unusual teeth", they may be closely related. No comparable specimens were available at that time to test the idea. Varricchio et al. also found evidence for iterative laying, where the adult might lay a pair of eggs every one or two days, and then ensured simultaneous hatching by delaying brooding until all eggs were laid. MOR 363 was found with 22 empty (hatched) eggs, and the embryos found in the eggs of MOR 246 were in very similar states of development, implying that all of the young hatched approximately simultaneously. The embryos had an advanced degree of skeletal development and empty eggs were relatively uncrushed, implying that hatchlings were precocial. The authors estimated 45 to 65 total days of adult nest attendance for laying, brooding, and hatching. [22] Legacy: failure and success. A non-trivial part of the dinosauroid story is the community’s reaction and how this affected Russell personally. As is well known, the idea suffered “much friendly abuse” (to quote Greg Paul in Predatory Dinosaurs of the World), several dinosaur specialists using the arguments outlined at the start of this article. I’m not pretending to be original on those points: such experts as David Raup, Stephen J. Gould, Thomas R. Holtz, jr, John Hutchinson and Greg Paul made them years before I published anything on the dinosauroid. Russell was very much aware of these criticisms ( Russell 1987, p. 127), something we saw reflected in his correspondence (Naish & Tattersdill 2021). It’s telling, however, that he never responded to them.

Disclaimer

In 2011, Zanno and colleagues reviewed the convoluted history of troodontid classification in Late Cretaceous North America. They followed Longrich (2008) in treating Pectinodon bakkeri as a valid genus and noted that it is likely the numerous Late Cretaceous specimens currently assigned to Troodon formosus, but that a more thorough review of the specimens is required. Because the holotype of T. formosus is a single tooth, this renders Troodon a nomen dubium. [3] Up until then, the vast majority of troodontid specimens found in North America had been classified as Troodon formosus. Two things make our paper different from previous contributions on the dinosauroid. One is that – thanks to kind co-operation from Jordan Mallon at the Canadian Museum of Nature – we had full access to Dale Russell’s correspondence. And two is that we corresponded extensively with Ron Séguin. Ron was extremely generous with his time and the material he owns, and provided us with a large amount of information not shared before. I should add that, some years in the past, I corresponded with Dr Russell too, albeit never on the dinosauroid. Varricchio et al. also found evidence for iterative laying, where the adult might lay a pair of eggs every one or two days, and then ensured simultaneous hatching by delaying brooding until all eggs were laid. MOR 363 was found with 22 empty (hatched) eggs, and the embryos found in the eggs of MOR 246 were in very similar states of development, implying that all of the young hatched approximately simultaneously. The embryos had an advanced degree of skeletal development and empty eggs were relatively uncrushed, implying that hatchlings were precocial. The authors estimated 45 to 65 total days of adult nest attendance for laying, brooding, and hatching. [21] However, Russell's thought experiment has been met with criticism from other paleontologists since the 1980s, many of whom point out that his Dinosauroid is overly anthropomorphic. Gregory S. Paul (1988) and Thomas R. Holtz, Jr., consider it "suspiciously human" and Darren Naish has argued that a large-brained, highly intelligent troodontid would retain a more standard theropod body plan, with a horizontal posture and long tail, and would probably manipulate objects with the snout and feet in the manner of a bird, rather than with human-like "hands". [15] Paleobiology [ ]