Albertonykus's avatar


767 Watchers236 Deviations
See All

Deviation Spotlight

Follow me on
Super Albino Llama: Llamas are awesome! (319)
Emerald: It's a great honor to be awarded an Emerald badge! (1)
My Bio

Got a PhD studying extant and fossil birds. Alternatively, North American alvarezsaurid described in 2009.

Favourite TV Shows
Phineas and Ferb, Hilda, The Hunt, Africa, The Life of Birds, The Life of Mammals, Prehistoric Planet, Animaniacs, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, The Velvet Claw, The Story of Perrine
Favourite Books
Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages, Avian Evolution, A Field Guide to Mesozoic Birds and Other Winged Dinosaurs, Where Song Began, The Ancestor's Tale, The Bartimaeus Trilogy, The Animals of Farthing Wood

Profile Comments 1.4K

Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In

Since you previously defended Dakotaraptor's validity in a previous Tumblr ask, what do you think of the recent study suggesting it's no longer a valid species?

"Defended" is a strong word. What I recall saying was that the validity of Dakotaraptor had not been questioned in the scientific literature at the time. That was a statement of fact, not an expression of my own opinion on the subject. As far as I know, that statement is still true. What recent study are you referring to? There's been a resurgence in online discussion about Dakotaraptor because its lead describer has been in the news lately; however, the news is primarily about evidence of his misconduct on a different study, not the Dakotaraptor description. And though many Mesozoic theropod researchers have raised concerns on social media and other informal settings about the diagnosability of Dakotaraptor and the quality of its description, suspicions that may well hold weight, there hasn't been a new paper on the subject as far as I'm aware.

I was referring to this tweet that became viral on the dinosaur subreddit.

Other than the turtle elements (which were the subject of a previous paper), all of that is based on commentary in informal contexts. Much of it comes from researchers with relevant expertise, and so is worth taking into consideration, but there is no new study demonstrating that it's the case.

Will you add possible early dinosaurs (e.g. silesaurids) to New Dinosaur Alert?

I don't have immediate plans to include silesaurids, but I probably will if their dinosaurian status becomes more widely accepted.

What do you think of the Wikipedia page "List of Mesozoic birds"?