considering the whole debate on Nanotyrannus, and some similar conclusions on Dracorex and Stygamoloch, i would not be at all surprised if at least some of these Compsognathids are the young of larger theropods. definitely needs more research on the idea.
@@thegermanspino6186 Valid as taxa, maybe. Valid as separate from Pachycephalosaurus genera? really fucking doubt it. It was pretty solidly demonstrated that they were ontogenically younger plus the most derived and closest to pachycephalosaurus genera having the least developed domes seems unlikely.
As an italian, specifically one who lives just a few kilometers from Pietraroja, I feel the urge to point out that it's not pronounced "pietraroha" like in spanish but "pietraroya"
I think you'll find that only latin, Spanish, Portuguese speakers will realize and learn of these vocalizations. Americans don't really teach about emphasis.. Take it from a Filipino... We get called out for it a lot... lol
Some day maybe someone will publish a book of all the times people corrected other people's pronunciations on the innernat, especially since this is such a popular thing to do, apparently. "Well, akshully, even though nobody rightly so cares, it is pronounced "blah blah punch my face please". Anyone else ever notice how these corrections always hide some type of braggery: "Well, I am an expert on bird vents, AND I am a real Durbistanian, and AKSHULLY, that word is pronounced 'Clo-ake-uh'.
Thanks! It is a very interesting take on Cau's hypotesis, I had read the article on theropoda blogspot, but you have make it funny and even more polished. Nevertheless The original description of Scipionyx from Dal Sasso & Maganuco is still a masterpiece. Cau helped with the intuition to classify Slatriovenator as a basal ceratosaur, so in past he has proven to be audacious but also skilled in this kind of reasoning.
Hey edge, what do you think about ubirajara being a hatchling, cause it already had display spines found on the holotype so i was wondering if ubirajara is actually a hatchling when it had display spines
Probably not a baby because y would a baby animal have something obvious use for display and was already well developed so I say at least the 3 in the size chart are adult and 1 possible sub adult
If this checks out, it also pushes confirmed evidence of feathers way farther back on the evolutionary tree, from just coelurosauria to tetanurae, a group that includes most of the theropods.
@@dynamoterror7077 I don't think feathers are basal to all Archosaurs , Maybe all ornithodirans Pseudosuchians don't seem to preserve any filaments even the earliest and smallest ones
@@dynamoterror7077 I found some speculation that integument is ancestral to archosaurs based on the likelihood that they were endothermic, but no evidence as far as I know. Pterosaur pycnofibers are definitely a thing but I believe there's some disagreement about whether they are homologous with feathers or different structures that convergently evolved. The answer is probably "more research is required".
@@robhacklblumstein Honestly though , even the earliest Pseudosuchians don't preserve an filaments they instead preserve Osteoderms , the smallest known ones aren't protected by a filamentous coat , Crocodilians don't have any filaments either , So I am sure that filaments likely weren't basal to all Archosaurs
Only the holotype is a juvenile but there are fully grown Sinosauropteryx and Compsognathus so doesn’t that disprove that all Compsognathidae are know from only juvenile material
Cau didn‘t say in his paper that all compsognathids are juveniles of other dinosaur groups, just the specific ones only known from juvenile remains (Scipionyx, Juravenator and Sciurumimus). Edge is misrepresenting this here a little
Okay Manospondylus then y did edge bring up the fact that the holotype of Compsognathus and Sinosauropteryx were juveniles when they found adult material then?
Not quite, the argument outlined at 5:11 is that Compsognathidae isn't a naturally grouping. So rather than saying all Compsognathids are juveniles what it's saying is that some taxa might truely be small therapods, some taxa might not be small, and all are being grouped together into a basal Coleurosaurian position on morphologic grounds, despite those morphologies being possible neotenys . It's very analogous to how all large therapods were once classifed as Megalosaurs, and then Carnosaurs afterwards
I was thinking of the whole idea that sometimes the simplest explanation is the easiest one. 1. Young dinosaur fossils are rare. 2. This grouping has pretty much ONLY young specimens. What if the first point is actually just correct. There's something in biology known as Paedomorphosis, in which juvenile or infant traits are retained by an organism well into adulthood. The most obvious example being Axolotls, which retain gills and incredible limb growth/regrowth abilities from their larval stage, but stay that way pretty much their whole lives instead of metamorphosing into salamanders with lungs. Humans have also retained some juvenile traits into adulthood. Most apes start out with a large, round head for their brain, and as they get older, they develop strong jaw muscles for biting, attached to a hard sagittal crest down the top of the skull. This hard crest and strong muscles apply a lot of pressure to the skull, shaping it, and keeping the cranium from housing a larger, more complex brain. But some of our ancestors mutated to retain their behbeh noggins longer than normal. This made our bite force weak, but helped the brain develop more. This created a feedback loop, as a smarter brain could use tools, which made a stronger bite meaningless, which in turn led to a less constricted skull. What if this particular family of dinosaurs found an advantage in just... not becoming 100% adult like some of their larger competitors? By maintaining juvenile traits, they might have found ecological niches other theropods hadn't really claimed yet. It just seems very unlikely that with how rare young dino fossils are, pretty much ALL of these ones are young. The most obvious answer would simply be: They only LOOK young by retaining young traits into adulthood for one reason or another.
I guess the problem is, other than the juvenile traits, they are very different, compare Juravenator to Scipionyx skulls for example. I think we shouldn't assume they make up a real group, even if most of them are small as adults.
I think the problem is that these guys have incomplete bone fusion, typical of juvenile animals. Even animals with extreme neoteny do not retain the unfused bones that juveniles have.
@@minutemansam1214 Yeah, also I don't know why scientist are always extremely quick to assume small-adult animal instead of juvenile when finding a skeleton of a small dinosaur, this a common trend.
Also Compsognathus is the only dinosaur from its island and Sinosauropteryx was found with an egg in it’s cloaca so it was not a baby but a adult or sub adult
They were most likely parts of the intestines or its last meal, or even a combination of these two or something else, since the specimen is also immature
I always love learning so much about some more awesome dino discoveries from tjis amazing channel,so that's awesome Also hope y'all are having a great day.
Wait, so, how big are the eyes and don’t eyes not change throughout growth? So they would have much larger eye holes if they are babies. If I’m correct, if we could tell the size of the eyes, and I have a feeling we can considering there is so much art featuring the eyes of dinosaurs, then the eyes shouldn’t change between the two stages, being massive in the babies and tiny in the adults.
Eyes do, in fact, grow. Human babies have eyes that are 16.5 millimeters in length. Adults have eyes that are 24 millimeters. And such a low amount of growth is unusual in an animal, as other animals eyes grow massively throughout their life. Giant Squid have eyes the size of dinner plates. Their babies are so small they're classified as plankton.
Why is there no art of Scipionyx decked out in Italian flag colours like the Brazilian Tapejara or the Canadian Cryodrakon? Somebody needs to get on that.
Laura Chapple Well, I'm not sure how well they could pull that off. I get what you're saying, but where I see a problem with that is Scipionyx is named after a man who was a soldier and commander in the old Roman Republic. More specifically, he's named after Scipio Africanus, the man who would ultimately defeat legendary general Hannibal Barca of Carthage and end the Second Punic War.
The problem is complicated by lack of carcharodontid growth stages. Hard to know precisely how hatchling anatomy differed from adults. Even with tyrannosaurs, for which there is more age-specific material, it's not clear which of the group's adult traits juveniles had or lacked. All adult tyrannosaurs possess several unique features, including a small premaxilla with D-shaped “incisor”-like teeth, fused nasals, extreme pneumaticity in the skull roof and lower jaws, a pronounced, verticle muscle attachment ridge on the ilium and an elevated femoral head. A Compie with a verticle iliac ridge could be confidently assigned to Tyrannosauroidea. Similar distinquishing traits exist for other coelurosaurs, plus their fellow tetanuran megalosaurs and carnosaurs, but often without good development sequences.
Wow just wow an amazing video. Best dino video in a long time. SO much information I didn't know at all! Also second half of the video made me feel like I was watching a conspiracy mystery video that made sense. I was on the edge of my seat lol 😁 Good stuff indeed 👍
How did we realize the hatchling allosaur was the hatchling version of it's species? Was it found in a nest situation or did we just line up the features? If it's the features then when they found these juvies why didn't they compare them to adults? I get what you said about the baby features being different, but I would have assumed people would have taken that into account when dealing with an almost certainly juvenile specimen. Also, if a bunch of compys ARE found to be juveniles of known species, does the renaming of specimens that would happen follow the usual rules? What I mean is: if there is a compy species that was named first, but then is later found to be synonymous with another species because it represents a juvenile specimen, does the compy species name still have priority? I mean, I would assume it does and that there are not special rules for nomenclature just because of the circumstances. It's just in my mind it's like finding out that kittens were described before cats and having to change Felis silvestris catus to Felis silvestris kittykatus. I'd support that though.
Since the French specimen of Compsognathus and at least one, larger Sinocalliopteryx are thought to be adults, some members of the putative Family Compsognathidae are liable to belong to a valid clade. However, they might be island dwarf species of clades with generally larger theropods. Europe consisted of islands in the Late Jurassic, but Early Cretaceous Liaoning, whence come so many alleged Compies, was attached to a continent.
Not a complaint, but the Walking with Monsters soundtrack playing towards the end of the video repeatedly distracted me because nostalgia or something and I had to rewind a few times. lol
imo, i would not be surprised if some smaller dinosaurs were in fact juvenile's of larger species as it seems some Paleontologists love giving out names to new finds. but i wonder if this could be applied or said about other clades where we might run into a similar conundrum of some dinosaurs weren't adult specimens like the whole Dracorex, Stigymoloch and Pachycephalosaurus debate. still a great video with lots of potential
Mostly of all compsognathus possibly are hatchlings of other bigger theropod dinosaurs but the same is with compsognathus longipes ? The same apply to it or it is just the only compsognathus that is a real compsognathus or it is a young hatchling fossil too?
There is only so big an egg can get before the shell is too thick for a hatchling to get through it. Therefore if you take a look at dinosaurs like the well-known t-rex and the lineage of brontosauruses you have a massive growth from chick to adult. So for a baby compy to be a scipionyx is not that far off in my opinion!
compelling idea though if they all juveniles where are the adults? considering adult specimens being larger are more likely to fossilize then small specimens this is totally the opposite here......doesnt make sense. For instance here in australia large specimens of sauropods and a theropod we have here in the winton formation and although we have a awesome track way showing small chicken sized and emu sized dinos lived there too they arent as yet found in the fossil record of the formation.
Ok, I'll admit that this theory does hold some weight to its claims, and yes it is quite possible that some of them were babies, but there's one dinosaur in there that has to be an adult, that being Ubirajara. The fact that they have fully developed feathers makes me believe that they were adult specimens, and think about it, why would a species have such cumbersome things for their young, if anything, it would be a huge disadvantage since they'd be telling predators exactly where the inexperienced and vulnerable babies were, it just doesn't make any sense. The only way this theory could work for Ubirajara is if it was a baby cheetah thing, where they were mimicking an animal so nasty, even predators would back down, but that would mean that there would have been an animal of about the same size and shape as Ubirajara. So in conclusion, I must say that there are at least a few true Compsognathidae species.
But if we consider Compsognathidae to be a wastebasket taxon, Ubirajara gets turned into being a basal coelurosaur (or maybe even some other small theropod) of uncertain affinities. And basal coelurosaurs are known to commonly be small (Dilong, Proceratosaurids, Nqwbesaurus, Compsognathus), so in my opinion it is no support for Compsognathidae.
Also why are there people out there who think Sinosauropteryx is a baby yutyrannus it’s about Compsognathidae being Carcharodontosauridae on Tyrannosauroidea
I read that Compys as a whole are in serious doubt. If one studies the size of the largest dinosaur eggs, capped by physics and biology, and then analyzes how much larger the adult dinosaur will be, it becomes quite plausible that dinosaurs have one or more "larval" kind of stages where diet and even body design (going from 4 legs to two, e.g. or having a back sail or head crests) may be totally different than the final, larger adult form.
I really hate the way everyone pronounces that name, correctness be damned. If scientific names are supposed to be rooted (primarily) in Ancient Greek and Classical Latin, and if it's supposed to be (at least in part) a tribute to the great Pūblius Cornēlius Scīpiō Āfricānus, cōnsul Rōmae, then it should logically be pronounced as in Classical Latin, rather than modern Italian. And before anyone brings it up, yes, I know the name is also a tribute to Scipione Breislak, but the dinosaur is named _Scipionyx,_ not _Scipionenyx._
The Scipionyx dissection animation at 09:46 is by Fabio Manucci
www.artstation.com/artwork/zAa3aw
RUclips's closed captions got _poop chute_ correct!!
😆🤣🤣
considering the whole debate on Nanotyrannus, and some similar conclusions on Dracorex and Stygamoloch, i would not be at all surprised if at least some of these Compsognathids are the young of larger theropods. definitely needs more research on the idea.
*Laughs in tetragonosaurid*
i know this is late but dracorex and stygamoloch where found to be valid becouse they are from diffrent layers and times then pachycephalosaurus
@@thegermanspino6186 Valid as taxa, maybe. Valid as separate from Pachycephalosaurus genera? really fucking doubt it. It was pretty solidly demonstrated that they were ontogenically younger plus the most derived and closest to pachycephalosaurus genera having the least developed domes seems unlikely.
Nanotyrannus is like the flat earth of paleontology
As an italian, specifically one who lives just a few kilometers from Pietraroja, I feel the urge to point out that it's not pronounced "pietraroha" like in spanish but "pietraroya"
Adding to this, it's pronounced "Jovanni", not "Gee-oh-vanni".
And the final E in Giuseppe it's more like "eh" than "ee".
I think you'll find that only latin, Spanish, Portuguese speakers will realize and learn of these vocalizations. Americans don't really teach about emphasis.. Take it from a Filipino... We get called out for it a lot... lol
Some day maybe someone will publish a book of all the times people corrected other people's pronunciations on the innernat, especially since this is such a popular thing to do, apparently.
"Well, akshully, even though nobody rightly so cares, it is pronounced "blah blah punch my face please".
Anyone else ever notice how these corrections always hide some type of braggery: "Well, I am an expert on bird vents, AND I am a real Durbistanian, and AKSHULLY, that word is pronounced 'Clo-ake-uh'.
@@saintjackula9615 sure
Uncle Giuseppe never had the makings of a varsity athlete
It's an interesting theory, and I hope it sparks discussion around it's possibility
Love the little bit of humour you include in you videos. ‘Bebes’ really made me laugh 😂
In Portuguese it's actually this way we say "babies" kkkk
"Bebês"
Zefrank's influence, I guess
Just the right amount without distracting from the subject at hand
Moira rose 😂
@@sendmorerum8241
I was about to suggest the exact same thing :D
You internalized the success of zefrank, and brought us 'bebes' and I am forever grateful
There's at least one compsognathid which we can be sure it's sexually mature though: _Ubirajara_ clearly had sexual display but is still 1m long.
Very useful information Victorin, Thanks!
The more videos of dinos I watch the stronger the urge to move back in time and just see these magnificent beasts in their glory before they eat me.
Thanks! It is a very interesting take on Cau's hypotesis, I had read the article on theropoda blogspot, but you have make it funny and even more polished.
Nevertheless The original description of Scipionyx from Dal Sasso & Maganuco is still a masterpiece. Cau helped with the intuition to classify Slatriovenator as a basal ceratosaur, so in past he has proven to be audacious but also skilled in this kind of reasoning.
In my opinion I think some Compys are actual species, like Ubirajara, Sinosauropteryx, and Compsognathus itself.
Hey edge, what do you think about ubirajara being a hatchling, cause it already had display spines found on the holotype so i was wondering if ubirajara is actually a hatchling when it had display spines
Probably not a baby because y would a baby animal have something obvious use for display and was already well developed so I say at least the 3 in the size chart are adult and 1 possible sub adult
Compsognathids: *there is a baby among us*
As long as Compsognathus and Sinosauropteryx are still considered their own species as small dinosaurs I will be happy
If this checks out, it also pushes confirmed evidence of feathers way farther back on the evolutionary tree, from just coelurosauria to tetanurae, a group that includes most of the theropods.
I think confirmed feathery filaments are know from the Triassic, and are basal to all archosaurs.
@@dynamoterror7077 I don't think feathers are basal to all Archosaurs , Maybe all ornithodirans
Pseudosuchians don't seem to preserve any filaments even the earliest and smallest ones
@@dynamoterror7077 I found some speculation that integument is ancestral to archosaurs based on the likelihood that they were endothermic, but no evidence as far as I know. Pterosaur pycnofibers are definitely a thing but I believe there's some disagreement about whether they are homologous with feathers or different structures that convergently evolved. The answer is probably "more research is required".
@@smilodonmaximus470 True, I was a bit over-zealous.
@@robhacklblumstein Honestly though , even the earliest Pseudosuchians don't preserve an filaments they instead preserve Osteoderms , the smallest known ones aren't protected by a filamentous coat , Crocodilians don't have any filaments either , So I am sure that filaments likely weren't basal to all Archosaurs
If amphibians go extinct future paleontologist might come to the conclusion that tadpoles and frogs are two different lineages.
Funny you say that. Look up Microsauria.
4:17 " The legs are good bro, but you got to start working out those arms! "
💪😆👍
It may not be peer-reviewed, but it sure makes sense!
I like how so well preserved this dinosaur is. Thanks for making me aware of this.😁👍
Interesting hypothesis, It wouldn't surprise me if some comsognathids were the young of bigger therapods. I look forward to future developments.
"1. They smol"
I lost it XD
Only the holotype is a juvenile but there are fully grown Sinosauropteryx and Compsognathus so doesn’t that disprove that all Compsognathidae are know from only juvenile material
Cau didn‘t say in his paper that all compsognathids are juveniles of other dinosaur groups, just the specific ones only known from juvenile remains (Scipionyx, Juravenator and Sciurumimus). Edge is misrepresenting this here a little
Okay Manospondylus then y did edge bring up the fact that the holotype of Compsognathus and Sinosauropteryx were juveniles when they found adult material then?
And what about sinocaliopteryx, Even though its immature, still 7 feet long
@@michaelbuono4007 Cau doesn‘t bring that up in his paper, so this is purely on Edge
Not quite, the argument outlined at 5:11 is that Compsognathidae isn't a naturally grouping. So rather than saying all Compsognathids are juveniles what it's saying is that some taxa might truely be small therapods, some taxa might not be small, and all are being grouped together into a basal Coleurosaurian position on morphologic grounds, despite those morphologies being possible neotenys .
It's very analogous to how all large therapods were once classifed as Megalosaurs, and then Carnosaurs afterwards
Was anyone here obsessed with the JP Lost World game on ps1? 🥺🥺 playing as Compy was the most fun
I was thinking of the whole idea that sometimes the simplest explanation is the easiest one.
1. Young dinosaur fossils are rare.
2. This grouping has pretty much ONLY young specimens.
What if the first point is actually just correct. There's something in biology known as Paedomorphosis, in which juvenile or infant traits are retained by an organism well into adulthood. The most obvious example being Axolotls, which retain gills and incredible limb growth/regrowth abilities from their larval stage, but stay that way pretty much their whole lives instead of metamorphosing into salamanders with lungs. Humans have also retained some juvenile traits into adulthood. Most apes start out with a large, round head for their brain, and as they get older, they develop strong jaw muscles for biting, attached to a hard sagittal crest down the top of the skull. This hard crest and strong muscles apply a lot of pressure to the skull, shaping it, and keeping the cranium from housing a larger, more complex brain. But some of our ancestors mutated to retain their behbeh noggins longer than normal. This made our bite force weak, but helped the brain develop more. This created a feedback loop, as a smarter brain could use tools, which made a stronger bite meaningless, which in turn led to a less constricted skull.
What if this particular family of dinosaurs found an advantage in just... not becoming 100% adult like some of their larger competitors? By maintaining juvenile traits, they might have found ecological niches other theropods hadn't really claimed yet. It just seems very unlikely that with how rare young dino fossils are, pretty much ALL of these ones are young. The most obvious answer would simply be: They only LOOK young by retaining young traits into adulthood for one reason or another.
I guess the problem is, other than the juvenile traits, they are very different, compare Juravenator to Scipionyx skulls for example. I think we shouldn't assume they make up a real group, even if most of them are small as adults.
I think the problem is that these guys have incomplete bone fusion, typical of juvenile animals. Even animals with extreme neoteny do not retain the unfused bones that juveniles have.
@@minutemansam1214 Yeah, also I don't know why scientist are always extremely quick to assume small-adult animal instead of juvenile when finding a skeleton of a small dinosaur, this a common trend.
Also Compsognathus is the only dinosaur from its island and Sinosauropteryx was found with an egg in it’s cloaca so it was not a baby but a adult or sub adult
They were most likely parts of the intestines or its last meal, or even a combination of these two or something else, since the specimen is also immature
I always love learning so much about some more awesome dino discoveries from tjis amazing channel,so that's awesome
Also hope y'all are having a great day.
Wait, so, how big are the eyes and don’t eyes not change throughout growth? So they would have much larger eye holes if they are babies.
If I’m correct, if we could tell the size of the eyes, and I have a feeling we can considering there is so much art featuring the eyes of dinosaurs, then the eyes shouldn’t change between the two stages, being massive in the babies and tiny in the adults.
Exactly, eyes don't grow
Eyes do, in fact, grow. Human babies have eyes that are 16.5 millimeters in length. Adults have eyes that are 24 millimeters. And such a low amount of growth is unusual in an animal, as other animals eyes grow massively throughout their life.
Giant Squid have eyes the size of dinner plates. Their babies are so small they're classified as plankton.
@@minutemansam1214 I’d ask for sources but the giant squid needs none.
Why is there no art of Scipionyx decked out in Italian flag colours like the Brazilian Tapejara or the Canadian Cryodrakon? Somebody needs to get on that.
Laura Chapple Well, I'm not sure how well they could pull that off. I get what you're saying, but where I see a problem with that is Scipionyx is named after a man who was a soldier and commander in the old Roman Republic. More specifically, he's named after Scipio Africanus, the man who would ultimately defeat legendary general Hannibal Barca of Carthage and end the Second Punic War.
@@kevinnorwood8782 I'm not sure how this is a problem, though.
Well, having recently done my fair shair of dinosaur art... That gives me ideas.
The problem is complicated by lack of carcharodontid growth stages. Hard to know precisely how hatchling anatomy differed from adults.
Even with tyrannosaurs, for which there is more age-specific material, it's not clear which of the group's adult traits juveniles had or lacked. All adult tyrannosaurs possess several unique features, including a small premaxilla with D-shaped “incisor”-like teeth, fused nasals, extreme pneumaticity in the skull roof and lower jaws, a pronounced, verticle muscle attachment ridge on the ilium and an elevated femoral head. A Compie with a verticle iliac ridge could be confidently assigned to Tyrannosauroidea.
Similar distinquishing traits exist for other coelurosaurs, plus their fellow tetanuran megalosaurs and carnosaurs, but often without good development sequences.
We have some carcharodontosaur growth stages (none a newborns, but still). Mapusaurus has growth stages preserved
Wow just wow an amazing video. Best dino video in a long time. SO much information I didn't know at all! Also second half of the video made me feel like I was watching a conspiracy mystery video that made sense. I was on the edge of my seat lol 😁
Good stuff indeed 👍
awesome video its cool to know that scipionyx could have been a baby shark tooth
How did we realize the hatchling allosaur was the hatchling version of it's species? Was it found in a nest situation or did we just line up the features? If it's the features then when they found these juvies why didn't they compare them to adults? I get what you said about the baby features being different, but I would have assumed people would have taken that into account when dealing with an almost certainly juvenile specimen.
Also, if a bunch of compys ARE found to be juveniles of known species, does the renaming of specimens that would happen follow the usual rules? What I mean is: if there is a compy species that was named first, but then is later found to be synonymous with another species because it represents a juvenile specimen, does the compy species name still have priority? I mean, I would assume it does and that there are not special rules for nomenclature just because of the circumstances. It's just in my mind it's like finding out that kittens were described before cats and having to change Felis silvestris catus to Felis silvestris kittykatus.
I'd support that though.
I'm Italian and very proud of the little Ciro!!!
4:12 Omg ! I am a larger , less babified version of my younger counterpart as well! What a great hypothesis !
I'm in awe at the ease with which you roll those names right out.
I read the title and immediately thought...
🎵 Baby Shark Tooth Tooth Tooth Tooth Tooth 🎶
🎵 Baby Shark Tooth Tooth Tooth Tooth Tooth Baby Shark!! 🎶
😶
Mindblown
So, assuming Cau is indeed correct,
*Feathered Carnosaurs confirmed?*
E.D.G.E is going to become a pillar of the palaeontology community on RUclips
Did you just say an archaeologist named Giovanni? Is that why Giovanni uses ground type Pokemon?
Giovanni Giorgio
@@JohnBohane giorno Giovanna
Interestingly Giovanni was originally planned to be a flying type specialist, hence the badge he gives is shaped like a feather.
there are fully grown compy and Sinosauropteryx
Never heard such specimens exist
@@Fede_99 Well they do.
Great video, plus I like how you used Dababy meme at 4:03
Virgin scipionix:smol boi
Chad carcha beb:o lawd he c O M i n
I’d let this guy make me a drink
Since the French specimen of Compsognathus and at least one, larger Sinocalliopteryx are thought to be adults, some members of the putative Family Compsognathidae are liable to belong to a valid clade. However, they might be island dwarf species of clades with generally larger theropods. Europe consisted of islands in the Late Jurassic, but Early Cretaceous Liaoning, whence come so many alleged Compies, was attached to a continent.
Compsognathus was the Rigbabay dinosaur
Not a complaint, but the Walking with Monsters soundtrack playing towards the end of the video repeatedly distracted me because nostalgia or something and I had to rewind a few times. lol
If this turns out to be real im gonna lose my shit
imo, i would not be surprised if some smaller dinosaurs were in fact juvenile's of larger species as it seems some Paleontologists love giving out names to new finds. but i wonder if this could be applied or said about other clades where we might run into a similar conundrum of some dinosaurs weren't adult specimens like the whole Dracorex, Stigymoloch and Pachycephalosaurus debate. still a great video with lots of potential
Mostly of all compsognathus possibly are hatchlings of other bigger theropod dinosaurs but the same is with compsognathus longipes ? The same apply to it or it is just the only compsognathus that is a real compsognathus or it is a young hatchling fossil too?
I know the theme in the beginning it's from Godzilla vs biollante
Interesting theory.
As an italian it would be nice to have an homegrown Carcharodontosaurus
Compy and sinosauropteryxs and probobly some others are true compsognathide and rest are sharp tooth babe
There is only so big an egg can get before the shell is too thick for a hatchling to get through it. Therefore if you take a look at dinosaurs like the well-known t-rex and the lineage of brontosauruses you have a massive growth from chick to adult. So for a baby compy to be a scipionyx is not that far off in my opinion!
Interesting food for thought
Why does the music at the beginning remind me of Godzilla's death in "Godzilla vs Destoroyah"?
9:30 Do you know if the analysis will be submitted for peer review?
I fucking knew I heard a Godzilla song
Can we compare compsgnathids and relevant egg sizes from respective eras and fine a dileanating line of data? Just an idea.
Baby shar dood dood do do do
Anyone else catch the nesting dimetrodon mother from WWM theme?
good show
I want more research to this
Hopefully they don't just write it of. It's a Hypothises allready, test it's worth as a Theory.
compelling idea though if they all juveniles where are the adults? considering adult specimens being larger are more likely to fossilize then small specimens this is totally the opposite here......doesnt make sense. For instance here in australia large specimens of sauropods and a theropod we have here in the winton formation and although we have a awesome track way showing small chicken sized and emu sized dinos lived there too they arent as yet found in the fossil record of the formation.
Also did ent you say Compsognathus is known from a fully grown skeleton
Ok, I'll admit that this theory does hold some weight to its claims, and yes it is quite possible that some of them were babies, but there's one dinosaur in there that has to be an adult, that being Ubirajara. The fact that they have fully developed feathers makes me believe that they were adult specimens, and think about it, why would a species have such cumbersome things for their young, if anything, it would be a huge disadvantage since they'd be telling predators exactly where the inexperienced and vulnerable babies were, it just doesn't make any sense. The only way this theory could work for Ubirajara is if it was a baby cheetah thing, where they were mimicking an animal so nasty, even predators would back down, but that would mean that there would have been an animal of about the same size and shape as Ubirajara. So in conclusion, I must say that there are at least a few true Compsognathidae species.
But if we consider Compsognathidae to be a wastebasket taxon, Ubirajara gets turned into being a basal coelurosaur (or maybe even some other small theropod) of uncertain affinities. And basal coelurosaurs are known to commonly be small (Dilong, Proceratosaurids, Nqwbesaurus, Compsognathus), so in my opinion it is no support for Compsognathidae.
Too funny, I love your channel, thank you!
Same with Sinosauropteryx
Isn't Haplocheirus an alverzsaur?
Possibly a compsognathid or ornithomimasaurs
dababy lets goooooooo
Interesting
interessante, assistir isso, a primeira vez que eu li sobre esse bichinho eu era um filhote também ... lá nos longínquos1999, 2000 ..
"Die Long"
Also why are there people out there who think Sinosauropteryx is a baby yutyrannus it’s about Compsognathidae being Carcharodontosauridae on Tyrannosauroidea
WHAT
Not Tyrannosauridae
This had feathers
Bebes? Someone is copying Zefrank1.
If all the Compys in JP where just bebes, OMG There a Mother load Of large Carnivores in JP
Is Scipionyx named for Roman general Scipio Africanus?
Yes. It's also simultaneously named for Scipione Breislak, the geologist who first described the formation the fossil was found in.
@@InfinityOrNone excellent! Thank you very much!
Sinosauropteryx has eggs preserved in it's body. So it's not a baby of anything.
It's a me.
pog
Merkin run vlog, Teny tiny....how ridiculous. Mericans make interesting into comic book characters. They have no other reference....lol
B I agree with the most
Oh
Ok then.
👏
bebe dinos
I read that Compys as a whole are in serious doubt.
If one studies the size of the largest dinosaur eggs, capped by physics and biology, and then analyzes how much larger the adult dinosaur will be, it becomes quite plausible that dinosaurs have one or more "larval" kind of stages where diet and even body design (going from 4 legs to two, e.g. or having a back sail or head crests) may be totally different than the final, larger adult form.
I really hate the way everyone pronounces that name, correctness be damned. If scientific names are supposed to be rooted (primarily) in Ancient Greek and Classical Latin, and if it's supposed to be (at least in part) a tribute to the great Pūblius Cornēlius Scīpiō Āfricānus, cōnsul Rōmae, then it should logically be pronounced as in Classical Latin, rather than modern Italian.
And before anyone brings it up, yes, I know the name is also a tribute to Scipione Breislak, but the dinosaur is named _Scipionyx,_ not _Scipionenyx._
Could you phonetically lay it out for those of us who don't know (or have blocked out) their Latin?
#ubirajarabelongstobr
Er could have done without the silly accent
1st
Congrats dude😀👍