> "It was not a bird, but a dinosaur that was a close relative of birds."
I know it would lead to confusion in the article, but birds are classified as dinosaurs. However, there are many groups of dinosaurs and each classified by their evolutionary traits. Birds just happen to be the only group that survived to the present day. If dinosaurs are a superset of many species, birds would be a subset of them.
The interesting aspect is they found one that had evolved just enough to have a beak, but retained many of the characteristics of more primitive dinosaurs. Many dinosaurs not considered birds also had feathers, so that's not overly significant alone.
That said, countries like New Zealand had birds that went down a pretty similar evolutionary path that lived up until 700 or so years ago[1]. New Zealand is a pretty interesting place evolution wise. It answers the question of how birds would evolve if not exposed to any other major mammalian predators for centuries.
While we're clarifying nomenclature, I'd like to point out that "primitive" is to be avoided, as it may imply that a trait is simpler, inferior, or less adaptive, perpetuating the "ladder of progress" misconception of evolution.
"Ancestral" is preferred and should always be applied to traits rather than taxa, e.g., "Tongtianlong limosus retained many ancestral characteristics of older dinosaurs"
Many dinosaurs also did not had feathers, some had scales, some had skin closet to mammals, and at least some were likeky warm blooded.
Birds are only part of a single branch of the tree of dinosaurs, and currently it's more than likely that most dinosaurs did not had feathers and are not really related to birds in any particular manner.
I assumed beak evolution was a flight adaptation to reduce weight. Teeth+jaws enable chewing which is much more effective at extracting energy and nutrients from food.
Birds have a lot of weight adaptations. Digestion is quick-and-dirty in order to minimize the time food must be carried around during digestion. Legs are generally very thin and break easily (one leg broken is very common) in order to save weight. Even feathers participate -- most of the surface area of the wing is constructed from feathers rather than flesh in order to save weight.
A Moa, for example, is similar-sized but has no teeth because it evolved from lighter birds. Why would a large dinosaur evolve a beak and lose the efficiency of teeth?
> "Why would a large dinosaur evolve a beak and lose the efficiency of teeth?"
That's a good question. I'm just an amateur, but I can guess at a few reasons.
1) Diet was not hampered by having either beak or teeth and a beak requires less maintenance (no tooth decay) and energy to grow. Beaks can also be more equipped to open seed shells and other barriers to food than teeth. I'm always quite amazed at the way finches are able to pop the seed out of a tiny thistle seed at a rapid pace.
2) Birds use their beak and legs as "radiators" to help regulate their internal temperature[1]. May have helped this species to better adapt to its area than others.
Here is an article [1] in the Mail Online which appears to give a possible explanation for beaks on dinosaurs. From the article, I can't quite figure out how they reached that conclusion. But it is at least a possible explanation.
Hand-drawn flora and fauna illustrations are definitely not appreciated enough these days! One of my favourites is John Lewin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewin
And though most people are probably familiar, the Voynich Manuscript is also very beautiful.
> Did they name it after how they discovered it died? Ha.
Actually, yes! From the original manuscript:
Tongtian, Chinese Pinyin, refers to Tongtianyan of Ganzhou, the first grotto south of the Yangtze River. Tongtian also means the road to heaven, a fitting epitaph for a deceased dinosaur preserved with outstretched arms. Long, Chinese Pinyin for dragon. Limosus, Latin for muddy, refers to the holotype specimen being found in an unusual posture in a mudstone.
> Would Dodos would be "Eaten by sailors on a lonely island"?
That is precisely where the name came from; i.e. the accretions left behind by satiated sailors after feasting on the endangered birds. The Great Vowel Shift hides its etymological roots.
[+] [-] yareally|9 years ago|reply
I know it would lead to confusion in the article, but birds are classified as dinosaurs. However, there are many groups of dinosaurs and each classified by their evolutionary traits. Birds just happen to be the only group that survived to the present day. If dinosaurs are a superset of many species, birds would be a subset of them.
The interesting aspect is they found one that had evolved just enough to have a beak, but retained many of the characteristics of more primitive dinosaurs. Many dinosaurs not considered birds also had feathers, so that's not overly significant alone.
That said, countries like New Zealand had birds that went down a pretty similar evolutionary path that lived up until 700 or so years ago[1]. New Zealand is a pretty interesting place evolution wise. It answers the question of how birds would evolve if not exposed to any other major mammalian predators for centuries.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa
[+] [-] jonchang|9 years ago|reply
"Ancestral" is preferred and should always be applied to traits rather than taxa, e.g., "Tongtianlong limosus retained many ancestral characteristics of older dinosaurs"
[+] [-] questionr|9 years ago|reply
Also, would anyone have any good theories as to why dinosaurs evolved feathers? and from what did it evolve from? was it hair?
[+] [-] notadoc|9 years ago|reply
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Moa_foot...
[+] [-] vilhelm_s|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dogma1138|9 years ago|reply
Birds are only part of a single branch of the tree of dinosaurs, and currently it's more than likely that most dinosaurs did not had feathers and are not really related to birds in any particular manner.
[+] [-] cjensen|9 years ago|reply
Birds have a lot of weight adaptations. Digestion is quick-and-dirty in order to minimize the time food must be carried around during digestion. Legs are generally very thin and break easily (one leg broken is very common) in order to save weight. Even feathers participate -- most of the surface area of the wing is constructed from feathers rather than flesh in order to save weight.
A Moa, for example, is similar-sized but has no teeth because it evolved from lighter birds. Why would a large dinosaur evolve a beak and lose the efficiency of teeth?
[+] [-] yareally|9 years ago|reply
That's a good question. I'm just an amateur, but I can guess at a few reasons.
1) Diet was not hampered by having either beak or teeth and a beak requires less maintenance (no tooth decay) and energy to grow. Beaks can also be more equipped to open seed shells and other barriers to food than teeth. I'm always quite amazed at the way finches are able to pop the seed out of a tiny thistle seed at a rapid pace.
2) Birds use their beak and legs as "radiators" to help regulate their internal temperature[1]. May have helped this species to better adapt to its area than others.
[1] http://www.audubon.org/news/how-birds-keep-their-cool
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wbhart|9 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2517009/Myste...
[+] [-] benmcnelly|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dalbasal|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MrJagil|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mfoy_|9 years ago|reply
Did they name it after how they discovered it died? Ha.
Imagine if species were given posthumous names based on how they were wiped out...
Would Dodos would be "Eaten by sailors on a lonely island"?
[+] [-] jonchang|9 years ago|reply
Actually, yes! From the original manuscript:
Tongtian, Chinese Pinyin, refers to Tongtianyan of Ganzhou, the first grotto south of the Yangtze River. Tongtian also means the road to heaven, a fitting epitaph for a deceased dinosaur preserved with outstretched arms. Long, Chinese Pinyin for dragon. Limosus, Latin for muddy, refers to the holotype specimen being found in an unusual posture in a mudstone.
[+] [-] harveywi|9 years ago|reply
That is precisely where the name came from; i.e. the accretions left behind by satiated sailors after feasting on the endangered birds. The Great Vowel Shift hides its etymological roots.
[+] [-] goofasaurus_rex|9 years ago|reply
Is it supposed to be the Napoleon Dynamite of dinosaurs?
[+] [-] marcosscriven|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theamk|9 years ago|reply
what's next, eye-stalks?