“Terror of the South” ( acrocanthosaurus atokensis). NCNS, Raleigh NC

This new species, named Yuezhuornis yangyuanensis, lived during the Late Jurassic period, 150–148 million years ago. It is represented by an almost complete specimen.

Discovered in the recently recognized Zhenghe Fauna of southeastern China by researchers from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and the Fujian Institute of Geological Sciences, the crow-sized fossil represents the earliest known example of flight loss in the evolutionary history of birds.

Yuezhuornis possessed a chimeric mix of older, more primitive and advanced anatomical features. It had closely packed, serrated teeth, which are typically found in deinonychosaurs but not birds. Most notably, Yuezhuornis possessed a hyperextensible second toe with a sickle-shaped claw, a characteristic feature of deinonychosaurs, including dromaeosaurids and troodontids.

As for its more advanced features, Yuezhuornis displays advanced birdlike pelvic and hindlimb structures. Comprehensive phylogenetic analysis consistently placed Yuezhuornis firmly within Avialae (the group containing modern birds and their closest extinct relatives), just crownward of Archaeopteryx and as a sister taxon to Zhengheornis.

Interestingly, the limb proportions of Yuezhuornis were similar to those of living terrestrial birds and some non-avialan paravians, suggesting a terrestrial, flightless lifestyle.

The discovery of a flightless, ground-dwelling bird from the Late Jurassic challenges the notion that aerodynamic selection was the dominant force shaping early avialan evolution. Instead, it suggests that some early birds followed evolutionary paths that did not favor flight, highlighting the remarkable ecological and morphological diversity that emerged during the early evolution of birds.

Art credit: King wang

Article link:https://phys.org/news/2026-10-early-birds-evolved-flight-jurassic.html

The past

Because the fossil record is necessarily incomplete, we do not have a complete evolutionary path for most dinosaurs past the Triassic period. 

Few extinct animals have captured the public imagination to the same extent as Tyrannosaurus rex.  And this lack of an evolutionary footprint is especially the case for Tyrannosaurus rex, despite more than a century of research. The evolutionary history of this iconic predator continues to be refined as new fossil discoveries reshape our understanding of Tyrannosaurid evolution. Recent discoveries, including Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis and Khankhuuluu mongoliensis, have prompted renewed discussion regarding the geographic origins and diversification of the genus Tyrannosaurus.

The following paper presents a speculative evolutionary hypothesis that combines currently accepted paleontological evidence with original interpretations of tyrannosaur biogeography. Established scientific findings are distinguished from proposed scenarios where direct fossil evidence remains incomplete.

The idea that basal Tyrannosauroids crossed over from the Laurasian region to Laramidia when the seas shrank is actually strongly supported by biogeographical modeling. Here is exactly how the shrinking seaways and land bridges created the timeline.

The First Influx from Asia (Around 80–75 Mya)

In the Late Cretaceous, the Western Interior Seaway was vast. However, global cooling events caused sea levels to drop periodically, exposing the Bering Land Bridge between Siberia and Alaska. Primitive, slender-skulled Tyrannosauroids crossed from Asia into North America. Once in Laramidia, they evolved into the "flesh-slicing" predators, such as Daspletosaurus and the newly discovered T. mcraeensis.

The "Carcharodontosaurid-like" Phase

These animals possessed "Carcharodontosaurid-like" teeth. Because their primary prey in Laramidia consisted of soft-skinned duck-billed dinosaurs and early ceratopsians, they did not require heavy bone-crushing mechanics. Instead, their jaws and laterally compressed teeth were optimized for slicing flesh, much like the Carcharodontosauridae that had dominated millions of years earlier.

The Trait Divergence (Around 70 Mya)

As the Western Interior Seaway continued to fluctuate and recede, the Bering Land Bridge was exposed once again. At this point, the tyrannosaur lineage may have diverged geographically.

Westward Migration (Asia): 

An offshoot of the early North American Tyrannosaurus lineage migrated back across the land bridge into Asia. There, it encountered massive, slim, long-necked sauropods such as Nemegtosaurus. This lineage may have become an animal turning out to eventually evolve into Tarbosaurus bataar. Because these predators specialized in feeding on giant sauropods, they retained a somewhat more streamlined skull and a specialized locking lower jaw. Again, similar to the Carcharadontosaurid, Acrocanthosaurus, the “High Spined Lizard.”

Home Evolution (Laramidia): 

The population that remained in North America experienced a different evolutionary arms race. Ceratopsians evolved into heavily armored forms such as Triceratops, while Ankylosaurus and other related saurischians appeared with extensive body armor. To overcome these defenses, the Laramidian lineage gradually abandoned flesh-slicing specialization in favor of tremendous bite force. Over time, they evolved a massive, heavily fused skull and thick, rounded teeth, even gaining extra lumps on the skull for muscle attachment points to contribute to its massive bite force. This, eventually culminating in Tyrannosaurus rex approximately 68 million years ago.

This model suggests that Tyrannosaur evolution involved a dynamic, back-and-forth pattern of migration driven by constantly changing sea levels.

This interpretation contrasts with both my earlier hypothesis and several previously proposed theories regarding the evolution of Tyrannosaurus rex and Tarbosaurus bataar. One long-standing hypothesis proposed that basal tyrannosauroids migrated into North America much earlier, during the Middle to Late Jurassic. Under this model, early genera such as Guanlong dispersed into North America and eventually evolved into animals such as Daspletosaurus, which later gave rise to Tyrannosaurus rex.

A later theory suggested that Tarbosaurus had migrated across the Bering Land Bridge into Laramidia, eventually evolving into Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis, which in turn gave rise to Tyrannosaurus rex. However, this hypothesis appears unlikely because the fossil record suggests that both Daspletosaurus and T. mcraeensis became extinct before T. rex began to emerge. There is also much evidence to suggest that Tarbosaurus lived along side Tyrannosaurus rex.

A more plausible alternative is that T. rex evolved from the recently described tyrannosauroid, Khankhuuluu mongoliensis. By the time this lineage arrived in North America, ecological niches for hunting more manageable prey may already have been occupied by smaller tyrannosaurids  and other therapods approximately the size of a large horse. As a result, Khankhuuluu may have gradually evolved a more robust body, bone-crushing teeth, and ocular osteoderms, possibly used for display. In this scenario, it would represent a smaller, more slender precursor to T. rex.

One branch of this population could subsequently have dispersed back into Asia after evolving a more robust body plan, eventually resembling Zhuchengtyrannus, albeit with several important biological differences. (It should be noted that this portion of the hypothesis is highly speculative.) Meanwhile, selective pressures created by long-necked sauropods such as Nemegtosaurus may have favored a return to a more streamlined skull in the Asian lineage. In contrast, the population that remained in Laramidia continued adapting to increasingly armored Late Cretaceous herbivores, gradually evolving stronger teeth, a more powerful bite, and a heavier overall build. If this hypothesis is correct, Tyrannosaurus rex would share an evolutionary history with Asian Tyrannosaurids while coexisting with larger relatives such as Tarbosaurus bataar.

The End-Cretaceous Extinction and Tyrannosaur Legacy

The end-Cretaceous mass extinction eliminated nearly all non-avian dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and numerous marine reptiles. Today, the surviving descendants of that world include birds, which evolved from Maniraptoran theropods, and crocodilians, which represent the last surviving members of Crocodylomorpha.

Although Tyrannosaurus rex itself vanished during this event, its broader evolutionary lineage remains an important part of dinosaur history. Tyrannosaurs and Megaraptorans both belong within Therapoda, sharing a common ancestor that lived during the Middle to Late Jurassic, approximately 170 million years ago, called Coelosaur. Likewise, birds also descend from coelurosaurian ancestors, making them very distant relatives of tyrannosaurs.

This relationship explains why certain skeletal features of modern chickens, particularly the pelvis and pubis, bear a surprising resemblance to those of Tyrannosaurus rex. While separated by tens of millions of years of evolution, these shared anatomical characteristics illustrate the remarkable continuity of theropod evolution.

Conclusion

Tyrannosaurus rex remains one of the most extraordinary terrestrial predators ever to have lived. Its immense popularity reflects not only its size and power but also the wealth of scientific knowledge it has generated. Few prehistoric animals have inspired as much research or public fascination.

However, appreciating T. rex requires more than admiration for the animal itself. Understanding its evolutionary origins, the ecosystems it inhabited, the plants and animals with which it coexisted, and the environmental pressures that shaped its anatomy provides a far richer picture of its significance. Continued study of its ancestry and its changing world will undoubtedly improve our understanding of tyrannosaur evolution and of Late Cretaceous ecosystems as a whole.

Although many aspects of the evolutionary scenario presented here remain speculative, they demonstrate how new fossil discoveries and biogeographical evidence can inspire fresh hypotheses. Future discoveries may support, modify, or refute these ideas, but each new specimen brings paleontologists one step closer to reconstructing the remarkable evolutionary history of the "Tyrant Lizard King."

this is my first post btw so I hope you guys like it and make sure to correct me for any errors

Hi! I am from Oregon, I am very new to finding fossils, I have some great specimens of metasequoia and some maple seed/leaf fossils as well. I want to take my GF to Brian Booth Stare Park and was wondering what types of fossils I could find (obviously I wouldnt be taking any home since its a state park) but I know shark teeth and fossilized wood are common for the Oregon coast, just wondering if theres any fellow Oregon nerds who would be willing to help me out, thanks!!!

So I was reading the Wikipedia article on Pendraig, and I noticed the link to Syntarsus was “Syntarsus”. And the article for it is titled Coelophysis? kayentakatae. And apparently, “Syntarsus” is an invalid genus because it’s a junior synonym for a bug?

Here’s where I’m confused. I thought the whole point of junior synonyms is that they were given to already named animals, and because of the “first come first serve” rule, they’re invalid. Wouldn’t that mean that they can be reused for proper genera? So “Coelophysis? kayentakatae” should be Syntarsus kayentakatae? Or are junior synonyms locked out of being ever properly used, all because the original assigners were too stupid to check the availability?

I’ve noticed that almost all the Triceratops fossils in museums seem to be Triceratops sp., despite there being 2 known species. Is there a reason for this? Why is a Triceratops so difficult to identity species with?

You may have seen the posts about the new Mega raptorin that was discovered in Britain. You were all perplexed as I was to find that there was no actual scientific paper attached just news reports and some supplementary material for some reason

Tom holtz on his Facebook confirmed that this was an embargo leak by the journalists. Essentially some journalists violated embargo and leaked the news.

This animal, which the team named Megacauda sungei and have described in the journal Nature, was a prize discovery. The remains were so intact that it was possible to determine that it was likely capable of chewing food and then swallowing it, and also suckling — traits that are shared by mammals.

Official Paper:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsos/article/13/10/260937/483607/A-new-megaraptoran-dinosaur-from-the-Lower?__cf_chl_rt_tk=hikq.XZyD8ZJ_T4_oWaXr3tgmIzI0abOXlQFgjFkRpU-1791943520-1.0.1.1-BkQLofh0Ynr1hc..2fNH1WqkYkBa41dgbNCT3SBEqN0

https://rs.figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Supplementary_materials_1_from_A_new_megaraptoran_dinosaur_from_the_Lower_Cretaceous_Wessex_Formation_UK_and_its_implications_for_theropod_evolution_and_biogeography/33256052?file=67549577 ~ Edited; now you can download the paper in pdf form for free

Edit: Another source with specimen's name NHMUK PV R6775 : https://www.nhm.uio.no/english/research/events/conferences/EAVP2024/eavp-abstracts-2024-volume-complete-final-(2).pdf.pdf)

Edit III: The Official Publication Sites and Others; The Independent was amongst them first hand. They even featured the Official Illustration.

The fossil was discovered as early as 1924 on the Isle of Wight, but its significance went unrecognized for nearly a century.

Now, a new analysis shows that the bone belongs to an early Megaraptor and fills an important gap in the history of these predatory dinosaurs.

A fossil from a museum collection that had gone unnoticed for nearly 100 years has been identified as a new species of dinosaur, “Invictibellatrix amberina.” Name Meaning: Unconquered Female Warrior.

It is considered the first definitive evidence of a Megaraptor in Europe. The predatory dinosaur was probably three to four meters long, likely had feathers, and hunted smaller animals using its powerful arms and claws up to 20 centimeters long. The CT scans of the skull bone made it possible to identify the specimen.

The discovery suggests that megaraptors were more widely distributed across Eurasia during the Early Cretaceous than previously thought.

I've recently been reading Tyler Greenfield's 2026 paper, Further revisions to the catalogue of skeletal material from megatooth sharks, with a response to Sternes et al. (2024), and I've become increasingly interested in one particular piece of evidence he uses to support his proposed sister-group relationship between Otodontidae and Lamnidae: the isolated rostral cartilages recovered from the early Pliocene Yorktown Formation at Lee Creek Mine, North Carolina. I think these fossils deserve considerably more scrutiny, particularly regarding their taxonomic identification, inferred developmental stage, and supposed phylogenetic significance.

For some context, 6 isolated, mineralized rostral specimens from Yorktown were originally assigned to Lamna sp. by Purdy et al. (2001). However, Mollen and Jagt (2012) reexamined them and found that, despite their general resemblance to modern Lamna, they differed significantly in the arrangement of their lateral rostral cartilages. Whereas the lateral cartilages of Lamna abut before joining the rostral node, those of the Yorktown specimens run nearly parallel and join the node individually.

Consequently, Mollen and Jagt recommended removing Lamna from the Lee Creek faunal list pending more diagnostic evidence. They instead suggested that the fossils probably belonged to extinct lamnids or otodontids, identifying Cosmopolitodus/Carcharodon hastalis, Otodus megalodon, and Parotodus benedenii as possible candidates.

The crucial point is that none of these rostra were found associated with diagnostic teeth. Their species-level identification remains unresolved.

Paleontologist Tyler Greenfield proposed an otodontid attribution and argued that their robust, mineralized, roughly cylindrical rostral cartilages resemble those of modern Lamna. His conclusion is that this combination of characters, including the absence of fenestrae and appendices, could represent a synapomorphy linking Otodontidae and Lamnidae in a clade he calls Lamnoidea.

However, I think there are several important problems with drawing that conclusion.

First, the remarkably small reconstructed size of the Yorktown specimen raises questions about ontogeny.

In a 2021 reconstruction published on his blog, Greenfield scaled one of the rostral fossils, USNM 474998, to a shark approximately 1.46 meters long. If it belonged to O. megalodon, he suggested it would have represented a late-stage fetus. Alternatively, if it belonged to the smaller Parotodus, it might have represented a newborn.

The problem is that published megalodon birth-size estimates are considerably larger. Shimada et al. (2021) initially estimated a birth length of approximately 2 meters, only to revise it upwards to approximately 3.6–3.9 meters. Under either reconstruction, a 1.46-meter megalodon would have been prenatal.

That raises an interesting developmental question: would a fetal megalodon of that size already have possessed such robust, extensively mineralized rostral cartilage?

Studies of elasmobranch skeletal development generally document increasing mineralization during ontogeny. For example, Seidel et al. (2016) found that mineralized tesserae grow larger and become more developed as round stingrays mature. Prenatal rostral mineralization certainly exists in sharks, as demonstrated in embryonic bonnetheads by Byrum et al. (2024), but that doesn't establish the timing or extent of mineralization in fetal otodontids.

I don't think the fetal-megalodon interpretation is anatomically impossible. My point is that it seems to require independent evidence that this degree of mineralization could develop at such an early stage. The 1.46-meter figure is also a reconstruction, not a direct measurement of a complete fossil animal. Its accuracy depends on the body proportions used to scale the isolated rostrum.

Second, why should we favor fetal megalodon over a newborn Parotodus benedenii or Carcharodon hastalis?

Both alternative species are documented from the Yorktown Formation through teeth, and the actual rostral anatomy of neither is securely known.

Parotodus was considerably smaller than megalodon, making a newborn around 1.5 meters biologically plausible. Meanwhile, C. hastalis is widely interpreted as part of the evolutionary lineage leading to modern great whites, with C. hubbelli representing a transitional form. Modern great whites are generally around 1.2–1.5 meters long at birth, so a comparably sized newborn hastalis is also conceivable.

Of course, neither proposed neonatal length is directly established for these extinct species.

What interests me particularly is that C. hastalis might have possessed rostral anatomy unlike that of modern great whites, because even in extant genera, rostral anatomy does differ. Mollen et al. (2012) documented a gradient in overall rostral calcification: Lamna > Isurus > Carcharodon. They also identified significant differences in the shape of the rostral node, cartilage arrangement, and cross-sectional morphology. Given that C. hastalis is generally considered ancestral or closely related to the lineage leading to C. carcharias, couldn't it have retained more extensive rostral mineralization that was subsequently reduced or modified in modern great whites?

Third, even if the Yorktown rostra genuinely belonged to an otodontid, I'm not convinced that their resemblance to Lamna necessarily establishes an exclusive sister-group relationship.

To me, there seems to be 3 evolutionary interpretations: the character combination could represent a synapomorphy of Otodontidae and Lamnidae, a more ancient lamniform condition retained by both lineages, or convergent evolution.

Greenfield makes a legitimate anatomical argument that the heavily mineralized rostral structures of Alopias superciliosus differ from the proposed otodontid–lamnid condition. He specifically points to differences in the lateral cartilages, cross-sectional shape, appendices, and distribution of mineralization. HOWEVER, I don't think establishing that Alopias possesses a different configuration tells us whether the condition in Lamna is ancestral or derived.

Suppose an early lamniform ancestor had robust, cylindrical rostral cartilages, and subsequent lineages independently modified, flattened, or reduced those structures. If it was this scenario, the morphology of modern Alopias vulpinus, Isurus, and Carcharodon could reflect derived modifications, while Lamna and an otodontid retained aspects of the older condition.

Alternatively, the resemblance could be convergent.

Importantly, Lamna occupying an early-branching position relative to Isurus and Carcharodon does not automatically mean that its anatomical condition is ancestral, and I think considering it's extraordinary specialization towards subpolar waters hints at that. Living early-branching lineage can possess its own specializations. Within Lamnidae, the robust rostrum of Lamna could either represent an ancestral condition subsequently reduced in the Isurus–Carcharodon lineage or a derived increase in robusticity along the Lamna lineage.

Without sufficiently informative outgroups, how do we distinguish those possibilities?

Fourth, the developmental stage of the Yorktown specimen potentially complicates the phylogenetic argument further.

We know from comparative work on living lamnids that rostral morphology can change during growth. In Lamna nasus, for example, the arrangement and curvature of the lateral rostral cartilages change with ontogeny.

If the Yorktown material belonged to a newborn Parotodus, juvenile C. hastalis, or fetal megalodon, how confidently can we assume that its morphology represents the mature rostral condition of that species?

This strikes me as important because Greenfield is using the morphology to infer the evolutionary relationships of entire families. Ideally, we'd want to compare equivalent developmental stages, or at least establish which rostral characters remain stable throughout ontogeny.

Greenfield's proposed Lamnoidea originally drew support not only from rostral morphology but also from regional endothermy and reconstructions of early otodontids such as the Lebanese Cretalamna material. In his 2026 paper, he acknowledges that regional endothermy is probably not an exclusive synapomorphy of Lamnoidea and suggests that it may instead represent an ancestral lamniform condition. Recent oxygen-isotope studies have also produced evidence consistent with ectothermy in Late Cretaceous North American Cretalamna, contrasting with evidence for elevated body temperatures in Cretoxyrhina. Although those studies did not sample the Lebanese specimen directly, they raise interesting questions about how safely we can infer otodontid physiology or ancestry from resemblance to modern Lamna.

A streamlined, fast-swimming body plan is not itself proof of regional endothermy or a particular sister-group relationship.

Even granting an otodontid identification, it seems to me that we would still need to establish whether the relevant anatomical features were ancestral, derived, or convergent. And without resolving the taxonomic identification and developmental stage, that task becomes even more difficult.

My central question is this: what positive anatomical evidence allows us to favor an otodontid identification over an extinct lamnid such as C. hastalis, and what evidence demonstrates that the shared rostral characters are derived synapomorphies rather than retained ancestral traits?

I'd be especially interested in hearing from people familiar with lamniform cranial anatomy, ontogenetic mineralization, or the Yorktown shark assemblage. Is there research on the timing of rostral mineralization in embryonic and newborn lamnids that could help evaluate these possibilities?

Relevant literature:

• Greenfield (2026), Further revisions to the catalogue of skeletal material from megatooth sharks
• Greenfield (2021), Megatooth shark skeletal specimens — includes the original 1.46 m reconstruction
• Mollen & Jagt (2012), The taxonomic value of rostral nodes of extinct sharks
• Mollen et al. (2012), Comparative morphology of rostral cartilages in extant mackerel sharks
• Sternes et al. (2024), appendix discussing Lamnoidea
• Shimada et al. (2025), Reassessment of the possible size, form, weight, cruising speed, and growth parameters of Otodus megalodon
• Seidel et al. (2016), Ultrastructural and developmental features of the tessellated endoskeleton of elasmobranchs
• Ehret et al. (2012), Origin of the white shark Carcharodon

If you're going to hijack paleontology to sell your cars, at least do it right. Ichthyostega wasn't around 500mya, and wasn't the first creature to be "brave enough" to crawl on to land. I am aware it's ridiculous how much this erks me, but surely tiktaalik is the better mascot, I mean we aren't even descended from "ichy" here?

A new fossil discovery has extended the temporal range of a family of Blemnites by 20 million years.

Two fossilized rostra of a new species and genus, Wyoteuthis linsterorum, were discovered in the Sundance Formation, which records a shallow seaway that covered parts of the western United States.

Comparison to other contemporary Blemnites show that this new species was triple the diameter, at 6cm thick, making it one of the thickest recorded Blemnites of the region.

Analysis of the rostrum’s shape, the angle of its internal cavity, and fine grooves and striations near its tip, led to researchers classifying it as a member of the family Megateuthididae, which was previously believed to have died out 166 million years ago.

This suggests that the waters of the northeastern pacific may have acted as the final stronghold of this group of Blemnites. The scientists suggest that Wyoteuthis linsterorum may have been highly specialized, or may have lived mainly along the open-ocean shelf and only occasionally wandered into the Sundance Sea.

Art credit :Jason poole

Article link:https://www.sci.news/paleontology/wyoteuthis-linsterorum-15123.html

Reposted with correct name. Thank you for the catch on the ID, Sea-Profit3706.

A diminutive caenagnathid oviraptorosaur, and show that these theropods were specialised herbivores that originated alongside the rise of fleshy angiosperm fruits.

The nearly complete, articulated skull of Infernogallus jamesi—the first for the clade—reveals drastic changes to the adductor musculature organisation, unique in non-avian theropods but converged upon by extant frugivorous parrots.

These modifications enabled extensive oral processing of soft food using anteroposterior movement of the mandible and occlusion of ridges and grooves on opposed elements.

Altogether, this attests to a highly specialised herbivorous diet in caenagnathids, which likely consisted in large part of fleshy angiosperm fruits, which increased in size and diversity in concert with the radiation of oviraptorosaurs.

Caenagnathids thus provide one of the strongest candidates for angiosperm-based diet adaptations in dinosaurs, but their role in the Late Cretaceous proliferation of fruit—which shaped early Cenozoic flora—remains unclear.

Edit: Apparently there was a leak about this Brazilian Spinosaurid a year ago... which was taken down due to the embargo. Well, who knows when this thing is coming out but either way I'll be very excited.

Can't believe this hasn't gotten more traction, probably because it's hidden in 4 hour long video by Main Characters on YouTube posted 6 days ago. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYfiLMH2Lf8&t=7699s

The section, titled "Searching for Spinosaurus Relatives in Brazil," begins with explaining the holotype of Oxalaia. Sereno explains that a Brazilian museum reached out to obtain a cast of the holotype since the original burned in a fire.

During this process, a Brazilian paleontologist asked to look at Sereno's Spinosaurus material. As a thank you, they asked Sereno and his team to examine some bones found in the Amazon around 10 years ago. The area in which they were found is the flood plain of a river, in which the banks are fully submerged for a specific time of the year and only revealed at a later time. Sereno and his post-doc examine the bones, piecing it together as the left side of an animal. Sereno organized a trip back to the site utilizing rubber rafts, and found even more of the skeleton.

Allegedly, the specimen is an ancestral member of the Spinosaurids, what Sereno described as "the perfect predecessor," possessing a sail which was not as tall as Spinosaurus but nonetheless prominent. The theory is that Spinosaurids originally developed in what is now South America, specifically Brazil, and this ancestor (or an animal like it) migrated to Africa whilst the waterway between the two continents was still small and navigable. This ancestor would eventually develop into the Spinosaurus we know today. Sereno also says they found more of Oxalaia, which would inform the overall look of the animal and potentially seperate it further from Spinosaurus as a distinct species. This would help his theory that an ancestral animal developed in Brazil, and then travelled and diversified in Africa, resulting in two distinct lineages of Spinosaurids developed on both continents (that being Oxalaia and Spinosaurus).

The most exciting part of this interview is that Sereno mentions they will be going back in September, when the river has receded and the banks' rocks are exposed, to find more of the animal before publishing. Being October, one can be confident Sereno has gone back to the Amazon and uncovered even more of this new species, and one can expect a description sometime in the future. Just amazing stuff.

(ART BY MARIO LANZAS)

Some places regard it as a valid genus, while others have stated that it was paraphyletic, with 2 of the 3 "valid" species being considered synonymous with Bos, while the other is suggested to be the same animal as Syncerus, so I was wondering, it is valid or not? Especially since many big, well regarded paleoartists, like the previously mentioned Mario Lanzas have done art of it as its own genus, despite all the stuff arguing against it...

video talking more about where i found the fossil in more detail :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQkkOvtgMaI

Listen, I know people probably many times, but I just love this freaking series, lol. I just want to hype it up as much as possible. I love how much he does think about paleontology in his series and how he makes the series as well (something kidn of only possible in the way he makes the series).

The most recent episode, "Great Maia", specifically was made to be about "motherhood" and he said himself (in his making of episode) it HAD to star Maiasaura because of its important to paleontology and the discovery of parental care in dinosaurs.

Is it weird if I just rank my favorite episodes like the autistic person I am? Well I want to, so here we go. I guess I'll kind of shortly review each episode and say why I am ranking them here.

1. "Great Maia" - Yeah, the most recent release is number 1. It was spectacular. It was heartwarming, which I was not expecting. It's also I believe the longest, and best animated episode. Everything about it was just great. I think it challenges episodes of professional documentaries at this point in how much I enjoy his work.

2. "Hunted By Moonlight" - It is so different from Great Maia, but it has the same heart to it (though told in a different way. It is meant to be like a dinosaur fairy tale, and that's such a cool idea. The dinosaur mains, Scuttelosaurus, were cute and easy to relate to (so i could feel myself in their position). The Dilophosauruses were also freaking terrifying (he did a good job making them really feel like fairy tale villains I suppose). It's a very different kind of episode, but I love the mood and execution.

3. "Our Frozen Past" - I think this was the episode that got me fully into the series way back however many years ago. I liked the concept of the Troodontids mimicking sounds. I think I also really liked the cold wintery setting as it felt very fresh at the time for Dinosaur film. I feel like Volume 2 is....better than Volume 1 especially in the quality of the animation...but I also liked Volume 1 a lot in itself. I feel like while the 1st and 2nd spots were obvious for me, the next like 4 are basically even for me.

4. "Terrible Lizards" - A very different film, but I really like the idea of it, and the execution. This one is celebrating the history of Paleontology and animates Iguanodon and Megalosaurus through 4 different iterations in the history of how we viewed these Dinosaurs. Great idea, great execution. Very unusual I would say, maybe the most unique episode in a dinosaur series I've ever seen.

5. "Monsters Down Under" - Honestly, this one probably should be third if I was unbiased..or even second. It is extremely well made. It's the second to last episode to release, and it just feels like he is really making more complex narratives and his animation (which was already good) just keeps getting better. I think why I have it a bit lower is I just...want dinosaurs on the screen more. The Troodontids in Our Frozen Past for example, are just so cute, I want to see them more, lol.

6. "A More Ancient Spring" - The last in the group of 4 that are practically even for me. I think this is the first one that felt a bit more heartwarming...or like I felt like I was the characters (similar to Hunted By Moonlight and Great Maia). Like, I found myself cheering a lot for the lead Lambeosaurus in this episode. I think I felt like this one was also pretty. Yeah, I think that feels right, haha.

7. "Old Buck" - The original episode definitely is pretty. That is my main selling point. Really like the Styracaceous designs and the coloration in this episode. It is a bit simpler and I think maybe the most simple episode of the series, but...it's still quite good and enjoyable to watch.

8. "The Last Tyrant" - This one is kind of a celebration of dinosaurs and paleontology again. I think the reason I have it lower is I just don't like seeing the non-Avian dinosaurs die. I hate that every documentary has to have this episode. I love them. I just want them to be alive. I did enjoy seeing modern living dinosaurs (Birds) highlighted heavily at the end of the episode though^^.

9. "Sea and Sky" - I think he himself has even said he feels like this is one of the weaker episodes. It's funny though, it was ambitious, but now he has done more ambitious episodes and executed them spectacularly. Honestly, if I'd only seen this episode though, I'd still be impressed. This man has killed it for 9 episodes now.

What makes this series so crazily impressive to me is he does everything (except the music) himself. That's just crazy. The amount of work that goes into each project is just...a ton. And he has made something beautiful with that effort that celebrates dinosaurs, other extinct animals, and paleontology. I just hope he keeps making them, because I love them.

Credited to the Owner: https://youtu.be/kJ2b8ebzO7s?si=wkr4xxUwuF9pL069