Body mass estimations based on femoral circumference and tibial circumference indicate that megaraptorids were 40–70% lighter than non-avian theropods of similar body length. This mass reduction, combined previously estimated body length, suggests that megaraptorans deviate from the body mass expected for Theropoda.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-026-02151-x

(Images from PBS TERRA)

The braincase of the Spinosaurus neotype Fsac-kk-11888 was shown in a PBS Terra video in 2026. It was technically found back in 2020, but this is the first time it was ever shown to the public. It was suggested that the pronounced grooves on the braincase would have run into the snout for sensory functions.

Bonus thagomizer.

We just made a unique trilobite plushie based on our favorite Lower Cambrian fossil! BrennanThePaleoDude - Etsy Canada It is now available on our Etsy :) We made sure to include key features such as gills above each leg and a hypostome! This species was named after my mentor and Paleontologist Guy Santucci!

The study : https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-76614-0

Skull morphology of the extinct Tasmanian tiger suggests unique biting 

The new study led by Flinders University has flipped the historical narrative about Australia's thylacine, finding the native apex predator known as the "Tasmanian tiger" was significantly different from the wolves and wild dogs it was likened to before being hunted to extinction.

In-depth investigations of thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus) skull specimens indicate their jaws were probably unsuited to holding down large animals like sheep

Instead, their long, deep jaws would have been able to subdue relatively small prey with powerful snapping bites.

Researchers say this strange combination allowed thylacines to use high-impact snapping to catch small to medium-sized prey such as rabbit-sized bandicoots.

"The longer a jaw is, the faster its tip moves when an animal bites. This increases the impact of the strike. We think that the thylacine's huge skull size allowed it to withstand these bite forces," Weisbecker says.

"Our latest findings on their feeding adaptations counter the myths that drove the thylacine to extinction," says study lead Professor Vera Weisbecker, from the College of Science and Engineering at Flinders University.

"Thylacines were often compared to northern hemisphere predators such as wolves, jackals and foxes from the dog family Canidae. This resemblance gave them their species name 'cynocephalus,' meaning 'dog-head.'

A major reinterpretation of the thylacine's biting behavior, published in Nature Communications, the research team from Flinders University and the University of Melbourne found that thylacine skulls sported a unique combination of features that did not match any known adaptations of living carnivorous mammals.

Strangely, while the thylacine may have been the last living mammal to sport a "big head, lethal snap" adaptation, the trait combination is common outside mammals.

"Many crocodiles and predatory fishes have long, fast-snapping jaws used to catch agile prey like fish. Their jaws are often much longer and frequently sport tall, widened tips," she adds.

The strange combination of an oversized skull, long and tall upper jaw, and mace-like widened snout sparked the researchers' curiosity and revealed the thylacine had a bite unlike any other living meat-eating mammal.

Fossils are selling for tens of millions of dollars at auction. But why are the ancient creatures the hot new thing for the ultrarich?

Hey everyone! I'm building a daily guessing game about prehistoric animals for a university project. Every day it picks one animal and you try to work out what it is.

My problem is that I've been buried in this list for weeks and I've lost all perspective on it. I ran everything against Wikipedia pageview counts to cut the obscure end, but I still opened it yesterday to find Tuojiangosaurus waiting for me, and I had to look it up what that was, and I'm the one who built the thing.

I'm posting here knowing full well most of you will recognise most of these, which is exactly why I want your opinion. You know the field well enough to guess where the line is for someone who doesn't. If your cousin who liked Jurassic Park as a kid sat down with this, which ones would stop them dead?

Numbers are fine, whole sections are fine, "everything after 170" is fine.

Also, while I have you: if anything in here is flat-out misplaced/wrongly grouped/classified or the naming is off, please tell me! I'd rather hear it now than after I hand it in and publish it!

LIST:

**Birds*\*

1. Archaeopteryx
2. Argentavis
3. Gastornis
4. Hesperornis
5. Ichthyornis
6. Pelagornis
7. Phorusrhacos (terror bird)
8. Raphus (dodo)

**Meat-eating dinosaurs**

1. Achillobator

2. Acrocanthosaurus

3. Albertosaurus

4. Allosaurus

5. Anchiornis

6. Anzu

7. Archaeornithomimus

8. Austroraptor

9. Baryonyx

10. Beipiaosaurus

11. Carcharodontosaurus

12. Carnotaurus

13. Ceratosaurus

14. Citipati

15. Coelophysis

16. Compsognathus

17. Concavenator

18. Cryolophosaurus

19. Dakotaraptor

20. Daspletosaurus

21. Deinocheirus

22. Deinonychus

23. Dilophosaurus

24. Dromaeosaurus

25. Gallimimus

26. Giganotosaurus

27. Gigantoraptor

28. Gorgosaurus

29. Guanlong

30. Latenivenatrix

31. Majungasaurus

32. Mapusaurus

33. Megalosaurus

34. Metriacanthosaurus

35. Microraptor

36. Mononykus

37. Ornithomimus

38. Oviraptor

39. Proceratosaurus

40. Sinosauropteryx

41. Spinosaurus

42. Struthiomimus

43. Suchomimus

44. Tarbosaurus

45. Therizinosaurus

46. Torvosaurus

47. Troodon

48. Tyrannosaurus (T. rex)

49. Utahraptor

50. Velociraptor

51. Yutyrannus

**Long-necked dinosaurs**

1. Alamosaurus

2. Amargasaurus

3. Apatosaurus

4. Argentinosaurus

5. Barosaurus

6. Brachiosaurus

7. Brontosaurus

8. Camarasaurus

9. Diplodocus

10. Dreadnoughtus

11. Giraffatitan

12. Mamenchisaurus

13. Massospondylus

14. Nigersaurus

15. Patagotitan

16. Plateosaurus

17. Saltasaurus

18. Sauroposeidon

19. Shunosaurus

20. Supersaurus

**Plant-eating dinosaurs**

1. Ankylosaurus

2. Borealopelta

3. Camptosaurus

4. Centrosaurus

5. Chasmosaurus

6. Chungkingosaurus

7. Corythosaurus

8. Dacentrurus

9. Diabloceratops

10. Dracorex

11. Dryosaurus

12. Edmontonia

13. Edmontosaurus

14. Einiosaurus

15. Euoplocephalus

16. Gastonia

17. Gryposaurus

18. Homalocephale

19. Huayangosaurus

20. Hypacrosaurus

21. Hypsilophodon

22. Iguanodon

23. Kentrosaurus

24. Kosmoceratops

25. Lambeosaurus

26. Leaellynasaura

27. Maiasaura

28. Miragaia

29. Muttaburrasaurus

30. Nasutoceratops

31. Nodosaurus

32. Olorotitan

33. Ouranosaurus

34. Pachycephalosaurus

35. Pachyrhinosaurus

36. Parasaurolophus

37. Pentaceratops

38. Pinacosaurus

39. Polacanthus

40. Protoceratops

41. Psittacosaurus

42. Saichania

43. Saurolophus

44. Sauropelta

45. Scelidosaurus

46. Shantungosaurus

47. Stegoceras

48. Stegosaurus

49. Stygimoloch

50. Styracosaurus

51. Tenontosaurus

52. Thescelosaurus

53. Torosaurus

54. Triceratops

55. Tsintaosaurus

56. Tuojiangosaurus

57. Velafrons

58. Wuerhosaurus

59. Zuul

**Flying reptiles**

1. Anurognathus

2. Dimorphodon

3. Geosternbergia

4. Hatzegopteryx

5. Ornithocheirus

6. Pteranodon

7. Pterodactylus

8. Quetzalcoatlus

9. Rhamphorhynchus

10. Tapejara

11. Thalassodromeus

12. Tropeognathus

13. Tupandactylus

**Sea reptiles**

1. Cryptoclidus

2. Elasmosaurus

3. Ichthyosaurus

4. Kronosaurus

5. Liopleurodon

6. Mosasaurus

7. Nothosaurus

8. Ophthalmosaurus

9. Plesiosaurus

10. Pliosaurus

11. Shonisaurus

12. Temnodontosaurus

13. Titanoboa

14. Tylosaurus

**Crocodile relatives**

1. Deinosuchus

2. Kaprosuchus

3. Metriorhynchus

4. Postosuchus

5. Purussaurus

6. Sarcosuchus

**Mammals & mammal ancestors**

1. Aenocyon (dire wolf)

2. Ambulocetus (walking whale)

3. Arctodus (short-faced bear)

4. Basilosaurus

5. Bison (giant bison)

6. Castoroides (giant beaver)

7. Chalicotherium

8. Coelodonta (woolly rhino)

9. Daeodon

10. Deinotherium

11. Dimetrodon

12. Diprotodon

13. Doedicurus

14. Dorudon

15. Edaphosaurus

16. Elasmotherium

17. Gigantopithecus

18. Glyptodon

19. Gorgonops

20. Homotherium (scimitar cat)

21. Inostrancevia

22. Livyatan

23. Lystrosaurus

24. Macrauchenia

25. Mammut (mastodon)

26. Mammuthus (woolly mammoth)

27. Megacerops

28. Megaloceros (Irish elk)

29. Megatherium (giant ground sloth)

30. Moschops

31. Palaeoloxodon (straight-tusked elephant)

32. Paraceratherium

33. Placerias

34. Procoptodon (giant short-faced kangaroo)

35. Smilodon (saber-toothed cat)

36. Thrinaxodon

37. Thylacinus (thylacine)

38. Thylacoleo (marsupial lion)

39. Thylacosmilus

40. Toxodon

41. Uintatherium

**Fish & sharks**

1. Cladoselache

2. Dunkleosteus

3. Eusthenopteron

4. Helicoprion

5. Leedsichthys

6. Otodus (megalodon)

7. Tiktaalik

8. Titanichthys

9. Xiphactinus

**Amphibians**

1. Acanthostega

2. Diplocaulus

3. Eryops

4. Ichthyostega

5. Koolasuchus

6. Mastodonsaurus

7. Prionosuchus

**Bugs & sea creatures**

1. Anomalocaris

2. Arthropleura

3. Jaekelopterus (giant sea scorpion)

4. Meganeura (giant dragonfly)

5. Pterygotus

**Other**

1. Scutosaurus

Nasutoceratops muscles, skeleton, fossils. Also size comparison to a human. Also video of Nasutoceratops in his natural habitat

Paper: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s44473-026-00267-6

Permocarpelloides shuozhouensis. a, b show the two facing parts of the same holotype. c shows a detailed view of multiple ovules/seeds of variable sizes within a fruit.

Challenging a Cretaceous stereotype

Recent paleobotanical advances on angiosperm origin include reports of a few Permian angiosperms, such as Taiyuanostachya, Yuzhoua and Dengfengfructus.

However, these discoveries appear disappointing to many botanists, who were taught that free carpels (as in Magnolia) are ancestral in angiosperms and expected such fossils to occur in the early record of angiosperms.

The fossil botanists were waiting for

Recently, a team (including Qiang Fu, Weijia Huang, Jie Sun and myself) found such a long-expected fossil, Permocarpelloides shuozhouensis, from the Lower Permian of Shuozhou, Shanxi province, China.

Unlike previously reported Permian angiosperms, this fossil is a three-dimensional cast of three fruits, and each fruit contains multiple ovules or seeds of varying sizes. Intriguingly, these three fruits are arranged in parallel, resembling three carpels from an apocarpous gynoecium.

This is exactly what botanists who believe Magnolia is ancestral among angiosperms expect. This feature removes the last roadblock for botanists to accept Permian angiosperms.

It is noteworthy that the ovules or seeds have varying sizes, implying that, if the larger ones are seeds, the smaller ones are ovules at varying developmental stages

I recently saw this post by theboneyardalaska on instagram claiming that this feather was found inside a mammoth tusk carbon dated to 42000 years old. Sadly, this person refuses to let scientists study it because they believe that it is a dragons feather and that the scientists would "destroy the evidence", which is absoulutely stupid.

But I do not believe that this feather is actually that old, because in my opinion it is just too well preserved. Especially the quill, the fine, almost "downy" part at the base of the feather and the colours make it look very modern.

My personal theory is that it slipped in during excavation and was only noticed later.

Please let me know your opinions regarding the age of this specimen.

Across all species of mammoth, individuals all had very large and curved tusks from what I've seen, with many tusks eventually corkscrewing. That's one of the hallmarks of the Mammuthus genus.

But while Asian, African bush/savannah, and African forest elephants have large tusks that also continuously grow through their life, it seems like elephant tusks are less curved. By that I mean that I've seen photos and footage of some African bush elephants with large and curved tusks (usually males I think), but even those curviest tusks are not corkscrew shaped like mammoths' were. Asian elephants, which are actually the closest relatives to mammoths of the extant elephants, have slimmer, straighter, and smaller tusks than African elephants do (Britannica). This is of course only when Asian bull elephants grow tusks, which not all do.

I know there has to be an explanation for this, but I haven't been able to find anything.

Is this be related to the difference in Schreger lines angles (mammoths < 90° while elephants > 115°; Espinoza & Mann, 1993, JAIC 32, 3, pp. 241-248)? Or are the difference in Schreger lines unrelated to why mammoths have larger and more twisted/curvier (corkscrewed) tusks than extant elephants?

I was looking up the largest birds to ever live and these both came up.

Looking through their Wikipedia entries I noticed that while their wingspan seems to be around the same (on a side note I noticed the German wiki entries for both of them to give their wingspan as 6-7,5 meters, whereas in the English entries they were given as 5-6 meters, so which is it?), their weight seems to differ by so much that it got me wondering how that can be.

For Pelagornis it gives 16 to 29 kg, whereas for Argentavis it gives 72 kg.

Now ofc different animals weighing differently is nothing new, but given that aerodynamic constraints tightly restrict avian body mass, how reliable is that 72 kg estimate for a wingspan identical to a ~20 kg glider, and how did such contrasting weight distributions dictate their respective takeoff capabilities?

Rebbachisaurus lends its name to the rebbachisauridae, a family of relatively small sauropods with short necks by sauropod standards, but long whiplike tails. Rebbachisaurus itself is one of the largest members of this group, at about 14 m in length, weighing estimated 8-12 t. It was a quadrupedal herbivore that likely fed on low-growing vegetation.

Angry sausage

The paper: Systematics and biostratigraphy of non-mammalian vertebrates across the K/Pg transition, southern Wyoming, USA | Journal of Paleontology | Cambridge Core

The picture is figure 18 in the paper.

The paper invastigates if non-mammalian fauna decreases before the astroid hit or not. The paper uses specimens from the Ferris formation, and the author comes to the conclusion that (based on the data from this formation and the 6500 specimens he went through) we can't say that non-mammalian vertebrate diversity was stable before the astroid. According to this data, there was a decrease in non-avian dinosaurs diversity and taxonomic richnes however the author says that the decrease is more likely due to a change in lithology. It's possible that sampling bias, or sea level rise pushed the dinosaurs away (they did find more sharks at this time), so the author doesn't say there was necessarily a decrease in taxa in laramidia or world wide. Its also unclear where the boundry actually is precisely in this formation.

The species they identified include T.rex, Nanotyrannus, Dakotaraptor, Acheroraptor and Styimoloch (among others).

Here is a video explaining the findings: My NEW Paper on the K/Pg Boundary and Dinosaur Extinction in Wyoming

St. Petersburg State University Natural Science Museums

I made this stylized Proceratosaurus head mount about six months ago. I plan to make a full body Buitreraptor soon… but I’m wondering if anyone has any tips on how to make this or my future project look better? Or if it’s good as is?

(I did use a skull as reference… well as much of the skull as has been found… and I’m pretty sure the neck is too thick. Correct me if I’m wrong on that one.)

I’m trying to plan out how I’ll go about making the Buitreraptor model that I want to make… but I’m not sure where to find visual reconstructions that are accurate. There are so many websites and sources so if anyone has a recommendation for where to look for a good, accurate source of information about Buitreraptors that includes images, please let me know! Thank you in advance!!

Probably spoilers alert

As the title said, I finished the book and in my opinion (which isn't very valuable since I am neither a "pro" reader neither a paleontology doctor) it was an enjoyable read and I am certainly happy that I spent time reading it. I read it in German since I wanted to practice my German so I didn't read the original. However I don't think there is anything that was written differently in English so I don't think I missed anything that the original had.

Anyway, it was an enjoyable read but what I found quite "annoying" if you could say that, was the fact that it was mostly focused on the most popular dinosaurs that there are discovered. Like you had a handfull of Triassic dinosaurs mentioned and talked about but it was not for long before the book transitions to the most known dinosaurs like Allosaurus, Tyranosaurus Rex (especially T.rex), Triceratops, Edmontosaurus etc etc. And don't get me wrong, those dinos are cool as hell and I was still fully entertained when reading about them, but it just felt like watching the same movie over and over again when reading about the same 2 or in best case 4 dinosaurs for multiple pages. It had some mentions of popular but not as talked about dinosaurs like Suchomimus, Carcharodontosaurus or Carnotaurus but these were left behind very fast (well maybe not Carcho. But it was still not as deeply analysed as T.Rex). It was also quite sad that the book didn't talk about European, Antarctic, Australian and African dinosaurs despite their diversity and unique evolution. However, I can kinda understand or at least make a hypothesis to why it is like this which is the fact that Steve Brusatte as a paleontologist did most of his studies with common Hell Creek dinosaurs (at least that is what I know from the book) so he simply didn't have as much experience with dinosaurs from Europe or Africa (again, that is what I know about him from the book). I can also imagine that the book was written for more casual and new dinosaur fans that are just starting with the theme and don't know as much about dinosaurs in general.

Despite all this, I still found information that was new to me about dinosaurs (that I will probably revisit soon online to check if it is still valid in 2026) and I enjoyed the fact that the book has a specific chapter about how birds are dinosaurs and what dinosaur species probably were the first avian dinosaurs.

I would like to hear what you all think about this book and whether there is something I missed while reading it :)