Wednesday, November 11, 2015

The Thankfulness of November. Microvenator

  The holotype individual of Microvenator was first discovered by the famed American palaeontologist Barnum Brown in‭ ‬1933.‭ ‬Brown noted that the holotype individual had what he thought was a disproportionately large head,‭ ‬and so came up with the name Megadontosaurus.‭ ‬A reference to the large head,‭ ‬but also the teeth found near it.‭ ‬Two problems occurred however.‭ ‬The first is that the teeth attributed to this dinosaur actually came from the dromaeosaurid Deinonychus,‭ ‬one of the more common predatory small theropod dinosaurs living in North America during the later stages of the Early Cretaceous.‭ ‬Second,‭ ‬the name Megadontosaurus was never actually published,‭ ‬meaning it was never recorded as valid.
       After studying the partial remains of this dinosaur,‭ ‬another palaeontologist named John Ostrom used this to formally describe the genus Microvenator which means small hunter,‭ ‬a reference to the small body size of the holotype individual.‭ ‬Ostrom also added a tooth‭ (‬YPM‭ ‬5366‭) ‬from a Yale Peabody Museum collection to the genus.‭ ‬Then in‭ ‬1998‭ ‬a study by Mackovicky and Sues finally shed some clearer light upon this dinosaur.‭
       Microvenator is now known to have been an oviraptosaurid dinosaur,‭ ‬and since it was living‭ ‬in‭ ‬what is now the USA during the Albian of the Cretaceous,‭ ‬it is at the time of writing the earliest known genus of oviraptosaur that lived in North America.‭ ‬This also explains Browns original interpretation of this dinosaur having an unusually large head.‭ ‬Brown only ever‭ ‬had‭ ‬partial fragmentary remains of the skull and lower jaw to study,‭ ‬so he never knew for certain the true form,‭ ‬but oviraptosaurs generally do have skulls that are larger and bulkier than those seen in other theropod dinosaurs.‭ ‬Oviraptosaurs however usually also have toothless jaws,‭ ‬again confirming that the Deinonychus teeth should not have been included,‭ ‬but also supporting the conclusion by Mackovicky and Sues that the tooth YPM‭ ‬5366‭ ‬should not be included in with the genus.

No comments: