Fujianvenator - The First Bird-Like Dinosaur?

Fujianvenator may be the earliest diverging of the avialans, a group of dinosaurs closer to birds than to any other group of dinosaurs. It's odd suite of characteristics show that bird evolution wasn't a forgone conclusion, but a story of convergence, diversity, and eventual success.
Read the Paper here:
www.nature.com...
It's dangerous to go alone, check out our Links!
Patreon: www.patreon.com/raptorchatter
Twitter: raptor_chatter
Redbubble: www.redbubble.com/people/RaptorChatter/shop
Discord: / discord

[@EJBert]

Really enjoy these videos on early avian dinosaur ancestors knowing I can watch their ancestors flying about outside my window.

[@marksordahl8872]

You see their descendants flying outside the window

[@randomgamerdude98]

Descendants************

[@Abominatrix650]

They remind me more and more of basilisks, the more new species are uncovered

[@gattycroc8073]

I know this is a pretty interesting discovery but when are we going to get another big crocodylomorph find. when Dentaneosuchus was described a couple of months ago it was so exciting to hear about a new species of Sebecid being discovered.

[@PelicanMobBoss]

2:02 That anchiornis fossil looks amazing

[@alioramus1637]

I have always found the line between non-avian avialan dinosaurs and true avian ones to be blurry. When can a dinosaur be classifieds as a bird? Archaeopteryx used to be considered a bird but no longer since the features that made archaeopteryx stand out tend to be common among paravian dinosaurs. Some call anchiornithids like fujianvenator stem-birds and i think that works. Also a paper examining foot pads of paravians suggested both Anchiornis and Archaeopteryx were largely terrestrial.

[@RaptorChatter]

Oh, I had forgotten about that paper. Whoops! But yeah, bird taxonomy needs some better definitions.

[@vinny184]

A dinosaur is considered a bird if it belongs to a lineage that diverged from either the palaeognaths or the rest of the extant birds. That’s how crown groups work. Birds as a taxonomic rank is based on the monophyletic group of the extant animals we call birds, and thus includes all lineages that descended after their first divergence. There’s nothing wrong with the group birds in a taxonomic sense, unlike for example fish which is inherently paraphyletic without including animals that aren’t fish.

[@patreekotime4578]

Im definitely on team Pygostyle. Once I saw a cast of Archeopteryx in person I was absolutely blown away at how un-birdlike it is. It's just a tiny raptor.

[@posticusmaximus1739]

Yassss! New vid! I vote to call these birdosaurs

[@Invading-Specious]

yes, lets sit around a burning cross holding hands and sing kumbaya together.

[@digydigdogdead]

Great vid.
Also, where did you get that shirt it's sick

[@2M3TAL4U]

That's great content! 👍

[@sjzara]

Does “bird” make sense as a classification any more?

[@RaptorChatter]

It should, it's just a matter of deciding on one phylogenetic node to start it at. I prefer Pygostylia for that, but I totally understand other arguments. So currently no, but that's more because of semantics than something like "fish" being used for classification.

[@troycoley-cn5bb]

Amazing Video XD

[@kamnale1317]

Are "birds" only the descendants of the most recent common ancestor of all living birds? It would make sense, except that definition would move if the ratites were to die out for example, because then the mrca would be a newer bird. Maybe a recently extinct "bird" also moved that mrca, so it wouldnt be a bird anymore?

[@slizgi86]

Birds probably evolved after KPG from something small that was able to survive on insects or small crustaceans. Small mammals were too big for it to eat.

[@patreekotime4578]

Unambiguous birds were around for at least 60 million years BEFORE the extinction event, only about 10-15 million years after this animal. Im talking about animals with definite flight feathers, grapling feet, beaks, large sternum, and a pygostyle and fanned tail. In other words, birds have been around for twice as long as you propose. Something about being birds allowed them to survive while other dinosaurs didnt.

[@LibeliumDragonfly]

@@patreekotime4578 I mean, galloanserae were already around pre-KPG, meaning not only did we have unambiguous birds pre-KPG, we also had recognizable fowls already.

[@Invading-Specious]

probably..

[@maozilla9149]

nice video

[@ravensrest8824]

Anyone know where he got the shirt from?

[@mhdfrb9971]

The real "protoavis"

[@alvinip3832]

Birds are raptors

[@RaptorChatter]

There's iffy evidence about them evolving directly from dromaeosaurs (raptor dinosaurs). But I also think that dromaeosaurs were very conservative in their ancestral body plan, but that birds changed it. So the bird ancestor was very "raptor" like most likely.

[@TroyTheCatFish]

Fantastic Video as always!! :) 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 ❤❤💖💖