WHAT?! A Massive Dinosaur Family Tree Rewrite

By Gemma Tarlach | March 22, 2017 1:00 pm
A new study about the relationships between dinosaur species blows up our base understanding of the dinosaur family tree. (Credit: Gary Larson/The Far Side)

A new study about the relationships between species just knocked down our basic understanding of the dinosaur family tree. (Credit: Gary Larson/The Far Side)

Ask any obsessive dino-phile above kindergarten age to explain the dinosaur family tree and it’s likely the first thing you’ll hear is that all dinosaur species fall into one of two groups. It’s a core concept upon which our entire understanding of dinosaurs is built. But according to a new study, we got that most fundamental aspect of dinosaur evolution completely wrong. Oops.

For more than a century, the dinosaur family tree was understood as having a very early split into two branches: Saurischia and Ornithischia. While science has not yet nailed down exactly when dinosaurs evolved, conventional thinking put the big saurischian-ornithischian split at least 230 million years ago, soon after the Dawn of Dinosaurs itself.

The saurischians, or “lizard-hipped,” then split into sauropodomorphs (mostly quadrupedal, long-necked, long-tailed herbivores) and theropods (mostly carnivorous, bitey bipeds of all shapes and sizes and degrees of bitey-ness). The ornithischians (“bird-hipped”) went on to diversify into some of the whackier herbivore dinosaurs, from horned and frilled ceratopsians to bipedal duck-billed dinos.

Despite being “bird-hipped,” by the way, the ornithischians have nothing to do with modern birds, which evolved from a theropod lineage. The word Ornithischia comes from the structure of the pelvis. In saurischians, the pubis bone points forward; in ornithischians, it points backward, much like in modern birds, an example of convergent evolution (when unrelated species happen to evolve the same trait).

(Sidenote: that’s a fun fact to trot out when you want your non-dino-loving friends to reply with comments such as “I can’t believe you’re still into dinosaurs. At your age,” and “This is why you’re still single.” Then again, if you have non-dino-loving friends, ditch them. You don’t need that kind of negativity in your life.)

In addition to birdy hips, the ornithischians are also unique for their predentary, a pointy bone at the front of the lower jaw likely used to crop vegetation for noshing.

The Big Dinosaur Family Tree Shake-up

A study published today in Nature, however, has reshuffled the dinosaur family tree in a new and rather shocking way. Comparing more than 450 traits across a range of dinosaurs and their nearest non-dino relatives, researchers kicked the saurischian-ornithischian split to the curb. Instead, they propose dividing dinosaurs into a revised, more exclusive Saurischia club and Ornithoscelida.

According to the paradigm-shifting (shattering?) new study, Ornithoscelida includes ornithischians and theropods, the latter previously part of Saurischia.

For dinosaur enthusiasts this is an epic shift in thinking, so if your head is exploding right now, take a deep breath and take some comfort: the term “Ornithoscelida” at least is nothing new.

The official Dead Things mascot, a headless theropod I photographed in a disused mini-golf course in Auckland, New Zealand, in 2010, kind of sums up how I feel right now about this new study.

The official Dead Things mascot, a headless theropod I photographed in 2010 in a disused mini-golf course in Auckland, New Zealand, kind of sums up how I feel right now about this new study.

The great early evolution champion and dino-curious biologist Thomas Henry Huxley proposed Ornithoscelida in 1870 as an umbrella for a handful of dinosaurs with notably bird-like hind limbs.

The new research puts some very un-bird-like dinosaurs, such as Triceratops, into Ornithoscelida. But it does so based on identifying 21 strongly supported traits called synapomorphies: these are characteristics that can be traced from an ancestor only to its descendents or, in other words, characteristics unique to that particular lineage.

Where Does That Leave The Rest?

The sauropodomorphs, along with theropods, were previously grouped in Saurischia. Now, they’re still there, but they’re on their own — though the new research points to Herrerasauridae as a “sister clade” to the sauropodomorphs.

This is a tougher argument than some of the others advanced in today’s paper, because Herrerasauridae are small, bipedal, full-on carnivores with grasping hands; sauropodomorphs, remember, are herbivorous and mostly quadrupedal (though bipedalism is seen in the earliest members of the lineage).

The dinosaur family tree, before and after new research results published today in Nature. The revision upsets one of the longest-held notions about how species can be classified. (Credit Nature)

The dinosaur family tree, before and after new research results published today in Nature. The early division between Ornithischia and Saurischia has been abandoned, upsetting one of the longest-held notions about how species can be classified. (Credit Nature)

An Early Start?

One thing that hasn’t changed in the new research: Dinosaurs in general are placed in the archosaur lineage, which today includes crocodilians and birds. The researchers included dinosauromorphs, archosaurs closely related to dinosaurs but not quite in the fold, in their study. Crunching all that data, says the team, places the emergence of dinosaurs earlier than previously thought.

The rise of Dinosauria, according to the new paper, occurred about 247 million years ago. While the new date doesn’t exactly contradict the conventional chronology of dinosaurs evolving “before 230 million years ago,” it does push the event further back in time.

…Oh, and Another Thing

Not content to drop just one bomb into the field, the researchers also suggest that their data points to the Northern Hemisphere as the cradle of dinosaur evolution. Although a casual observer familiar with famous dinos from the United States, Canada and China might think that makes sense, the assertion is another shake-up because the earliest and most primitive dinosaurs found so far hail from South America.

As noted in a commentary that accompanied today’s study, the new research is indeed a “revolutionary proposal” and “provocative reassessment,” but also a notion that will need a lot of additional data-crunching before we rewrite the paleontology textbooks.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Living World, top posts
MORE ABOUT: dinosaurs, fossils
  • OWilson

    Marry me? :)

    • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Uncle Al


      Be careful when you wish. I do like the baking part.

      • ilene.luz

        I was paid 104000 bucks past 12 month period by doing an internet based task moreover I was able to do it by w­orking in my own time f­o­r quite a few hours on a regular basis. I used work opportunity I found out on-line and therefore I am thrilled that I was capable of to make such decent cash. It’s really newbie-friendly and therefore I’m so pleased that I discovered out regarding it. Check out what I do… http://secure10­.­weebly­.­com

      • OWilson

        I hadn’t seen that, but a little co-incident!

        Staring at screens – check! wordsmith – check! dog – check! house – check! Iceland, Japan – double check!

        I suppose you’d have to find her first! :)

  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Uncle Al

    Paleontological and anthropological far pasts plus Enviro-whiner near futures have one preponderant thing in common with Tabby’s star: WTF?

  • jug

    I know, (because I was there), but this old dinosaur ain’t tellin’!

  • mholdcraft

    I think we should consult Fred Flintstone. He had a lot more experience with these “Dynosaurs” than anyone else!

  • Bob Juniper

    Yaba daba do

    • E4439qv5

      Thank you for your contribution.

      • Bob Juniper

        Yaba daba do is very important . It was when Fred was very happy and/or excited. Its what really mattered , having fun back then. What year (BC) do you think Fred is from, you seem like a smart guy?

        • E4439qv5

          Trick question– Fred’s an anachronism.

          My answer is that he and his family are actually members of a post-apocalyptic society. The “modern conveniences” present in what is ostensibly the Stone Age could only be realized a result of the “racial memories” (ie, oral tradition) of our current civilization, combined with highly advanced zoomorphic animatronics.

          In my Hanna-Barbera Grand Unifying Theory “The Flintstones” occur after “The Jetsons”.

          Yabba — dabba — booyah.

          • Bob Juniper

            I am in on that idea!

  • maverita

    Since they started testing DNA, the plant classifications have been through some changes, and will continue to change. We won’t ever be SURE of classifications without DNA. As in plants, shared traits can often be convergent evolution.

  • Daniel

    Well, however long they lived, and in whatever forms they took, these beasts at least did not terminally tinker with their own nests, though they did leave witnesses behind as canaries in our coal mines.

  • bwana

    Doesn’t shake up my dino world view at all! I’m still a dino lover!!

  • John Do’h

    Gemma has been reclassified as Awesomesauridae but no doubt some haters will deny.

  • Adam Nyhan

    That reminds me one thing. Dinosaurs are not descendants of birds. It was a convergent evolution. This text complements the idea:

    The hominids and the prototypes

    The ancestors of man

    In the tertiary period some races of anthropoids appeared in the lower Pliocene. These anthropoids, ancestors of man, and the ascendants of the apes that still exist in the world, had their evolution in convergent points, therefore, the serological kinship between the organism of man and the chimpanzee. There was not a “descent from the tree”, at the beginning of human evolution, because it was established, a definite lineage for all species. Fish, reptiles, mammals, had their fixed lineage of development and the man would not escape this general rule.

    The prototypes

    The cave anthropoids have walked, to the groups, from the surface of the globe, for centuries, suffering the middle influences and forming future races into their diversified types.
    The research about Neanderthal type recognizes a species of bestialized man, and other discoveries, about fossil man, are a certificate of biological experiments, until put in the primate the approximate characteristic of future man.

    Source: http://thethinkingabout.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-hominids-and-prototypes.html

  • the_great_laertes

    So long as they’re not renaming Nqwebasaurus, I’m okay with it.

  • Pingback: About That Dinosaur Family Tree Rewrite... - Dead Things : Dead Things()

  • Pingback: About That Dinosaur Family Tree Rewrite... — Live Science Tech()

  • Pingback: About That Dinosaur Family Tree Rewrite… | Choosehealthybody.com()


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Dead Things

Digging up the dirt on the latest finds and weirdest revelations, from lost civilizations to dinosaurs.

See More

Collapse bottom bar