A fossilised skull trapped in amber that was recently identified as belonging to a tiny bird-like dinosaur might actually belong to a lizard.
Last month, palaeontologists analysed an ancient skull that had been preserved in amber and concluded that it probably came from a tiny, humming bird-like dinosaur that lived 99 million years ago. Now, a different group of researchers have reanalysed the fossil and believe that it actually came from a lizard.
Jing Lu at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and colleagues asked for copies of the CT scans from the original study, and reanalysed the data. They argue that certain features of the skull, particularly the structure of the teeth and the shape of the eye socket, are much more consistent with lizard rather than bird or dinosaur anatomy.
Advertisement
Whereas dinosaurs characteristically have teeth that develop in tooth sockets, the teeth of this creature, named Oculudentavis khaungraae by the team that first analysed its skull, are fused together 鈥� a feature much more typical of lizards, according to Lu and colleagues.
The authors of the that described the fossil had attributed this to the miniaturisation of the animal, which has a skull measuring a mere 1.4 centimetres across. But Lu鈥檚 group argues that there is no evidence to suggest that miniaturisation would lead to these morphological changes.
The eyes have it
The structure of the bone behind the eye sockets of O. khaungraae is also consistent with eyes of a typical lizard shape, Lu and colleagues told 快猫短视频. Labelling the species as bird-like makes its small body size and other features appear extraordinary, they say, but when you consider the possibility it is a lizard, these anatomical features are much less remarkable.
鈥淵ou have to build the scientific story and significance carefully on a correct taxonomic identification,鈥� the researchers told 快猫短视频. 鈥淲e will be very excited to see what Oculudentavis khaungraae actually is, because this is still a very bizarre lizard and its position in the lizard family tree is uncertain.鈥�
Hans Sues at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC, who wasn鈥檛 involved in either study, agrees that the skull looks more like a lizard than a bird or bird-like dinosaur skull.
鈥淭he skull lacks the key features of birds and their closest dinosaurian relatives but has numerous features found in lizards,鈥� says Sues. 鈥淐learing up this misidentification is important because it removes the alleged presence of a humming bird-like bird from the Cretaceous period.鈥�
Jingmai O鈥機onnor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, an author on the original study that described O. khaungraae, has declined to comment until the latest work has been peer reviewed.
Reference: bioRxiv,
