Herrerasaurus will have it's day! Then immediately get reclassified as an archosauromorph

Sadly, you answered your own question 😮 😊. Fantastic content goes over the heads of many who prefer shiny objects 😂

My channel intro video has a longer version.

The paddle tail might be from a different Spinosaurid since it was found all by itself.

@@wetube6513 Oh, haven't heard of that before. Spinosaurus' ability to elude proper description is comical at this point.

Thanks. I did some field-work in Wales looking at rocks from the Llandeilo and Llandovery stages with someone who spoke Welsh. I may be a bit over-cautious on using words I am not sure of pronouncing.

Thanks, I try to be as thorough and accurate as I can. I also include links to my main sources in the description.

Thanks for your support. I did mention dinosaurs like Troodon in my video on Deinonychus, and I think the main point in the sentence about its intelligence is 'for a dinosaur'. It appears most of that brain power was directed to processing information from the sense organs. I have seen the dinosauroid hypothesis, and it does seem a bit human-centric to me, confusing a primate body for requirements for intelligence. Some corvids are the only creators of tools outside great apes, and they still have their bird bodies.

The name Coelophysis comes from the Greek word κοῖλος/koilos, and anglicised. This affects the spelling rather than being phonetic. I am not sure what you mean by the 'plotting style', but the charts are from a paper you can find here: www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.1613813113. The information has been collected into a pdf you can see here: www.pnas.org/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1073%2Fpnas.1613813113&file=pnas.1613813113.sapp.pdf I hope this helps.

There has been a study on emu feathers and their heat protective properties that I found after I made this video. I'm not sure that the primitive Triassic dinosaur feathers could do this, but it is a possibility. As I said in the video, switching from feathered to non-feathered would have been easy, even in the same individual as it grew. I do have a more complete feathers video in the works.

@@palaeo_channel You also need to consider that Coelophysis was MUCH smaller than its length would suggest. They had very slender bodies and most of the length was in the neck and tail. Dinosaurs in general tend to be lighter than they seem. Really, Coelophysis is more equivalent to small mammalian predators like coyotes and wolves. It just was longer due to the tail. Coelophysis's size would require that it had some sort of insulation, but it could be short protofeathers or long protofeathers.

For a long time it was inferred from living relatives, until an exceptionally preserved hadrosaur was found with a four chambered heart preserved in its chest.

Sorry about this reply being so late. After looking into tiger sharks, it looks like the recurved teeth are for biting of chunks of meat from large prey, not for armoured animals (not even sure how recurved teeth would help against armour). You also have to consider the differences in jaw shape. The long slender jaw with most teeth on the side is very different from the maw of a shark with teeth facing forwards. I do like the idea of thrashing or shaking to use those serrations to cut. That was probably the case.

@@palaeo_channel Glad you replied. I assure you sea turtles have their shells cut into and rent through on the teeth of sharks. Tiger sharks particularly which are often the largest threat in warm waters I should warn you pictures of such are really quite graphic. An enameled tooth should be able to saw through keratin and bone and sharks do amputate limbs pretty cleanly, and there is evidence enough for therepods gouging into bone(the illiums of sauropods, and a huge allosaur turd 1.52m long + 'dribble zone' if i recall correctly from the morrison that was chockers with bone (i think it was Karen Chin John R Bishop 2007 A paper on borers in the bones as there was some pretty big lumps of bone in the turd) with recurved and serrated teeth. I am not saying the therepods recurved and serrated teeth would excell against armoured prey, but i am saying they would be serviceable enough, a.d against young/small animals for something like ceolophysis to allow it to be an extremely flexible oppotunist. And it would be especially useful for processing carcasses. For my thoughts on feeding method i would have to say I'd assume an avian grabbing and tugging,(but not the bird like grabbing and pulling and tearing proposed in the falcon allosaur feeding theory) I'd put more emthasis on cutting with those nice recurved and serrated teeth, also pushing, possibly with the body weight of the animal behind it if the meal is stubborn. Honestly we have very few good modern analogues, and kommodo dragons(or crocodiles), and most monitors for that matter have much broader snouts than most therepods and seem more resistant to lateral forces so are an unperfect comparison in my opinion. So my comparison with sharks is that they are essentially attempting to do the same thing(feeding mechanic wise only) drawing tissue across a sophisticated toothrow suited to cutting(and also varying degrees of biting hard depending on species/genre), , but at a difference near enough to 90' a shark thrashes side to side, a therepod tugs and pushes backwards and forwards, drawing tissue over its tooth rows, which to me really suits ceolophysis. It can for rapid feeding on soft tissue just use quick jerks of the neck, or on a large and stubborn carcass really back lean into the tuggs pushing with its feet.

@@rileyernst9086 Sorry about the late reply. Been working on latest video. While I do agree that Coelophysis would have been a great opportunist, I do thing that comparisons between archosaurs and sharks are a bit off. The morphology and growth patterns of shark teeth are very different to theropod teeth (despite one group being called Carcharodontosaurs). The teeth have cutting edges perpendicular to the line of the body, and to their line of symmetry. The morphology of the mouth is also completely different. I did some work on fish skulls, and they are completely alien to tetrapods. I do think that sharks provide an interesting example of a huge predator attacking mostly smaller prey, something that large land predators rarely do, but comparisons to tetrapod bite mechanics I think would be misguided.

@@palaeo_channel i think you totally missed my point and got caught up on the comparison. So forget sharks for now. What i am saying is that many therepods had some narrow to super narrow jaws. Look at coelophysis, allosaurids, but even Tarbosaurus has a pretty narrow chomper. Finite material analysis suggests that both allo and ceolophysis were weak to side to side forces(so no thrashing every which way like a kommodo, this feeding strategy could concevably injure the therepods or lead to long term stresses which should be apparent in the bones) but with a more bird like grabbing and pulling action. Maybe with some pushing you are working tissue over the full length of the tooth row and are using it like a saw. Allosaurids took this to the extreme of course but you see the same architecture in the skulls of many types of archosaurs with ziphodont dentistry and i think that dinosaur feeding habits would be a balance between puncturing and crushing and cutting and sawing obviously with some animals going for more of one and less of the other. The only comparison to sharks is that they also feed by drawing tissue over their tooth row and their jaws, especially on things like tiger sharks essentially act like a pair of bone saws being clamped onto and pulled across tissue. They cut through living bone pretty easily and occasionally you get divers or spearfishers having entire limbs essentially amputated. The bites are remarkably clean a d distinct. I am aware of the massive differences between shark and archosaur phisiology and dentistry. A key difference being therepod teeth need to be much more resistent as they were replace much less often, so whilst a shark can afford to absorb feeding stresses directly on the toothrow a d constantly shed and replace teeth we see that archosaurs (again especially allosaurids but also present in most other groups) have reinforced skull roofs and archings of the skull, that would suggest that when stresses are put on the toothrow through finite material analysis that the stress is removed from the maxila and through compression and tension of the boney arches above transfered into the thick skull roof a d this is geared towards backwards amd forwards up and down pressure. Not side to side. Now going with allos because of their wealth of specimens and evidence, we know their bite force wasn't especially high considsring their size but we have the giant bone laden corpolite i may or may not have mentioned before. Being 1.52m long +some dribble and containing some pretty large chunks of bone but also bone shards, spawling from bone that was being worked by the allo teeth is the most likely explanation and a broken off allo tooth(the smoking gun in the identification of the culprit) Its some pretty good supporting evidence that at least sometimes some therepods were using their jaws essentially like bone saws to me, and a backwards and forwards feeding motion drawing the tissue across the length of that toothrow makes sense. And in therepods that took this to an extreme ( the carchars) you would espect to see more reinforced skull roofs, great skull arching, narrower tooth tows and laterally compressed teeth to maximise cutting efficentcy.

I am building up to Tyrannosaurus, but I am not planning on ending there. I don't really have an end in mind in the current rate of new dinosaur species being described is about one a week, so I'm not going to run out. I don't see myself covering stuff outside the Mesozoic, as it is my wheelhouse and I'm getting better acquainted with it every video, but if you have a suggestion of a Mesozoic avian dinosaur, I would certainly consider it.

@@palaeo_channel gargantarvis(hope i spelt that right) would be interesting. A large flightless bird from a Hateg island before being a large flightless bird on an island got cool.

I have a video on that: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fbF_bNWT0p2qYqs.html

I have reconsidered my view here as a study on Emu feathers revealed that they helped protect against the sun better than kangaroo fur. While I still think that Coelophysis was not covered with downy fuzz, it would not have been the disadvantage I made it out to be.

@@palaeo_channel Thanks for the reply :) love your videos

Scutes are scales with an extra thick layer of keratin. They were possessed by non-avian dinosaurs and can be found in many modern reptiles, like turtles and crocodiles.

The tail was heavy enough for the weight to be centred over the hips. While its hind legs were capable of supporting its weight, the hands were not able to support its front. A lot of these rauisuchids were bipedal, so Postosuchus would not have looked out of place.

Some types of feathers. I have changed my views of feathers in Coelophysis, and go into greater detail in my Dinosaur Feathers video.

Some types of feathers. I have changed my views of feathers in Coelophysis, and go into greater detail in my Dinosaur Feathers video.

@@palaeo_channel I just think that it would make more sense for Ceolophysis to have some form of feathers since their feathers would probably be like Emus which help protect their skin from the sun rays. They could also have display feathers to attract mates and stand out from the crowd.

The fact that Emus used their feathers to protect themselves from the sun more effectively than kangaroo fur is one of the reasons my view on Coelophysis feathers has changed.

Pigeons, and all birds, evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Coelophysis is one of the oldest examples of a theropod dinosaur. So, in a way, yes. I have a video on dinosaur cladistics that goes into that sort of thing in more detail.