This timeline of oviraptorosaur research is a chronological listing of events in the history of paleontology focused on the oviraptorosaurs, a group of beaked, bird-like theropod dinosaurs. The early history of oviraptorosaur paleontology is characterized by taxonomic confusion due to the unusual characteristics of these dinosaurs. When initially described in 1924 Oviraptor itself was thought to be a member of the Ornithomimidae, popularly known as the "ostrich" dinosaurs, because both taxa share toothless beaks. Early caenagnathid oviraptorosaur discoveries like Caenagnathus itself were also incorrectly classified at the time, having been misidentified as birds. The hypothesis that caenagnathids were birds was questioned as early as 1956 by Romer, but not corrected until Osmolska formally reclassified them as non-avian dinosaurs in 1976. Meanwhile, the classification of Oviraptor as an ornithomimid persisted unquestioned by researchers like Romer and Steel until the early 1970s when Dale Russell argued against the idea in 1972. In 1976 when Osmolska recognized Oviraptor's relationship with the Caenagnathids, she also recognized that it was not an ornithomimid and reclassified it as a member of the former family. However, that same year Rinchen Barsbold argued that Oviraptor belonged to a distinct family he named the Oviraptoridae and he also formally named the Oviraptorosauria later in the same year. Like their classification, the paleobiology of oviraptorosaurs has been subject to controversy and reinterpretation. The first scientifically documented Oviraptor skeleton was found lying on a nest of eggs. Because its powerful parrot-like beak appeared well-adapted to crushing hard food items and the eggs were thought to belonged to the neoceratopsian Protoceratops, oviraptorosaurs were thought to be nest-raiders that preyed on the eggs of other dinosaurs. In the 1980s, Barsbold proposed that oviraptorosaurs used their beaks to crack mollusk shells as well. In 1993, Currie and colleagues hypothesized that small vertebrate prey may have also been part of the oviraptorosaur diet. Not long after, fossil embryonic remains cast doubt on the popular reconstruction of oviraptorosaurs as egg thieves when it was discovered that the "Protoceratops" eggs that Oviraptor was thought to be "stealing" actually belonged to Oviraptor itself. The discovery of additional Oviraptor preserved on top of nests in lifelike brooding posture firmly established that oviraptorosaurs had been "framed" as egg thieves and were actually caring parents incubating their own nests.
20th century
1920s
1923 A specimen of the species that would come to be named Oviraptor philoceratops was found preserved on top of a nest of eggs.
1924 Osborn described the new genus and species Oviraptor philoceratops. He classified it as an ornithomimid because it didn't have any teeth in its jaws and interpreted the genus as being adapted to a diet of eggs. Since a specimen was found preserved on top of a nest of eggs presumed to belong to Protoceratops, Osborn thought that it was smothered by a sandstorm while in the act of raiding the nest.
Gilmore described the new genus and species Chirostenotes pergracilis.
1930s
1932 C. M. Sternberg described the new genus and species Macrophalangia canadensis.
1933 Parks described the new species Ornithomimus elegans and referred it to Chirostenotes.
1940s
1940 R. M. Sternberg described the new genus and species Caenagnathus collinsi and named the Caenagnathidae and Caenagnathoidea. He thought they were birds.
1950s
1956 Romer followed Osborn's original classification of Oviraptor as an ornithomimid. He also observed that caenagnathids had reptilian characteristics and may have been coelurosaurs.
1960s
1960 Wetmore questioned the hypothesis that caenagnathids were birds because their remains exhibit some reptilian traits.
1966 Romer continued to follow Osborn's original classification of Oviraptor as an ornithomimid.
1970s
1970 Ostrom described the new genus and species Microvenator celer. Steel followed Osborn's original classification of Oviraptor as an ornithomimid. He also questioned the avian status of caenagnathids and proposed that they might actually be coelurosaurs instead.
1971 Cracroft named the new species Caenagnathus sternbergi. He thought it was a bird.
1972 Russell argued against the classification of Oviraptor as an ornithomimid.
1976 Osmolska recognized that caenagnathids were theropods and classified Oviraptor as a member of the family. Barsbold classified Oviraptor as a member of the new taxa Oviraptorinae and Oviraptoridae. Barsbold named the Oviraptorosauria.
1980s
1981 Kurzanov described the new genus and species Avimimus portentosus.
Barsbold described the new genus and species Ingenia yanshini. He also named the subfamily Ingeniinae and classified the family Caenagnathidae in the Oviraptorosauria. Osmolska described the new genus and species Elmisaurus rarus.
1983 Barsbold proposed that oviraptorosaurs used their powerful beaks to feed on shelled mollusks.
1986 Barsbold described the new species Oviraptor mongoliensis. Barsbold described the new genus and species Conchoraptor gracilis. Gauthier considered oviraptorosaurs, deinonychosaurs, and avialans to be maniraptorans.
1988 Currie and Russell observed that caenagnathids had arctometatarsalian feet.
1990s
1991 Jerzykiewicz and Russell observed that oviraptorosaurs seem to have been most common during the Djadokhta stage. Sabath described an oviraptorosaur nest mound.
1992 Smith interpreted the biomechanics of oviraptorosaur jaws to imply that these dinosaurs were actually herbivorous.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
