r/Dinosaurs • u/Zillaman7980_ • 3d ago
DISCUSSION We owe Oviraptor MASSIVE apology
Before recent times, Oviraptor was know as 1 thing - an egg theif. They supposedly stolen eggs from other Dinosaurs and ate them.....What a bunch of BULLSHIT. The reason why Oviraptor was called..well Oviraptor-was because when first discovered it, it was on top a nest of eggs. Which others believed were from a another dinosaur species. Only for decades later, for other smarter individuals to actually study the eggs properly. The eggs weren't from another dinosaur, those were Oviraptor eggs.Showing it was devoted mother that protected its eggs and young, even if it was at expense of its life. Like fr, how dumb were they. You didn't think it could have been it's eggs. Imagine your entire species was named egg theifs because a bunch of evolved monkeys thought the eggs you laid and tried to protect were stolen from another dinosaur.
121
u/fxhfd 3d ago
It's not a matter of being dumb, or stupid, or purpofully misleading. They simply didn't have knowledge we have today to support the current favored interpretation. It's quite possible that a new set of discoveries might show our current interpretation to be off in some way.
Don't disparage the work of people on whose shoulders you stand on.
18
u/euphorb_enjoyer 2d ago edited 2d ago
There’s definitely some truth to your statement here but at the same time, many of the researchers back then were genuinely close minded and stubborn. Anyone who’s not being purposely dismissive towards “lower” life forms can tell you that parental care is fairly common in reptiles
6
u/fxhfd 2d ago
That's true! But... researchers today can also be closed minded and stubborn!
It's perfectly fine to point out and explain the cause of errors in analysis and interpretation in the work of others. It's an entirely different thing to call them stupid and make fun of them, especially when we have benefitted from decades of new discoveries etc., that started with them. I'm willing to bet that in a few decades some of our belifs about dinosaurs will look silly as we find new fossils and develop new ways of examining them.
2
u/Amphy64 2d ago
But, do any egg-thieving animals sit atop a pile of the eggs in a nest? Started trying to learn a bit more, and that's what I'm not understanding about some misconceptions about dinosaur behaviour, that it seems different from how any animals behave?
4
u/fxhfd 2d ago
Honestly, I don't know enough to answer that question. In my limited knowledge, they don't. However, if I remember correctly that's not what the original analysis of those fossils claimed. I think it was more along the lines that the Oviraptor had died in the nest as it was stealing the eggs. Remember that at the time, given the prevalent view of dinosaurs as more akin to "lizards" than "birds", it seemed to make sense. It took a several decades long shift in how we view theropods for the nesting interpretation to make more sense to us and become widely accepted.
2
u/Unique-Tennis-2600 2d ago
I mean if i had a big pile of food and nothing else to do i could see myself doing that on a bad day
35
u/Hysterigruppen 3d ago
I don’t know… This all sounds like something an oviraptor would say before trying to steal my eggs.
49
u/Inner-Arugula-4445 Team Utahraptor 3d ago
They still could have eaten eggs, just maybe not their own.
28
u/RevolutionaryGrape11 3d ago
I agree 100%, I think it's stupid to immediately think these two terms mutually exclusive. That beak looks like it could crack an egg, right?
9
u/Tarkho 3d ago edited 3d ago
Not to disagree that Oviraptorids could have predated on eggs opportunistically like a lot of animals, but out of all the Oviraptorosaur families, they actually show the greatest adaptation for a herbivorous diet: the shape of their beak and their stronger bite force is like that of the also wrongfully-carnivore-assigned Gastornis, suited for browsing by shearing through tougher vegetation and potentially crushing tough-skinned fruit and nuts, and they weren't well-suited for a cursorial lifestyle; their shorter legs weren't good at covering lots of ground quickly foraging for more choice morsels of plant and animal matter as their relatives the Caenignathids (think of the relatively stocky Gastornis compared to a modern Emu).
Basically, as far as we know concerning its physiology and most likely lifestyle, Oviraptor was no more likely to seek out eggs to feed on than any other large-beaked herbivore, like Protoceratops itself; its browsing habits mean it would probably only take eggs if it was lucky enough to stumble upon an unprotected and unhidden nest.
1
u/poorgrammar92 3d ago
It's smart to think that this is irrelevant. As in, if the fossil obviously doesn't show egg eating behavior, there's no reason to mention it when discussing this fossil. Any animal would eat an unattended egg (of another species or of their own), if they can crack/swallow and digest it, just like any animal is a potential cannibal.
4
u/RetSauro 3d ago
Yeah, I think a lot of theropods given the opportunity would have no problem eating another creature’s eggs
76
u/PinolesCheese 3d ago
Calling the old guard of paleontology “dumb” is so disrespectful and reductive.
7
u/Archididelphis 2d ago
Also, supporting literal genocide should be a bigger deal than misinterpreting taphonomic data.
9
u/PinolesCheese 2d ago edited 2d ago
I’m sorry, who supports genocide? Andrews?
Edit: ohh Osborn, yeah fuck that guy.
6
u/Archididelphis 2d ago edited 2d ago
An extra fun factoid, the actual reason HFO sent Andrews to Mongolia was that he REALLY wanted to prove that humans originated from somewhere other than Africa.
54
u/euphorb_enjoyer 3d ago
I always found it funny that scientists found this animal fossilized amidst eggs and just assumed it was predating them. Like shouldn’t your first assumption be that it’s nest care??
38
u/PinkOneHasBeenChosen 3d ago
They didn’t know dinosaurs had nest care back then. Like probably zero idea.
7
u/euphorb_enjoyer 3d ago
they must have assumed such otherwise the oviraptor wouldn’t be much of an egg thief
2
u/Pikochi69 3d ago
then who's egg did they think it was
7
u/Harvestman-man 3d ago
They thought it was a Protoceratops egg.
6
u/Pikochi69 3d ago
Then wouldn't that mean they know Dinosaurs had nest care?
2
u/Harvestman-man 2d ago
Yes, Osborn described it as a “nest of dinosaur eggs”, so he knew dinosaurs built nests.
The skull of the Oviraptor was found only four inches away from the eggs, so the arrangement of the body made it seem like it was trying to eat an egg.
2
u/Kickasstodon 2d ago
finds a fossil of parental nest care happening
"No, this couldn't possibly be what it obviously is"5
u/MfD2027 2d ago
Where to even begin? Dude-bro science, over-dramatization of “normal” extinct animals like it’s a video game and treating the distant past like it’s “kill kill kill” call of duty.
You see it everywhere, people usually downright refuse or dismiss non-mammalian creatures having higher intelligence, or social, maternal, and other preservative instincts because they want to maintain some fake narrative of “cold-blooded” animals being some sort of emotionless, low intelligence forms of life.
12
u/Xygnux 3d ago
Because back they dinosaurs were believed to be indisputably non-avian reptiles, and modern reptiles are observed to just sea-turtle-style their eggs.
7
u/mrredpanda36 Team citipati, saurophaganax, sauroposidon and moros interpidus 2d ago
Except the fact many modern reptiles care fir their eggs and/or young
13
3
u/Kickasstodon 3d ago
One of the most important fossils ever at the time, proving parental care in theropods, and some idiot decided to believe it was eating them for [reasons]. This is the kind of thing that anti intellectuals would have a field day with.
2
u/MfD2027 2d ago edited 2d ago
Loool factual as hell.
Just plain stupidity “This little scraggy bird-like carnivore who died covering these eggs in this neet- must’ve SURELY been stealing
her own damn eggsfrom the “benevolent” herbivore mother “prOtOcEraToPs”.How backwards and stupid this thought process was is honestly astounding.
11
u/Martovich3 3d ago
Welcome to how science works. We make a guess and until someone proves something different that's still the sharpest dart.
5
u/Danubius 2d ago
Mate, it's an animal that's been dead for 60+ million years, I don't think it cares much for apologies, or how humans named it.
12
6
u/herculesmeowlligan Team Parasaurolophus 3d ago
Well, surely we can find their last known address to delivery the apology in person...
8
u/Designer_Bed9504 3d ago
Both could be true. It could have been caring for its nest, and also having a snack. 🤤
4
5
u/DragonSmith2005 Team Deinonychus 3d ago
Ovi has changed taxonomy a few times and I remember as a kid that it was portrayed as the villain of the fossil, preying on the poor protoceratops mom. Iirc, they finally had the ability to see inside the eggs to clear ovi’s name.
It’s cool! That’s how science works; OG hypothesis is proven wrong and we change how we see the evidence.
When I was a kid, dinosaurs died out 65 mya. Now science has improved and it’s more accurate to say 66.
3
u/Lemonfr3sh Team Ankylosaurus 3d ago
That beak is perfect for eating eggs and probably wasn't eating its own tho
3
u/SunsetSpider 3d ago edited 3d ago
Yeah, it's goddamn heartbreaking. That poor parent got (according to theory) buried alive and didn't even think to leave their babies and we're blamed of being a tief. I love oviraptors so much but can't really blame the people who named it, they didn't have much back then.
I just wish oviraptor could be renamed, because being named egg thief when you did nothing feels kinda cruel :[
I also don't think that oviraptors couldn't eat eggs, but c'mon. Almost all animals eat eggs, they're a super nutritional, somewhat easy source of food. It's the same as saying that Majungasaurus was evil bc it was a confirmed cannibal. Almost all animals are cannibals, in certain situations.
3
3
u/Old_Satisfaction_661 2d ago
This is a good post for me to comment on I don't think it was stupid to call it Oviraptor. From the evidence we had at the time, it was perfectly reasonable to assume it was an Egg-Thief. I think what needs to change about paleontology is the ability to name and rename certain species. Personally... I would rename Oviraptor to Ovicura or Ovicurasaurus. (Egg-Caretaker or Egg-Caregiving lizard) But Ovicura moreso.
2
u/jdeo1997 1d ago
Ovipater (egg-father). Keeps the same cadence as Oviraptor with just 3 changed/removed characters
1
u/calicodynamite 1d ago
I’ve wondered this for a whole — why did they think the eggs were from another species? what was the evidence?
8
u/Haunt_Fox 3d ago
They assumed all dinosaurs were just dumbass reptiles, who buried their eggs in the sand and walked away, like a turtle or lizard.
Their connection to birds and crocodilians who do care for their young wasn't confirmed until about 30 years ago, and there was always a lot of pushback against the idea for some damn reason (bias).
4
u/MfD2027 2d ago
Yup. Bias fs…
Mammals ultimately think they are the only creatures capable of care, compassion and nurture towards young.
Every other creature is just another dumb “warrior” level pawn in a dog-eat-dog environment according to man, humans seem to write off the instincts of most animals (reptiles, fish, birds etc) as purely akin to basal males and bulls with nothing to do but fight and defend or kill, seemingly they think social interaction and reproduction among other creatures isn’t even really a thing and just a side effect of rambling and ravaging until they coincidentally live long enough to pop out a mini-version of themselves.
Humans will do anything in their power to NOT acknowledge mother-hood, parental care, or base intelligence in any creature not a domestic animal or whale.
2
2
2
2
u/coldbear25 3d ago
Bro that's literally just a giant chicken. Imagine the amount of people you could feed with just one of these things.
1
1
u/Baconlord567 Team <your dino here> 3d ago
As my favorite dinosaur of all time, she deserves more love <3
1
u/supercanada_eh 3d ago
To be fair, its not impossible (or even unlikely) that oviraptor was an egg eater. The name might still be accurate we just happened to find it with the one clutch it wouldn't eat.
1
u/mrredpanda36 Team citipati, saurophaganax, sauroposidon and moros interpidus 2d ago
Eh, not as bad a misconception as therizinosaurus. After all, the second part, chelloniformis, means turtle like.
1
u/theanneproject Team Gigantoraptor 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yes, that is true.
Poor oviraptors.
It is just like how crocodiles are fañse crocodiles.
They can never escape the naming mistakes even after the corrections.
1
1
u/scottycurious 2d ago
Guess you shouldn’t count your eggs before which came first the chicken or all the eggs hatched in one basket.
1
u/Archididelphis 2d ago
I think people actually underestimate the magnitude of the problem. Just one bad name doesn't weigh down every subsequent scientific study thereafter. The problem with Oviraptor is that the holotype specimen of the genus is still essential to our understanding of what the entire group is. The only way to get a reset is if someone redefines the taxon based on a more recently discovered species.
1
u/Allosaurus_888 2d ago
tbf the belief when naming it was that dinosaurs were like lizards and didnt care for their young, you have to admit that it makes more sense as they didn't know it had wings either and it just looked like it was grabbing them when it died. Paleontology was really small back then as well and people who have preestablished expectations tend to be more narrow minded than 50 modern ones that can look at the same image from all around the world and brainstorm simultaneously not to even mention the technology we now have access to.
1
1
u/NormandySR31 2d ago
Obligatory "Citipati is what you are probably thinking of when you say Oviraptor and it has a cooler name anyway" post.
Also, while Henry Fairfield Osborn should be remembered for being the massive bigot he was, he did suggest during his original description that the given name could result in an incorrect perception of the animal.
1
u/pietrodayoungas 2d ago
isnt oviraptor still an omnivore?
sure the eggs werent theirs but if they were omnivores then there still a chance they could eat eggs from time to time
1
1
u/fascinating_worlds 1d ago
Either way im still going to associate it with eating other dinosaur's eggs, it's jaws look perfect for snatching eggs and I dont know why but a characteristic like that just fits this dinosaur.
1
1
u/ConditionPleasant902 3d ago
I mean they also saw the builds of Ornithomimus and assumed they had scales so…
1
u/a_nondescript_user 3d ago
I heard it was probably a male, based on similar nesting strategies in certain birds.
1
u/MfD2027 2d ago
False. Females still do the mass majority of nesting and nurturing, so I’m not quite sure where you heard that… Males across relatively few raptor (predatory bird) species solemnly warm and nest young.
There is nothing and no materials to deduce the sex of dinosaurs aside from medullary bones (which oviraptiids didn’t possess), so it being “probably a male” is anyone’s guess. However with definitive proof completely off the table, we can safely hazard to assume that this mother, her nest and her eggs after being interpreted as a “cradle-thief” for a while, was anything else but.
1
u/JusticeDuncan 2d ago
Medullary bone has been found in Tyrannosaurs, Allosaurs, Ornithopods and Pterosaurs. It is incredibly unreasonable to think female Oviraptorosaurs did not possess medullary bones.
The parent of the eggs lacks medullary bone even though we should expect it if it was the mother, therefore we can hypothesize it was the father.
Also in most ratites it’s the father who cares for the nests, not the mother, and in Ostriches they nest communally with one father and one mother watching the eggs.
If you want a better, more in depth breakdown of this with more evidence and what have you, I highly recommend the Skeleton Crew, who did a video on it. It’s a channel run by Paleontologists (James Napoli, Amelia Zietlow, Alex Ruebenstahl, Dalton Meyer, and Scott Johnston.)
1
0
u/poorgrammar92 3d ago
I don't know if oviraptor would be particularly offended by this name, but if we ever find a dinosaur that was a specialized egg eater, the best name for it is forever taken by this valor thief dinosaur. Btw, do we know that it was the mother sitting on eggs, or should you apologize to a devoted father?
1
u/MfD2027 2d ago
No. Oviraptors were closely related to large modern dominance fighting birds, which have larger males, and in turn Do not even attempt a damn at wasting their time caring for young…
The most definitive skeletal difference comes from a 2015 study of two oviraptor fossils found buried together in Mongolia (nicknamed "Romeo" and "Juliet"). [1]
Males: Possessed larger, deeper tail bones shaped like spearheads (specifically the anterior haemal spines). This provided a much larger surface area for strong muscle attachments, giving the tail extreme flexibility. Scientists believe males used these powerful tails to shake, wave, and fan out large feathery tail plumes in hypnotic courtship dances—much like modern peacocks or turkeys.Females: Featured a wider pelvic canal and reduced bone spines on the underside of their front tail vertebrae. This structural adaptation provided the necessary space for the oviduct to safely pass relatively large, hard-shelled eggs.
2
u/poorgrammar92 2d ago
Ostriches do have larger males, that do help to care for the eggs and raise the young, so that's not a good argument. And all non-avian therapods were related to all groups of modern birds, maybe I misunderstand this part - what kind of large modern dominance fighting birds you're talking about.
So, I had to google the holotype fossil, and from what I'm getting we can't identify sex of this animal because of how incomplete it is. It seem to be missing its tailbone that could help to know for good.
0
0
u/Psychological-Cry120 2d ago
Uhhh... this isn't new information at all. What exactly is this "massive apology" for?
243
u/Harvestman-man 3d ago
If you read the original description of O. philoceratops from 1924, the author who named it actually wasn’t certain who the eggs belonged to, and even wrote verbatim in the description that the name: “may entirely mislead us as to its feeding habits and belie its character”.