Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective

2025 in archosaur paleontology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remove ads

New taxa of fossil archosaurs of every kind were described during the year 2025 (or scheduled to), and other studies related to the paleontology of archosaurs were published that year.

Pseudosuchians

Summarize
Perspective

New pseudosuchian taxa

More information Name, Novelty ...

General pseudosuchian research

Aetosaur research

Crocodylomorph research

  • A study on the diversity of cranial shapes of crocodylomorphs throughout their evolutionary history is published by Melstrom et al. (2025), who find that crocodylomorphs with generalist dietary ecology were most likely to survive and diversify after mass extinction events.[22]
  • A study on bone histology of Trialestes romeri, providing evidence of a rapid growth rate, is published by Ponce, Cerda & Desojo (2025).[23]
  • Redescription and a study on the affinities of Pseudhesperosuchus jachaleri is published by Leardi (2025).[24]
  • Wang et al. (2025) describe a new specimen of Platyognathus hsui from the Lower Jurassic Lufeng Formation (China), identify P. hsui as an early-branching relative of gobiosuchids, and name a new superfamily Gobiosuchoidea.[25]
  • A study on the biodiversity of thalattosuchians throughout their evolutionary history, attempting to identify factors driving thalattosuchian evolution, is published by Forêt et al. (2025).[26]
  • Redescription of Macrospondylus bollensis is published by Johnson et al. (2025).[27]
  • Johnson et al. (2025) study the taphonomy of specimens of Macrospondylus bollensis and Platysuchus multiscrobiculatus from the Posidonia Shale (Germany), and identify features indicative of headfirst seafloor landings of teleosauroid specimens.[28]
  • Bhuttarach et al. (2025) describe fossil material of the possible largest member of the genus Indosinosuchus from the Phu Kradung Formation (Thailand), as well as fossil material of an indeterminate teleosauroid from the Klong Min Formation representing the first record of a member of this group from southern peninsular Thailand.[29]
  • Pellarin et al. (2025) study the femoral histology of Thalattosuchus superciliosus, and interpret the studied crocodylomorph as unlikely to be an endotherm.[30]
  • Albuquerque et al. (2025) describe isolated crocodyliform teeth from the Cretaceous (Albian–Cenomanian) Açu Formation (Brazil), including the first records of members of the group Sphagesauria, Itasuchidae and Candidodontidae from the Potiguar Basin reported to date.[31]
  • A study on metabolic rates of notosuchians, providing evidence of mass-independent maximal metabolic rates that were higher than those of extant crocodilians but lower than those of monitor lizards, in published by Sena et al. (2025).[32]
  • A study on the morphology, histology and growth of osteoderms of Late Cretaceous notosuchians from the Bauru Group (Brazil) is published by Cajado et al. (2025).[33]
  • The first histological study of appendicular bones of a peirosaurid is published by Navarro et al. (2025), who interpret their findings as indicative of different growth dynamics of the studied individual compared to other notosuchians.[34]
  • A study on the bone histology of Pissarrachampsa sera, providing evidence of differential growth rates among skeletal elements, is published by Aureliano et al. (2025).[35]
  • Fossil material of a member or a relative of the genus Sebecus is described from the late Neogene strata of the Yanigua/Los Haitises Formation (Dominican Republic) by Viñola López et al. (2025).[36]
  • Martin & Jattiot (2025) describe fossil material of neosuchians (cf. Pholidosauridae and indeterminate Neosuchia) from the Salazac and Carniol sites in southeastern France, representing one of the few records of crocodylomorph fossils from the Aptian–Albian interval found in marine deposits in Europe.[37]
  • Maréchal et al. (2025) describe fossil material of a hyposaurine dyrosaurid from the Maastrichtian strata from Bentiaba (Angola) and study the diversification rates of dyrosaurids, finding evidence of a hyposaurine diversification during the Maastrichtian.[38]
  • Kuzmin et al. (2025) describe the braincase osteology and neuroanatomy of Paralligator, and interpret their findings as indicative of similarity of brain modifications during ontogeny in paralligatorids and extant crocodilians.[39]
  • Kubo et al. (2025) study crocodyliform remains from the Turonian Tamagawa Formation (Japan), identify two osteoderms as probable paralligatorid fossil material, and interpret teeth from the studied assemblage as belonging to crocodyliforms that likely fed on mid- to large-sized tetrapods.[40]
  • New allodaposuchid fossil material, providing new information on the postcranial anatomy of members of this group, is described from the Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) strata from the Fontllonga-6 locality (Fontllonga Group; Spain) by Della Giustina, Rocchi & Vila (2025).[41]
  • A study on the anatomy and affinities of the first specimens of Borealosuchus from earliest Paleocene of Colorado, filling temporal and geographical gaps in the fossil record of members of the genus, is published by Lessner, Petermann & Lyson (2025).[42]
  • Walter et al. (2025) study the phylogenetic affinities of Deinosuchus and recover it as a member of the crocodylian stem group.[43]
  • Evidence from the study of the bone histology of Diplocynodon hantoniensis, interpreted as indicative of a similar growth rate in D. hantoniensis and the American alligator, is published by Hoffman et al. (2025).[44]
  • Description of the anatomy of the inner skull cavities of Diplocynodon tormis is published by Serrano-Martínez et al. (2025).[45]
  • Pligersdorffer, Burke & Mannion (2025) reconstruct the endocranial anatomy of Argochampsa krebsi, and report evidence of presence of salt glands in the studied gavialoid.[46]
  • Description of a new specimen of Dolichochampsa minima from the El Molino Formation (Bolivia), providing new information on the anatomy of members of this species, and a study on its phylogenetic affinities is published by Vélez-Rosado et al. (2025).[47]
  • Evidence of variability of the skull morphology of extant Nile crocodiles and broad-snouted crocodilians from the Paleogene strata in the Faiyum Governorate and Miocene strata from the Wadi Moghra site (Egypt) is presented by El-Degwi et al. (2025).[48]
  • Górka et al. (2025) revise crocodilian records from the early and middle Miocene strata in Czech Republic and Poland, and describe a new osteoderm from the Szczerców field of the Bełchatów mine (Poland) representing the northernmost record of a Neogene crocodilian reported to date.[49]
  • Harzhauser et al. (2025) describe an osteoderm of a crocodilian (possibly a member of the genus Diplocynodon) living approximately 12.2 million years ago from the strata of the Vienna Basin (Austria), representing the youngest record of a crocodilian from Central Europe reported to date.[50]
  • A study on alterations of crocodyliform fossils from the Adamantina Formation (Brazil) during diagenesis is published by Muniz et al. (2025).[51]
Remove ads

Non-avian dinosaurs

Summarize
Perspective

New dinosaur taxa

More information Name, Novelty ...

General non-avian dinosaur research

  • Maidment and Butler (2025) review the state of dinosaur taxonomy and attempt to determine the geographical areas and time periods likely to offer the best opportunities for major new discoveries.[91]
  • Heath et al. (2025) use historical biogeographic estimation methods to estimate the distribution of early dinosaurs and their relatives, and consider low-latitude Gondwana to be the most likely area of origin of dinosaurs, and possibly of archosaurs in general.[92]
  • Sen, Bagchi & Ray (2025) study the biogeography of Late Triassic dinosaurs, and interpret the fossil record as consistent with South American origin of dinosaurs followed by simultaneous dispersals into Laurasia and east Gondwana.[93] This was reassessed by Müller et al. (2025), who recognize that methodological issues in the original analysis—particularly inadequate search parameters, matrix design, and outgroup sampling—render its conclusions about dinosaur origins unreliable.[94]
  • Dempsey et al. (2025) review the utility of methods used to estimate body mass of extinct tetrapods, and present new estimates of body segment mass properties of 52 non-avian dinosaurs.[95]
  • Evidence from the study of extant tetrapods and non-avian dinosaurs, indicative of a link between mass distribution and robusticity of the humeral shaft relative to the femoral shaft which can be used to determine mass distribution in fossil tetrapods, is presented by Dempsey et al. (2025).[96]
  • Review of sources of information about dinosaur locomotion, and of studies of dinosaur locomotion from the preceding years, is published by Falkingham (2025).[97]
  • Prescott et al. (2025) reevaluate the accuracy of equations used to calculate speed of dinosaurs from fossil trackways, and find that none of the equations accurately predicted speed of extant helmeted guinea fowl from tracks made in mud.[98]
  • Baumgart et al. (2025) review the utility of methods used in the studies of dinosaur thermoregulation and respiratory, cardiovascular and digestive systems.[99]
  • Review of studies of dinosaur reproduction and ontogeny, and of challenges in the studies of dinosaur reproductive biology, is published by Chapelle, Griffin & Pol (2025).[100]
  • Schweitzer et al. (2025) study the composition of vascular-like microstructures isolated from dinosaur fossils from the Judith River and Hell Creek formations, and interpret their findings as supporting endogeneity of the studied structures, but also report the presence of microorganismal components in the studied samples.[101]
  • Evidence of preservation of heme bound to a protein moiety in tissues of specimens of Brachylophosaurus canadensis and Tyrannosaurus rex is presented by Long et al. (2025).[102]
  • Evidence of the presence of a strong connective tissue in the cheek region of dinosaur skulls, linking the zygoma and mandible in dinosaurs, is presented by Sharpe et al. (2025).[103]
  • Zhang et al. (2025) interpret secondary eggshell units in eggs of non-avian dinosaurs as biogenic in nature, as interpret their rarity in eggs of maniraptoran theropods as suggestive of a change of the biomineralization mechanism of dinosaur eggshells near the origin of Maniraptora.[104]
  • Review of the fossil record of Triassic-Jurassic dinosaurs and other reptiles from the Connecticut Valley (Connecticut and Massachusetts, United States) is published by Galton, Regalado Fernández & Farlow (2025), who consider Ammosaurus major to be a separate taxon from Anchisaurus polyzelus.[105]
  • McDonald et al. (2025) study the stratigraphy of the Triassic-Jurassic strata of the Hartford and Deerfield basins (Connecticut and Massachusetts) preserving dinosaur tracks, reconstruct the environment in which the tracks were produced (providing evidence of presence of large theropod tracks in lake-margin strata and evidence of presence of large herbivorous dinosaur tracks in areas closer to upland environments), and interpret theropod trackmakers as spending most of their days at lake margins feeding on fishes and smaller tetrapods, while larger herbivores might have lived in upland habitats.[106]
  • Niedźwiedzki et al. (2025) report the discovery of a new, diverse assemblage of theropod and early ornithischian tracks from the Upper Triassic (Norian-Rhaetian transition) strata from the Lisowice-Lipie Śląskie site (Poland), including the biggest theropod tracks from the Upper Triassic of the Central European Basin reported to date.[107]
  • Milàn & Vallon (2025) study dinosaur tracks from the Middle Jurassic Bagå Formation (Denmark), interpreted as evidence of presence of a diverse dinosaur fauna unknown from skeletal remains.[108]
  • New tracksites including sauropod tracks and dominated by ornithischian tracks are described from the Middle Jurassic Dansirit Formation (Shemshak Group, Iran) by Xing, Abbassi & Chen (2025).[109]
  • Deiques et al. (2025) report the discovery of new dinosaur tracks from the Upper Jurassic Guará Formation (Brazil), including second record of an ankylosaur track and the best preserved theropod track from the formation reported to date.[110]
  • Evidence from the study of stable calcium isotope data from tooth enamel of dinosaurs from the Carnegie Quarry at Dinosaur National Monument (Morrison Formation; Utah, United States), interpreted as indicating that Allosaurus did not consume significant amounts of bone, as well as indicative of niche partitioning between Camarasaurus and Camptosaurus, is presented by Norris et al. (2025).[111]
  • Mao et al. (2025) describe a new nest with dinosaur eggs from the Lower Cretaceous Xintan Formation (Anhui, China), and name a new faveoloolithid oospecies Parafaveoloolithus wannanensis.[112]
  • Romilio et al. (2025) reconstruct an ornithopod trackway from the Lower Cretaceous strata from the Browns Creek tracksite (Eumeralla Formation; Victoria, Australia), and report the discovery of new theropod tracks from the same track horizon.[113]
  • A new assemblage of dinosaur tracks, including sauropod tracks and possible tracks of bipedal dinosaurs, is described from the Lower Cretaceous (Albian) strata of the Madongshan Formation from the Yaoshan site (China) by Yang et al. (2025).[114]
  • Carrano (2025) identifies the first tyrannosauroid and neoceratopsian fossil material from the Lower Cretaceous Newark Canyon Formation (Nevada, United States).[115]
  • Xing et al. (2025) describe new dinosaurs tracks from the Cretaceous (Albian to Coniacian) strata of the Shaxian Formation at the Longxiang site (Fujian, China) and review known record of dinosaur tracks from this site, confirming that the studied track assemblage is dominated by tracks produced by ankylopollexian ornithopods, but also includes theropod (including probable large-bodied deinonychosaur) and sauropod tracks.[116]
  • New assemblage of dinosaur footprints, including ceratopsid, tyrannosaurid, probable ankylosaurian and small theropod-like footprints, is described from the Campanian Dinosaur Park Formation (Alberta, Canada) by Bell et al. (2025).[117]
  • Yu et al. (2025) report the discovery of new tyrannosaurid, dromaeosaurid (dromaeosaurine and velociraptorine), titanosaur and hadrosauroid teeth from the Upper Cretaceous Nenjiang Formation, providing new information on the diversity of Late Cretaceous dinosaurs from the Songliao Basin (China).[118]
  • A study on habitat preferences of Campanian and Maastrichtian dinosaurs from south-western Europe is published by Vázquez López et al. (2025).[119]
  • Van Der Linden et al. (2025) provide the first description of a fragment of a dinosaur eggshell from the Maastrichtian Lance Formation (Wyoming, United States), assigned to the oofamily Ovaloolithidae and produced either by a theropod or by an ornithopod.[120]
  • A study on the structure of the latest Cretaceous dinosaur fossil record from North America is published by Dean et al. (2025), who argue that research on diversity dynamics of dinosaurs before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event is hampered by geological sampling biases.[121]
  • Weaver et al. (2025) link the widespread facies shifts in western North America during the Cretaceous–Paleogene transition to the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, arguing that non-avian dinosaurs likely promoted open habitats and that their extinction might have resulted in widespread emergence of dense forest cover.[122]

Saurischian research

  • Garcia, Martínez & Müller (2025) identify pathological marks on the skull bones of herrerasaurid specimens representing the oldest record of pathologies in dinosaurs reported to date, and interpret those lesions as likely resulting from agonistic behaviour of the studied dinosaurs.[123]
  • Theropod and sauropod trace fossils, including possible drag marks and evidence of trampling, are described from the Lower Jurassic Kota Formation (India) by Rozario & Dasgupta (2025).[124]
  • New assemblage of theropod and sauropod tracks produced in a lagoonal margin environment is described from the Middle Jurassic Kilmaluag Formation (United Kingdom) by Blakesley et al. (2025).[125]
  • Gesualdi et al. (2025) describe sauropod and theropod tracks from the Upper Jurassic – Lower Cretaceous Chacarilla Formation (Chile), providing evidence of presence of small, medium and large-bodied theropod in the subtropical arid environments of Gondwana during the Jurassic-Cretaceous transition.[126]
  • A study on the purported swimming sauropod trail from the Mayan Dude Ranch tracksite in the Lower Cretaceous Glen Rose Formation (Texas, United States), as well as on the second manus-dominated sauropod trackway and on the theropod track from the same track horizon, is published by Adams et al. (2025), who interpret the studied tracks as unlikely to be produced by dinosaurs that buoyed in deep water.[127]
  • A tooth of a theropod distinct from Sinotyrannus, as well as a titanosauriform tooth representing the youngest sauropod fossil from the Jehol Biota reported to date, are described from the Lower Cretaceous Jiufotang Formation (China) by Yin et al. (2025).[128]
  • Olmedo-Romaña et al. (2025) describe fossil material of dinosaurs from the Campanian-Maastrichtian strata of the Fundo El Triunfo Formation (Peru), including postcranial remains of titanosaur sauropods and theropod teeth which might represent the youngest record of spinosaurids reported to date and the first record of the group from western South America.[129]
  • Marković et al. (2025) report the discovery of theropod and sauropod fossil material from the Maastrichtian strata from the Osmakovo fossil site, representing the first body fossils of non-avian dinosaurs reported from Serbia.[130]

Theropod research

  • A study on the shape and growth of snouts and beaks of extinct theropods and extant birds, providing evidence of a conserved growth pattern of the rostrum throughout the evolutionary history of theropods, is published by Garland et al. (2025).[131]
  • Marques et al. (2025) compare the performance of different machine learning models used for identification of isolated theropod teeth.[132]
  • Tracks produced by both large and multiple smaller-bodied theropods are described from the Middle Jurassic strata of the Valtos Sandstone and Kilmaluag formations (Scotland, United Kingdom) by Blakesley et al. (2025).[133]
  • Theropod tracks assigned to three co-occurring ichnotaxa are described from the Lower Jurassic strata of the Peyre site (Causses Basin, France) by Moreau, Sciau & Jean (2025).[134]
  • Piñuela et al. (2025) report the discovery of a theropod footprint preserved with a detached sandstone undertrack from the Upper Jurassic Lastres Formation (Spain), providing evidence of foot movement through the sediment and evidence of changes of footprint morphology at different levels of sediment depth, with some of the successive footprint outlines showing similarities to footprints of members of different dinosaur groups; the authors also reevaluate the type series of the ichnotaxon Iguanodontipus, and argue that some of the studied footprints might have been produced by a theropod.[135]
  • Buntin et al. (2025) report the discovery of new mating display scrapes of theropods from the Cenomanian strata of the Dakota Sandstone at Dinosaur Ridge (Colorado, United States), and interpret the site preserving the studied traces as likely to be a lek site.[136]
  • Evidence from the study of theropod tracks from the Maastrichtian strata from the Torotoro National Park (Bolivia), indicating that the formation of tail traces associated with the studied trackways was related to walking kinematics of theropods in soft substrate, is presented by McLarty et al. (2025).[137]
  • Indeterminate theropod phalanges with similarities to phalanges of digging mammals are described from the Turonian Bissekty Formation (Uzbekistan) by Averianov (2025).[138]
  • Ősi, Kolláti & Nagy (2025) report evidence of greater diversity of teeth of Late Cretaceous theropods from Central Europe than recognized in earlier studies, and interpret the studied teeth of large tetanurans as indicative of feeding patterns similar to those of the Komodo dragon.[139]
  • A new theropod specimen, likely distinct from Sinosaurus triassicus and Shuangbaisaurus anlongbaoensis and related to averostrans, is described from the Lower Jurassic Lufeng Formation (China) by Li et al. (2025).[140]
  • Cau & Paterna (2025) describe new theropod fossil material from the Kem Kem Group (Morocco) and revise Bahariasaurus and Deltadromeus, interpreting the former taxon as an abelisauroid showing convergences with the ornithomimosaurs and a senior synonym of the latter taxon; the authors also confirm that the fossil material originally attributed to Kryptops palaios includes both abelisaurid and allosauroid remains, and argue that the fossil material originally attributed to Eocarcharia dinops includes both spinosaurid and allosauroid remains.[141]
  • Rocha et al. (2025) describe an isolated abelisauroid teeth from the Cenomanian Açu Formation (Brazil), including a probable noasaurid tooth representing the first record of the group from the Potiguar Basin.[142]
  • Evidence from the study of a new dentary of Berthasaura leopoldinae, indicating that this theropod lost its teeth during its ontogeny, is presented by Pierossi et al. (2025).[143]
  • A study on bone histology of Ceratosaurus, providing evidence of faster growth rate than in Late Cretaceous members of Ceratosauria, is published by Sombathy, O'Connor & D'Emic (2025).[144]
  • A study on the body size evolution in Ceratosauria, providing evidence of a trend towards decreased body size in noasaurids and of constraints on the increase of body size in abelisaurids, is published by Seculi Pereyra, Pérez & Méndez (2025).[145]
  • Ribeiro et al. (2025) study the affinities of isolated theropod teeth from the Cretaceous Açu Formation (Brazil), reporting the first noasaurid record for the studied formation and identifying four morphotypes of abelisaurid teeth, interpreted as possible evidence of predominance of abelisaurids in the theropod assemblage found in the studied formation.[146]
  • A study on the maxillary shape of abelisaurids and its relation to feeding ecology is published by Seculi Pereyra et al. (2025), who find evidence of morphological similarities between the maxillae of Spectrovenator and Late Cretaceous abelisaurids, interpreted as likely to be specialist hunters holding and killing prey with their jaws.[147]
  • Hendrickx et al. (2025) revise the fossil record of isolated abelisaurid teeth from the Jurassic and Cretaceous strata from Gondwana, identify abelisaurid teeth in the Bathonian Sakaraha Formation (Madagascar) and in the Upper Jurassic Tacuarembó Formation (Uruguay), and study the evolution of abelisaurid tooth morphology.[148]
  • A study on the microstructure of teeth and periodontium of an abelisaurid specimen from the Candeleros Formation (Argentina), providing evidence of patterns of tooth formation and replacement in abelisaurids that were comparable with those of other amniotes, is published by Cerda & Porfiri (2025).[149]
  • An abelisaurid humerus with the morphology intermediate between those of noasaurids and those of Campanian-Maastrichtian abelisaurids is described from the Santonian Bajo de la Carpa Formation (Argentina) by Méndez et al. (2025).[150]
  • Paulina-Carabajal et al. (2025) describe abelisaurid remains representing the first theropod fossils from the Upper Cretaceous Angostura Colorada and Coli Toro formations (Argentina).[151]
  • Buffetaut (2025) revises the type material of Genusaurus sisteronis and identifies anatomical traits suggestive of affinities with furileusaurian abelisaurids.[152]
  • Redescription of the anatomy of the appendicular skeleton of Piatnitzkysaurus floresi and a study on the phylogenetic affinities of this species is published by Pradelli, Pol & Ezcurra (2025).[153]
  • Theropod teeth identified as belonging to members of the groups Spinosauridae, Metriacanthosauridae, Allosauria and Tyrannosauroidea are described from the Upper Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous Khorat Group (Thailand) by Chowchuvech et al. (2025), who interpret the studied teeth as suggestive of a theropod faunal turnover during the Early Cretaceous.[154]
  • Isasmendi et al. (2025) describe new fossil material of early-branching tetanurans and baryonychine spinosaurids from the Lower Cretaceous Golmayo Formation (Spain), including a large-bodied baryonychine from the Zorralbo I locality.[155]
  • Puntanon & Samathi (2025) review the Cretaceous fossil record of spinosaurids from Asia.[156]
  • Puntanon, Suteethorn & Samathi (2025) describe spinosaurid teeth from Hin Lat Yao locality (Sao Khua Formation, Thailand), tentatively identified as belonging to a taxon distinct from Siamosaurus.[157]
  • Rauhut, Canudo & Castanera (2025) revise the fossil material originally attributed to Camarillasaurus cirugedae and new fossil material from its type locality, interpret C. cirugedae as a spinosaurine spinosaurid, recover Iberospinus and Vallibonavenatrix as members of Spinosaurinae, and consider Protathlitis cinctorrensis to be a probably chimeric nomen dubium of uncertain affinities.[158]
  • Evidence indicating that oxygen isotope composition in tooth dentine of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus can be used as a proxy for environmental reconstructions is presented by Liu et al. (2025), who record oxygen isotope variability in the dentine of the studied theropod, interpreted as likely reflecting seasonal environmental changes.[159]
  • Description of new fossil material of Allosaurus from the Andrés fossil site (Portugal) and a taxonomic revision of this genus is published by Malafaia et al. (2025), who interpret A. fragilis and A. jimmadseni as the only valid species of Allosaurus from the Late Jurassic of North America, and consider the holotype of Allosaurus europaeus to be a specimen of A. fragilis.[160]
  • Kotevski et al. (2025) describe new fossil material of theropods from the Lower Cretaceous Strzelecki Group and Eumeralla Formation (Australia), including the first carcharodontosaurian fossils from Australia, bones of large-bodied megaraptorids and a tibia of a member of Unenlagiinae.[161]
  • Oswald et al. (2025) revise purported teeth of Acrocanthosaurus from the Sonorasaurus Quarry in the Turney Ranch Formation of Arizona and the Long Walk Quarry in the Ruby Ranch Member of the Cedar Mountain Formation (Utah), describe additional allosauroid teeth from three localities in the Yellow Cat Member of the Cedar Mountain Formation, and interpret the studied fossils as possible evidence of presence of fossil material of up to four carcharodontosaurid taxa in the Cedar Mountain Formation.[162]
  • Averianov et al. (2025) describe a maxilla of a member of the genus Ulughbegsaurus from the Cenomanian Khodzhakul Formation (Uzbekistan), and interpret its morphology as supporting the attribution of Ulughbegsaurus to the family Carcharodontosauridae.[163]
  • A tooth of a carcharodontosaurid related to Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus is described from the Lower Cretaceous strata of the Itapecuru Formation (Brazil) by França et al. (2025).[164]
  • Calvo et al. (2025) report the first discovery of the humerus of an adult specimen of Megaraptor namunhuaiquii from the Upper Cretaceous Portezuelo Formation (Argentina), and interpret its anatomy as indicating that M. namunhuaiquii and Gualicho shinyae were not closely related.[165]
  • A study on the biogeography of Megaraptora and Tyrannosauroidea is published by Morrison et al. (2025), who argue that megaraptorans had a cosmopolitan distribution before the splitting of Laurasia and Gondwana, that gigantism evolved multiple times in tyrannosauroids and its evolution might have been related to cooling climate, and that direct ancestors of Tyrannosaurus likely migrated into North America from Asia.[166]
  • A study on the evolution of adaptations to cursoriality in the hindlimbs of theropod dinosaurs and on the origin of arctometatarsus in members of Coelurosauria is published by Kubo & Kobayashi (2025)[167]
  • Romilio & Xing (2025) study a nearly 70-metres-long theropod trackway (possibly produced by Yutyrannus) from the Cretaceous Jiaguan Formation (China), and present a reconstruction of the locomotion of the trackmaker.[168]
  • Voris et al. (2025) study changes of the endocranial morphology of Gorgosaurus libratus during its ontogeny, and report that endocasts of juvenile Gorgosaurus show better defined details of the brain morphology compared to mature specimens.[169]
  • Scherer (2025) reeavulates evidence for anagenesis in tyrannosaurine tyrannosaurids, and recovers species belonging to the genus Daspletosaurus as forming an evolutionary grade within Tyrannosaurinae, but does not recover Daspletosaurus as a direct ancestor of Tyrannosaurini.[170]
  • Warner-Cowgill et al. (2025) describe a new specimen of Daspletosaurus from the Judith River Formation (Montana, United States), report evidence of the presence of a combination of anatomical features unknown in other members of the genus, and interpret the anatomy of the specimen as weakening the case that D. wilsoni and D. torosus are distinct species.[171]
  • Coppock et al. (2025) identify the Daspletosaurus specimen CMN 350 from the Dinosaur Park Formation as the first specimen of Daspletosaurus horneri from Alberta (Canada), and study variability of skull characteristics in members of this species.[172]
  • Yun, Delcourt & Currie (2025) study growth trajectories of skull bones of Tarbosaurus bataar, reporting evidence of ontogenetic changes similar to those seen in other tyrannosaurids, as well evidence of presence of variation that wasn't correlated with the size.[173]
  • Mitchell et al. (2025) analyze vessel-like structures within the fractured rib of the RSKM P2523.8 specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex, interpreted as angiogenic blood vessel casts, and interpret their preservation as aided by incomplete healing of the rib fracture.[174]
  • Paul (2025) revises tyrannosaurid fossil material from the Maastrichtian formations of the North American upper plains, and argues that multiple tyrannosaurid species were present in North America during the Latest Cretaceous.[175]
  • Carr (2025) studies the impact of the commercial trade on the sample size of specimens of Tyrannosaurus rex, finds that the rate of discoveries of fossils of T. rex made by commercial companies is higher than that of public trusts, but also reports that commercially collected T. rex fossils mostly remain in private collections or stockrooms, and that there are more fossils of T. rex in private hands than in public trusts.[176]
  • Carr (2025) restudies the holotype skull of Tyrannosaurus rex.[177]
  • Rowe & Rayfield (2025) compare cranial biomechanics of members of different groups of large-bodied theropods, find evidence of elevated cranial stress in tyrannosaurids related to increased head muscle volume and bite forces, unlike other theropods that experienced lower cranial stress, and interpret these differences as likely related to different feeding strategies of tyrannosaurids and other large theropods.[178]
  • Theda et al. (2025) describe a manual ungual and a metatarsal of an indeterminate ornithomimosaur from the Lower Cretaceous (Barremian to Aptian) strata in Balve (northwestern Germany).[179]
  • Isolated dentaries with similarities to bones of deinocheirids are described from the Upper Cretaceous Judith River Formation (Montana, United States) by Chinzorig et al. (2025).[180]
  • Meso et al. (2025) revise alvarezsaurid fossils from the Salitral Ojo de Agua locality (Allen Formation; Río Negro Province, Argentina) described by Salgado et al. (2009)[181] and an alvarezsaurid femur from the same locality originally described as an ornithopod femur by Coria, Cambiaso & Salgado (2007),[182] describe additional alvarezsaurid material from this locality, and interpret the studied fossils as likely bones of Bonapartenykus ultimus, providing new information on the body plan of members of Patagonykinae.[183]
  • A study on pneumatic structures in the vertebrae of cf. Bonapartenykus ultimus from the Allen Formation is published by Windholz et al. (2025).[184]
  • The conclusions of the study on the hearing acuity of Shuvuuia deserti published by Choiniere et al. (2021)[185] are contested by Manley & Köppl (2025).[186]
  • Evidence of carnivory in the holotype of Bannykus is presented by Wang et al. (2025).[187]
  • Evidence from the study of limb morphology of non-avian maniraptorans and birds, interpreted as indicating that evolution of maniraptoran limbs was not solely driven by functional specialization for flight, is presented by Nebreda, Hernández Fernández & Marugán-Lobón (2025).[188]
  • Smith (2025) reconstructs the musculature of the pectoral girdle and forelimbs of Falcarius utahensis.[189]
  • A model for forelimb function of Nothronychus graffami, based on muscular reconstruction of Smith (2021),[190] is presented by Smith (2025).[191]
  • Napoli et al. (2025) report evidence of presence of a pisiform in two newly prepared pennaraptoran specimens from the Upper Cretaceous strata from the Gobi Desert in Mongolia (Citipati cf. osmolskae and a troodontid), providing evidence of replacement of the ulnare by the pisiform before the origin of birds, and close to the origins of flight in theropods.[192]
  • Evidence indicating that digit loss and reduction of the rest of the forelimb in members of Oviraptorosauria were independent changes resulting from different evolutionary processes is presented by Mead, Funston & Brusatte (2025).[193]
  • Zhu et al. (2025) report the discovery of clutch of elongatoolithid eggs from the Upper Cretaceous Qiupa Formation (China), possibly produced by Yulong mini.[194]
  • Wang et al. (2025) report the discovery of elongatoolithid eggs from the Upper Cretaceous Zhangqiao Formation (Anhui, China), representing the first record of non-avian dinosaur eggs in the Hefei Basin.[195]
  • Foster, Norell & Balanoff (2025) describe two new specimens of Conchoraptor gracilis from the Baruungoyot Formation (Mongolia), present an updated diagnosis for Conchoraptor and differentiate C. gracilis from both Heyuannia yanshini and Khaan mckennai.[196]
  • New information on the structure and number of hindwing feathers in Microraptor is presented by Chotard et al. (2025), who report the first evidence of asymmetry of long metatarsal covert feathers in Microraptor, and report evidence of a configuration of feather layers in the hindwing of the studied taxon.[197]
  • Grosmougin et al. (2025) reconstruct the anatomy of the forewing of Microraptor on the basis of data from the study of four known and ten new specimens.[198]
  • Didactyl tracks likely produced by unenlagiine dromaeosaurids, and preserving traces likely left by claw on digit II resting on the substrate, are described from the Candeleros Formation (Argentina) by Heredia et al. (2025).[199]
  • Motta et al. (2025) study the phylogenetic affinities of unenlagiines, recover them as early-diverging members of Avialae, and support the inclusion of all Gondwanan paravians in the group.[200]
  • Description of the skeletal anatomy of Austroraptor cabazai is published by Motta & Novas (2025).[201]
  • Garros et al. (2025) study the histology of troodontid metatarsal bones from the Dinosaur Park Formation (Alberta, Canada), reporting evidence of pathologies in the studied fossil sample, and providing evidence of at least two different growth trajectories in the studied troodontids.[202]
  • Yun (2025) studies mandibular strength properties of troodontids, and interprets his findings as indicating that the anterior part of the snout might have been used for handling and grasping food items.[203]
  • Varricchio, Hogan & Gardner (2025) describe new troodontid material from the Two Medicine Formation (Montana, United States), and interpret Stenonychosaurus inequalis as a junior synonym of Troodon formosus.[204]
  • Evidence of similarities of fusion patterns of the axial column in Troodon formosus and extant emu is presented by Caldwell, Bedolla & Varricchio (2025).[205]
  • The first deinonychosaurian (probably troodontid) track from Japan is described from the Lower Cretaceous Kitadani Formation by Tsukiji, Hattori & Azuma (2025).[206]
  • Evidence from the study of isolated theropod teeth from the Molí del Baró-1 locality (Catalonia, Spain), interpreted as indicative of previously unrecognized diversity of paravians from the Ibero-Armorican island during the latest Cretaceous and of diverse feeding styles of the studied theropods, is presented by Castillo-Visa et al. (2025).[207]

Sauropodomorph research

  • Evidence from the study of vertebral columns of early-branching sauropodomorphs, interpreted as indicative of independent evolution of postcranial skeletal pneumaticity in sauropodomorphs, theropods and pterosauromorphs, is presented by Beeston et al. (2025).[208]
  • A study on the evolution of the morphology of the sauropodomorph astragalus, providing evidence of stepwise appearance of features seen in sauropods, is published by Lefebvre et al. (2025).[209]
  • Filek et al. (2025) calculate striking energy of the tail of Plateosaurus trossingensis, and argue that the tail of Plateosaurus could have been used for active defence.[210]
  • Description of a well-preserved specimen of Plateosaurus trossingensis from the Upper Triassic Klettgau Formation (Switzerland), preserving evidence of a pathology of its right scapula and humerus, is published by Dupuis et al. (2025), who diagnose the studied individual as likely affected by a chronic case of osteomyelitis.[211]
  • A study on the anatomy of the appendicular skeleton of Macrocollum itaquii is published by Fonseca, Bem & Müller (2025).[212]
  • Lania, Pabst & Scheyer (2025) describe the skull of a probable new massopodan taxon from the Late Triassic Klettgau Formation (Switzerland).[213]
  • Peyre de Fabrègues et al. (2025) describe new fossil material of Leyesaurus marayensis from the Balde de Leyes Formation (Argentina) and revise the anatomy of the holotype specimen of this species, identifying the holotype as a likely juvenile specimen.[214]
  • Mooney et al. (2025) describe fossil material of Massospondylus from the Lower Jurassic strata of the upper Elliot Formation (South Africa and Lesotho) including embryos within eggs and a hatchling, providing new information on the ontogeny of Massospondylus, and interpret the studied fossils as indicating that Massospondylus was quadrupedal during its early ontogeny and shifted to bipedalism later in life.[215]
  • Probable sauropodomorph (possibly basal sauropod) tracks are described from a new tracksite from the Norian Shahmirzad Formation (Shemshak Group; Iran) by Abbassi, Gharehbaghi & Maleki (2025).[216]
  • Toefy, Krupandan & Chinsamy (2025) study the bone histology of two sauropodiform specimens and one early sauropod from the Elliot Formation (South Africa), providing evidence that the three studied specimens underwent rapid growth but differed in the duration of uninterrupted growth, and argue that the change of growth dynamics throughout the evolutionary history of sauropodomorphs was more complex than a simple progression from slow, interrupted growth to fast, uninterrupted growth.[217]
  • Partial skull of an early member of Sauropodiformes, with long, sauropod-like teeth, is described from the Lower Jurassic Lufeng Formation (China) by Sundgren et al. (2025).[218]
  • Evidence of differences in dentition of Early Jurassic sauropods from the Cañadón Asfalto Formation (Argentina), possibly indicative of different feeding strategies and niche partitioning between sauropods from this formation, is presented by Gomez (2025).[219]
  • Description of the anatomy of the appendicular skeleton of Bagualia alba is published by Gomez et al. (2025), who also study morphological diversity of sauropodomorphs throughout their evolutionary history, and report evidence of shifts in morphospace occupation during the Jurassic related to the diversification of early sauropods and extinction of other sauropodomorphs, as well as to subsequent diversification of Neosauropoda.[220]
  • Gomez et al. (2025) reconstruct the brain and inner ear of Bagualia alba, and interpret their anatomy as indicative of gradual sensory changes during sauropod evolution.[221]
  • Kaikaew, Suteethorn & Chinsamy (2025) describe a pathologic mamenchisaurid ulna from the Early Cretaceous Phu Kradung Formation (Thailand), and diagnose the studied specimen as affected by an osteogenic tumor.[222]
  • Saleiro & Tschopp (2025) describe a previously unstudied collection of sauropod teeth from the Upper Jurassic strata in Portugal, identified as belonging to members of Turiasauria, Flagellicaudata, Camarasauridae and Titanosauriformes.[223]
  • Winkler et al. (2025) study tooth wear in Late Jurassic sauropods from Portugal, Tanzania and United States, and interpret their findings as consistent with a narrow dietary niche of camarasaurids and likely with their seasonal migrations following the availability of their preferred food source, with niche differentiation between camarasaurids and turiasaurs in Portugal, with a broad dietary niche and seasonal variation in diet in diplodocoids (possibly linked to limited migration compared to camarasaurids), and with consumption of food including more abrasives (possibly stemming from a nearby desert) by titanosauriforms from Tanzania compared to the ones from Portugal.[224]
  • Sauropod teeth identified as the oldest turiasaurian fossils from Africa reported to date are described from the Middle Jurassic El Mers III Formation (Morocco) by Woodruff et al. (2025).[225]
  • Lee & Slowiak (2025) propose a methodology to determine the preferred walking speeds of sauropods, focused on Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus, and Argentinosaurus.[226]
  • Dinosaur tracks from the Kimmeridgian strata from the Villette tracksite (France), sharing similarities with tracks attributed to thyreophorans, are identified as more likely to be tracks of a small-bodied sauropod by Sciscio et al. (2025).[227]
  • Mannion & Moore (2025) study the anatomy and phylogenetic relationships of Tharosaurus indicus, finding no evidence confirming its purported diplodocoid affinities, and reevaluate the phylogenetic relationships of diplodocoid sauropods.[228]
  • Eiamlaor et al. (2025) study pneumatic structures of cervical vertebrae of Phuwiangosaurus and a diplodocoid from the Sao Khua Formation (Thailand), and propose that Phuwiangosaurus was a titanosauriform more closely related to brachiosaurids than to Somphospondyli.[229]
  • Review of history of studies on diplodocoid sauropods and of status of research on their phylogeny, morphology, ecology, ontogeny and biogeography is published by van der Linden et al. (2025).[230]
  • A revision of the known material assigned to the genus Haplocanthosaurus is published by Boisvert et al. (2025).[231]
  • A study on the morphology of teeth, their replacement process and possible feeding ecology of Bajadasaurus pronuspinax is published by Garderes (2025).[232]
  • Lerzo & Gallina (2025) redescribe the left ilium of Cathartesaura anaerobica, and interpret its anatomy as consistent with the invasion of the space within the ilium by parts of the abdominal air sac that provided resistance to the thin ilium.[233]
  • A study on the range of motion of the vertebral series in the tail of Giraffatitan brancai is published by Díez Díaz et al. (2025).[234]
  • Redescription of Liaoningotitan sinensis is published by Shan (2025).[235]
  • Large fusioolithid eggs with thin eggshells, produced by titanosaurs, are described from the Upper Cretaceous Villalba de la Sierra Formation (Spain) by Sanguino et al. (2025), who name a new ootaxon Litosoolithus poyosi.[236]
  • Titanosaur tracks preserving details of the skin and soft tissue anatomy, including evidence of variation in scale morphology on feet and evidence that unguals on digits I and II of feet were largely covered in skin, are described from the Cretaceous strata from the Nemegt locality in Mongolia by Bell et al. (2025).[237]
  • Fronimos & Woodward (2025) study histology of ribs of a titanosaur specimen from the Upper Cretaceous strata in Texas, reporting evidence of bone remodeling also seen in appendicular skeletons of other titanosaurs, as well as evidence indicating that growth did not cease simultaneously in all ribs of the studied individual.[238]
  • Poropat et al. (2025) identify gut contents of a specimen of Diamantinasaurus matildae from the Cretaceous Winton Formation (Australia), providing evidence of bulk feeding and multi-level browsing resulting in consumption of conifers, seed ferns and flowering plants by the studied sauropod.[239]
  • Gomes Nascimento et al. (2025) summarize the records of titanosaurs from the Bauru Group (Brazil).[240]
  • Fossil material of lithostrotian titanosaurs assigned to two morphotypes, including caudal vertebrae preserved with rare pathological features, is described from the Upper Cretaceous Cambambe Basin (Brazil) by Lacerda et al. (2025).[241]
  • A study on the histology of the caudal vertebrae of Rocasaurus muniozi is published by Fernández, Windholz & Zurriaguz (2025), who find fibres that might be histological correlates for skeletal pneumaticity to be present but uncommon in the studied bones.[242]
  • A study on the anatomy of the atlas and axis of Neuquensaurus australis is published by Zurriaguz et al. (2025).[243]
  • Kim et al. (2025) study sauropod eggs from the Lower Cretaceous Sihwa Formation (South Korea), and report evidence of sauropods laying eggs on high ground encircled by water-filled channels within a braided river system, protecting their nests with channels serving as natural moats but risking floodings.[244]
  • Sauropod bones affected by osteomyelitis and preserving evidence of distinct manifestations of bone remodeling are described from the Santonian strata from the Ibirá locality (São José do Rio Preto Formation, Bauru Group, Brazil) by Aureliano et al. (2025).[245]
  • Silva Junior et al. (2025) study the resistance of femora of Diplodocus sp., Amargasaurus cazaui, Giraffatitan brancai, Dreadnoughtus schrani, Uberabatitan ribeiroi, Australotitan cooperensis and Neuquensaurus australis to stresses endured while the sauropods assumed bipedal stance, and argue that smaller sauropods such as saltasaurids were able to sustain a bipedal stance for extended periods.[246]

Ornithischian research

  • Romilio et al. (2025) describe new ornithischian footprints from the Lower Jurassic Precipice Sandstone (Queensland, Australia), and reaffirm the prevalence of ornithischian footprints across the Early Jurassic dinosaur tracksites from Australia.[247]
  • Barrett & Maidment (2025) revise the type material of Nanosaurus agilis, N. rex, Laosaurus celer, L. gracilis, L. consors and Drinker nisti, interpret these taxa as nomina dubia, and report the presence of dental and skull features in the fossil material of Drinker which were also present in pachycephalosaurs.[248]

Thyreophoran research

  • Sánchez-Fenollosa & Cobos (2025) describe a partial cranium and cervical vertebra referrable to Dacentrurus armatus from the Upper Jurassic Villar del Arzobispo Formation (Spain), representing the most complete stegosaurian skull from Europe reported to date, and provide a revised taxonomy and phylogenetic nomenclature of stegosaurs, naming a new clade Neostegosauria.[249]
  • Maidment et al. (2025) describe a new specimen of Spicomellus afer, confirming its ankylosaurian status and expanding on the anatomy of this genus.[250]
  • Rivera-Sylva et al. (2025) describe new fossil material of members of Ankylosauria from the Upper Cretaceous strata in Coahuila (Mexico), including fossils from the Maastrichtian Cañon del Tule Formation representing the youngest records of the group from Mexico reported to date.[251]
  • Cross, Fraass & Arbour (2025) study the variation in ankylosaur tooth morphology, find that multiple lines of evidence are needed for taxonomic identification of isolated ankylosaur teeth, and interpret the studied variation as possibly related to different dietary niches of ankylosaur subgroups.[252]
  • Álvarez Nogueira et al. (2025) report fragmentary remains of a possible parankylosaurian from the Allen Formation (Argentina), likely representing a taxon distinct from the coeval Patagopelta.[253]
  • Treiber et al. (2025) report the first discovery of fossil material of Struthiosaurus sp. from the Maastrichtian strata of the Haţeg Basin known as "Bărbat Formation" or "Pui Beds" (Romania), and review the ankylosaur fossil record from Transylvania.[254]
  • Arbour et al. (2025) describe tracks produced by ankylosaurids from the Cenomanian Kaskapau Formation and Dunvegan Formation (British Columbia and Alberta, Canada), interpreted as evidence of the presence of ankylosaurids in North America prior to the Campanian and their coexistence with non-ankylosaurid ankylosaurs during the mid-Cretaceous, and name a new ichnotaxon Ruopodosaurus clava.[255]
  • Yoon et al. (2025) identify probable ankylosaurid tracks, referred to as cf. Ruopodosaurus, from the Cenomanian Jindong Formation (South Korea).[256]

Cerapod research

  • Maidment et al. (2025) describe a fragmentary femur from the Middle Jurassic El Mers III Formation (Morocco) representing the oldest known fossil of a cerapodan dinosaur.[257]
  • A partial skeleton of a possible cerapodan dinosaur from the Middle Jurassic Kilmaluag Formation (United Kingdom) is described by Panciroli et al. (2025), representing the most complete non-avian dinosaur fossil found from Scotland to date.[258]
  • Pintore, Houssaye & Hutchinson (2025) compare the morphology of the femora of 35 ornithopod species and their adaptations to changes of body mass and locomotor habits throughout the evolutionary history of ornithopods, and interpret their findings as consistent with predominant quadrupedalism in hadrosaurids and varying amounts of bipedalism and quadrupedalism in other ornithopods.[259]
  • Description of a well-preserved skull of a juvenile specimen of Jeholosaurus shangyuanensis from the Lower Cretaceous Yixian Formation (China) and a study on the phylogenetic relationships of this species is published by Bertozzo et al. (2025).[260]
  • A study on the bone histology of Notohypsilophodon comodorensis and Sektensaurus sanjuanboscoi, as well as on the evolution on elasmarians and on their environment, is published by Ibiricu et al. (2025).[261]
  • A partial hindlimb of an ornithopod with probable elasmarian affinities, representing the most complete small-bodied ornithopod specimen from the Cenomanian Griman Creek Formation (Australia) reported to date, is described by Bell et al. (2025).[262]
  • Maíllo et al. (2025) study bone histology of a partial skeleton of a subadult ornithopod individual from the Cretaceous Maestrazgo Basin (Spain), providing evidence of variability of histology of bone elements used for studies of the skeletochronology of ornithopod specimens, depending on the studied taxon.[263]
  • Lucas, Ricketts & Dalman (2025) describe fossil material of cf. Tenontosaurus sp. from the Cretaceous (Aptian/Albian) strata of the Yucca Formation (Texas, United States), representing the southernmost record of a tenontosaur in the North American Western Interior reported to date.[264]
  • An anomoepodid track produced by a tracemaker with possible rhabdodontid affinity is described from the Campanian strata of Roztocze hills (Poland) by Gierliński, Jachymek & Szrek (2025).[265]
  • Guillermo-Ochoa et al. (2025) describe a track of a small ornithopod from the Albian-Turonian Arcurquina Formation (Peru), likely produced during an underwater locomotion.[266]
  • Devereaux et al. (2025) describe the cranial endocast of Fostoria dhimbangunmal.[267]
  • Sánchez-Fenollosa et al. (2025) describe new fossil material if ornithopods from the Upper Jurassic Villar del Arzobispo Formation (Spain), confirming the presence of large-bodied ankylopollexians in the studied area and providing the first evidence of presence of dryosaurids and small-sized ankylopollexians.[268]
  • Fossil material of a previously unrecognized, large-sized, early-diverging member of Ankylopollexia is described from the Upper Jurassic beds of the Lusitanian Basin (Portugal) by Rotatori et al. (2025).[269]
  • New ornithopod fossil material, interpreted as likely representing the oldest fossil material of members of Styracosterna from the Early Cretaceous of the Iberian Peninsula reported to date, is described from the Valanginian-Hauterivian strata of the Oncala or Enciso Group from the El Horcajo site (Spain) by García-Palou, Isasmendi & Torices (2025).[270]
  • A hadrosauroid humerus representing the oldest record of a member of the group from the Transylvanian Basin reported to date is described from the Campanian Sebeș Formation (Romania) by Ebner et al. (2025).[271]
  • Jiménez-Moreno et al. (2025) use mathematical models and modern ecological analogs to infer the population dynamics of Mexican hadrosauroids based on their estimated body mass, and suggest that smaller species had a higher average density compared to larger species, which had a lower average density.[272]
  • The partial skeleton of a hadrosaurid interpreted as the first member of the tribe Lambeosaurini reported from the Upper Cretaceous strata from South China is described from the Dalangshan Formation by Wang et al. (2025).[273]
  • Evidence of different mechanical performances of the jaws of Corythosaurus casuarius and Gryposaurus notabilis, possibly related to niche partitioning, is presented by Dudgeon & Evans (2025).[274]
  • Aureliano et al. (2025) study the internal vertebral microanatomy of Huallasaurus australis, finding evidence of resemblance of the vertebral vascular pattern to that of Silesaurus and no evidence of presence of invasive air sac diverticula.[275]
  • Bert et al. (2025) calculate resting and maximum metabolic rates of neonates of Maiasaura peeblesorum, interpreted as consistent with a physiology more similar to those of extant fast-growing endotherms than those of extant reptiles, and interpret Maiasaura as most likely altricial.[276]
  • Van der Reest et al. (2025) describe fossil material of Edmontosaurus sp. representing the first dinosaur elements from the Upper Cretaceous Brazeau Formation (Alberta, Canada) diagnosable to the genus level.[277]
  • Wroblewski (2025) describes fossil material of Stygimoloch spinifer from the Maastrichtian Ferris Formation (Wyoming, United States), representing the southernmost record of the species reported to date.[278]
  • Ishikawa et al. (2025) use computed tomography to describe a psittacosaurid skull similar to the holotype of Hongshanosaurus houi, and reinterpret this species as belonging to a distinct taxon in the genus Psittacosaurus, coining the new combination P. houi.[279]
  • Redescription of the anatomy of the skull of Archaeoceratops oshimai and a study on the phylogenetic relationships of basal ceratopsians is published by Wang, Zhang & You (2025).[280]
  • A study on the bone histology and growth of Liaoceratops yanzigouensis is published by Guo, He & Zhao (2025).[281]
  • Yun & Czepiński (2025) study changes of skull and mandible traits in Bagaceratops rozhdestvenskyi and Protoceratops andrewsi during their ontogeny, report evidence indicating that juveniles of the studied species were capable of feeding themselves, and possible evidence of a dietary shift during their ontogeny.[282]
  • Mallon et al. 2025 attributed a new parietal to Spinops found in the Dinosaur Park Formation (Canada, Saskatchewan). [283]
  • Mallon et al. (2025) report that fossil material of only one species of Triceratops (T. prorsus) was found in the lower Scollard Formation (Alberta, Canada) and Frenchman Formation (Saskatchewan, Canada), contemporaneous with the upper third of the Hell Creek Formation that also contains fossil material of T. prorsus, and interpret the fossil record of Triceratops as consistent with anagenetic relationship between the Triceratops horridus and T. prorsus.[284]
  • Enriquez et al. (2025) compare scale growth in Chasmosaurus belli, Prosaurolophus maximus and extant reptiles, and find that scale shapes were mostly retained through growth in the studied taxa.[285]
Remove ads

Birds

Summarize
Perspective

New bird taxa

More information Name, Novelty ...

Avian research

  • Review of the Mesozoic fossil record of avian soft tissue traces is published by O'Connor (2025).[306]
  • A study on the evolution of the ability of birds to move parts of the skull independently is published by Wilken et al. (2025), who link the appearance of this ability to changes of skeletal anatomy and musculature related to the expansion of neurocranium.[307]
  • Lowi-Merri et al. (2025) study the evolution of the sternum in the bird stem group, and find evidence of episodic acquisition of sternal traits related to adaptations to flight in members of the group progressively closer to extant birds.[308]
  • New specimen of Archaeopteryx, representing the third specimen belonging to this genus found in the Tithonian Mörnsheim Formation (Germany), is described by Foth et al. (2025).[309]
  • O'Connor et al. (2025) describe the Chicago specimen of Archaeopteryx, providing new information on the skeletal anatomy, soft tissues and feathers of Archaeopteryx.[310]
  • O'Connor et al. (2025) report probable evidence of presence of the bill tip organ and oral papillae in the Chicago specimen of Archaeopteryx, as well evidence of presence of a basihyal in this specimen suggestive of increased mobility of the tongue, and indicating that rostral features that increase feeding efficiency in extant birds appeared early in avian evolution, possibly in relation to increased caloric demands caused by flight.[311]
  • A study on the skeletal anatomy and phylogenetic affinities of Iberomesornis romerali is published by Castro-Terol et al. (2025).[312]
  • Evidence of preservation of melanosome structures in a head crest feather of a member of the genus Shangyang from the Lower Cretaceous Jiufotang Formation (China), interpreted as indicative of red to deep blue iridescent coloration, is presented by Li et al. (2025).[313]
  • Salgado et al. (2025) describe disarticulated fish remains associated with the holotype specimen of Cratoavis cearensis, interpreted as contents of the digestive tract of the studied bird.[314]
  • A study on the bone histology of Avimaia schweitzerae, Novavis pubisculata and Qiliania graffini is published by Atterholt, O'Connor & You (2025).[315]
  • Fossil material of a bird which might represent a previously unrecognized ornithuromorph species is described from the Lower Cretaceous strata of the Yixian Formation from the Chedaogou locality (Hebei, China) by Wang et al. (2025).[316]
  • A bird trackway with similarities to tracks produced by herons is described from the Cenomanian Dunvegan Formation (British Columbia, Canada) by Lockley, Plint & Helm (2025).[317]
  • Wilson et al. (2025) report the discovery of a new avialan assemblage from the Upper Cretaceous Prince Creek Formation (Alaska, United States), preserving fossils of crown or near-crown birds as well as members of Hesperornithes and Ichthyornithes, and providing the oldest evidence of birds nesting at polar latitudes reported to date.[318]
  • A study on correlates of soft tissues that were parts of the respiratory system and spinal vasculature in the vertebra of Ichthyornis dispar and Janavis finalidens is published by Atterholt et al. (2025), who report the first known evidence of presence of paramedullary diverticula in Mesozoic birds.[319]
  • Widrig et al. (2025) study the flight capabilities of Lithornis promiscuus, and interpret the studied bird as capable of continuous flapping and/or mixed flapping and gliding, rather than only tinamou-like burst flight, and as capable of long-distance flight.[320]
  • Evidence from the study of moa coprolites, indicating that moa ate and likely spread truffle-like fungi that are endemic to New Zealand, is presented by Boast et al. (2025).[321]
  • Thomas et al. (2025) describe a probable moa trackway from the Pleistocene Karioitahi Group (New Zealand), and name a new ichnotaxon Tapuwaemoa manunutahi.[322]
  • A study on hearing capabilities of dromornithids is published by McInerney, Handley & Worthy (2025), who consider their findings to be consistent with the interpretation of the studied birds as low-frequency sound producers.[323]
  • Torres et al. (2025) report the discovery of a new, nearly complete skull of Vegavis iaai, interpret its morphology as supporting phylogenetic affinities of Vegavis with Anseriformes, and report evidence of the presence of a feeding apparatus different from those of extant members of Anseriformes but similar to those of extant birds that capture prey underwater.[324]
  • Zonneveld, Naone & Britt (2025) describe foraging traces produced by waterbirds (possibly by Presbyornis pervetus) from the Eocene Green River Formation (Utah, United States), and name new ichnotaxa Erevnoichnus blochis, E. strimmena, Ravdosichnus guntheri and Aptosichnus diatarachi.[325]
  • Mayr & Kitchener (2025) report the first discovery of leg bones of Nettapterornis oxfordi from the Eocene London Clay (United Kingdom), study the phylogenetic relationships of the species, and name a new family Nettapterornithidae.[326]
  • A study on the phylogenetic relationships of the dodo and the Rodrigues solitaire is published by Parish (2025).[327]
  • Evidence from the fossil material of great bustards from the Taforalt cave site (Morocco), indicating that great bustards were breeding in the studied area (300 km east of the range of extant great bustards in Morocco) during the Late Pleistocene and that they were exploited by people who occupied the site, is presented by Cooper et al. (2025).[328]
  • Stervander et al. (2025) study the affinities of members of the genus Nesotrochis and assign them to the separate family Nesotrochidae, recovered by the authors as a sister lineage of adzebills.[329]
  • Sangster et al. (2025) identify the Hodgens' Waterhen as a member of the genus Porzana on the basis of mitochondrial data, and propose to change its English name to New Zealand giant crake.[330]
  • Dos Santos Lima, de Araújo-Júnior & de Souza Barbosa (2025) describe a footprint of a shorebird from the Oligocene Tremembé Formation, representing the first fossil avian footprint reported from Brazil and expanding known geographical range of the ichnogenus Ardeipeda.[331]
  • Trace fossils interpreted as record of a mating dance behavior of a bird (probably a plover) are described from the Miocene Upper Red Formation (Iran) by Abbassi (2025).[332]
  • A coracoid of a loon, interpreted as the oldest fossil a member of the group in Asia reported to date, is described from the upper Miocene strata of the Hyargas Nuur 2 locality in western Mongolia by Zelenkov (2025).[333]
  • Tennyson et al. (2025) describe a largely complete skull of a member of the genus Aptenodytes from the Tangahoe Formation (New Zealand), exceeding the average skull length of the emperor penguin and providing evidence of presence of such penguins in temperate Zealandia during the Waipipian stage (mid-Piacenzian).[334]
  • The oldest plotopterid skull reported to date is described from the Eocene Lincoln Creek Formation (Washington, United States) by Mayr, Goedert & Richter (2025), who interpret the anatomy of the studied specimen as supporting the affinities of plotopterids with Suloidea.[335]
  • The first Cenozoic ignotornid footprints from South America reported to date, interpreted as most likely produced by an ibis, are described from the Miocene Vinchina Formation (Argentina) by Farina, Krapovickas & Marsicano (2025), who name a new ichnotaxon Gragliavipes gavenskii and review the Cretaceous and Cenozoic avian ichnofamilies.[336]
  • Fragment of a tarsometatarsus of a New World vulture comparable in size with largest male specimens belonging to the genus Vultur is described from the Quaternary strata from the Canelón Chico locality (Uruguay) by Jones et al. (2025).[337]
  • Fossil plumage of a griffon vulture preserved in three dimensions is described from the Pleistocene strata of the Colli Albani volcanic complex (Italy) by Rossi et al. (2025).[338]
  • Hunt & Lucas (2025) describe a regurgitalite from the Eocene Messel Formation in Germany, preserving bird bones and likely representing the oldest known regurgitalite produced by an owl, as well a regurgitalite from the same formation preserving bones of a gecko and possibly produced by a raptor, name new ichnotaxa Paleostrigilithus mayri and Vomogecko messelensis, and interpret this finding as possible evidence of diurnal habits of Eocene owls.[339]
  • A study on the bone histology of Brontornis burmeisteri and Patagornis marshi is published by Garcia Marsà et al. (2025).[340]
  • Degrange, Tambussi & Witmer (2025) study the anatomy of skull regions of phorusrhacids associated with the loss of cranial kinesis, and report evidence of simplification of food-handling mechanics and increase of bite force throughout the evolutionary history of the group.[341]
  • Agnolin, Chafrat & Álvarez-Herrera (2025) describe new fossil material of Patagorhacos terrificus from the Miocene Chichinales Formation (Argentina), interpreted as supporting placement of the species within Phorusrhacidae.[342]
  • Purported brontornithid tibiotarsus from the La Venta locality in Colombia reported by Ortiz-Pabón et al. (2025)[343] is reinterpreted as fossil material of a phorusrhacid by Degrange et al. (2025), providing possible evidence of presence of fossil material of two phorusrhacid taxa at the site.[344]
  • Horváth (2025) describes new fossil material of birds from the Miocene and Pliocene sites in Hungary, including 10 taxa new to the Hungarian Neogene avifauna.[345]
  • Marqueta et al. (2025) describe bird assemblages from the Pleistocene levels of the Galls Carboners and Cudó caves (Spain), reporting evidence of presence of the pine grosbeak or a similar bird, which is no longer present in the study area.[346]
  • Syverson & Prothero (2025) study changes of the size or robustness of birds from the La Brea Tar Pits, and find evidence of previously undetected changes in the studied taxa, but report no evidence of a clear relationship between those changes and changes in temperature.[347]
  • Hering et al. (2025) describe subfossil bird burrows from the Tibesti Mountains (Chad), interpreted as possible nesting structures of birds such as bee-eaters, swallows or kingfishers living in the area during the African humid period.[348]
  • Zonneveld et al. (2025) revise traces produced by modern birds in marginal aquatic settings, and evaluate the possibilities of identification of such traces in the fossil record.[349]
Remove ads

Pterosaurs

Summarize
Perspective

New pterosaur taxa

More information Name, Novelty ...

Pterosaur research

  • Evidence of higher laminarity rates of wing bones of pterosaurs compared to their hindlimb bones is presented by Araújo et al. (2025).[360]
  • A study on the presence, volume, and capacity of the cervical musculature of pterosaurs is published by Buchmann & Rodrigues (2025), who interpret the reconstructed musculature as consistent with surface fishing foraging habits of Rhamphorhynchus muensteri and members of the genus Anhanguera, and with capture of small terrestrial prey by Azhdarcho lancicollis.[361]
  • Hone & Prondvai (2025) review the state of knowledge on the structure and function of uropatagium between the legs of pterosaurs.[362]
  • Purported pterosaur tracks reported from the Lower Cretaceous Patuxent Formation (Virginia, United States) by Weems & Bachman (2023)[363] are argued to be more likely results of erosion by McDavid & Thomas (2025).[364]
  • Bantim et al. (2025) describe two incomplete wing phalanges from the strata of the Romualdo Formation in Piauí (Brazil), extending known geographical range of pterosaurs in the Araripe Basin.[365]
  • Smyth et al. (2025) propose a catastrophic-attritional taphonomic model explaining the preservation of pterosaur fossils from the Solnhofen Limestone (Germany), interpreting small- to medium-sized pterosaur specimens as killed and quickly buried during storms, resulting in preservation of well-articulated specimens, while larger pterosaurs were preserved as fragmentary remains as a result of longer delay between their death and burial; the author also identify humeral fractures in early juvenile specimens of Pterodactylus antiquus interpreted as most likely resulting from excessive wing loading during flight, indicating that Pterodactylus was capable of taking flight at a very early age.[366]
  • Hone & McDavid (2025) describe the largest known specimen of Rhamphorhynchus muensteri (wingspan 1.8 metres (5.9 ft)) from the Solnhofen Limestone (Germany) and discuss its implications for anatomical transformations through ontogeny in the genus and other rhamphorhynchines.[367]
  • Jagielska et al. (2025) describe the osteology of Dearc sgiathanach and reconstruct its cranial and antebrachial musculature.[368]
  • Smyth et al. (2025) identify three pterosaur tracks morphotypes as produced by trackmakers belonging to the groups Ctenochasmatoidea, Dsungaripteridae and Neoazhdarchia, and interpret the distribution of pterosaur tracks as consistent with a mid-Mesozoic radiation of pterodactyloid pterosaurs into terrestrial niches.[369]
  • Mazin & Pouech (2025) identify five morphotypes of small- to medium-sized pterodactyloid tracks from the Tithonian strata of the Crayssac site (France).[370]
  • Hone, Lauer & Lauer (2025) report evidence of preservation of foot pad scales and webbing between the toes in a possible specimen of Germanodactylus cristatus from the Upper Jurassic strata from the Solnhofen region of Germany, as well as evidence of preservation of hand and foot soft tissues in a different pterodactyloid specimen reported from the Solnhofen Formation.[371]
  • Partial pterosaur humerus with similarities to the humerus of Cycnorhamphus suevicus is described from the Upper Jurassic strata in the Volga region (Russia) by Averianov & Lopatin (2025).[372]
  • A ctenochasmatid mandible representing the first finding of a pterodactyloid pterosaur fossil from the Upper Jurassic (Tithonian) Portland Limestone Formation (United Kingdom) is described by Smith & Martill (2025).[373]
  • Bennett (2025) revises Gnathosaurus subulatus and interprets both "Pterodactylus" micronyx and Aurorazhdarcho primordius as junior synonyms of this species.[374]
  • A study on tooth replacement in Forfexopterus is published by Zhou & Fan (2025).[375]
  • Redescription and a study on the affinities of Herbstosaurus pigmaeus is published by Ezcurra et al. (2025).[376]
  • Song et al. (2025) describe a pterosaur humerus from the Lower Cretaceous Lianmuqin Formation (China), interpreted as the first record of a member of Ornithocheiromorpha from the Tugulu Group.[377]
  • Xu, Jiang & Wang (2025) describe a new specimen of Hongshanopterus lacustris from the Lower Cretaceous Jiufotang Formation (China), providing new information on the anatomy of members of this species, and redescribe the holotype of Nurhachius ignaciobritoi.[378]
  • Pêgas (2025) presents a new phylogenetic analysis of Ornithocheiriformes, registers several pterosaur clades under the PhyloCode and names a new clade Anhangueroidea.[379]
  • An isolated tooth of a probable member of Ornithocheiriformes representing the first pterosaur fossil reported from the Lower Cretaceous Quiricó Formation (Brazil) is described by Fialho et al. (2025).[380]
  • Piazentin et al. (2025) describe a new mandible of Anhanguera robustus from the Romualdo Formation (Brazil), and reaffirm the validity of A. robustus.[381]
  • New specimen of Sinopterus preserving phytoliths and gastroliths in the abdominal cavity is described by Jiang et al. (2025), confirming hypotheses of herbivory in tapejarids.[382]
  • Alhalabi et al. (2025) describe a fragmentary humerus of a large-bodied azhdarchid from the Maastrichtian strata from the Palmyrides mountain chain, representing the first pterosaur record from Syria and providing evidence of presence of azhdarchids in nearshore environments.[383]
  • The first pterosaur tracks from the Lower Cretaceous Botucatu Formation (Brazil), likely produced by a member of Azhdarchoidea, are described by Lacerda, Fernandes & Leonardi (2025).[384]
  • Probable azhdarchoid and ornithocheiroid tracks are identified in the Lower Cretaceous (Barremian-Aptian) strata of the Enciso Group (Spain) by Pascual-Arribas et al. (2025).[385]
  • A study on the trophic relationships between pterosaurs and other taxa from the Romualdo Formation (Brazil), as indicated by mercury concentrations in their fossil remains, is published by Antonietto et al. (2025), who interpret the studied ornithocheiraeans as feeding on small fishes, and interpret the studied thalassodromines as opportunistic generalists.[386]
Remove ads

Other archosaurs

Summarize
Perspective

Other new archosaur taxa

More information Name, Novelty ...

Other archosaur research

  • Garcia & Müller (2025) revise the fossil record of probable pterosaur precursors from the Triassic strata of the Candelária Sequence of the Santa Maria Supersequence (Brazil) and study their phylogenetic affinities, recovering lagerpetids as an evolutionary grade ancestral to pterosaurs.[390]
  • Aureliano et al. (2025) compare the vertebra of the lagerpetid Venetoraptor gassenae and the pterosaur Caiuajara sp., and report evidence indicating that early signs of postcranial skeletal pneumaticity were already present in non-pterosaurian pterosauromorphs, and evidence of an increase of pneumatic complexity during pterosauromorph evolution.[391]
  • Tolchard, Perkins & Nesbitt (2025) describe new silesaurid fossil material from the base of the Dockum Group (Texas), providing evidence of continued presence of members of this group in the area of southwestern United States throughout the Late Triassic.[392]
  • Marsh (2025) identifies fossil material of a large silesaurid from the Petrified Forest Member of the Chinle Formation (Arizona, United States), and interpret both this specimen and a large coelophysoid theropod from the same locality as evidence of presence of large theropods and non-dinosaurian dinosauriforms in western North America before the Triassic–Jurassic extinction event.[393]
  • Lovegrove et al. (2025) describe a large silesaur femur from the Ladinian-Carnian Ntawere Formation (Zambia), and argue that the studied specimen and previously described silesaur femora from the same formation cannot be confidently referred to Lutungutali sitwensis.[394]
  • Probable new fossil material of Eucoelophysis baldwini is described from the strata of the Chinle Formation from the Hayden Quarry (New Mexico, United States) by Breeden et al. (2025).[395]
Remove ads

General research

  • Evidence from the study of bone pneumaticity in extant birds, indicating that studies of skeletal pneumaticity in extinct archosaurs that don't take soft tissues in the internal bone cavities into account might overestimate the volume fraction of pneumatic bones that was composed of air, is presented by Burton et al. (2025).[396]
  • Byrne et al. (2025) reconstruct the red blood cell size evolution in archosaurs on the basis of histological indicators of red blood cell size, and report evidence of increase of their size in crocodile-line archosaurs and decrease of their size in bird-line archosaurs.[397]
  • Xu & Barrett (2025) review the research on the evolutionary history of feathers from the preceding years.[398]
  • New tetrapod fossil assemblage, including lagerpetid and early-diverging sauropodomorph fossil material, is described from the Carnian strata from the lower exposures of the Niemeyer Complex (Brazil) by Doering et al. (2025).[399]
  • A study on the biogeography of Triassic pterosaurs and lagerpetids is published by Foffa et al. (2025), who interpret their findings as indicating that lagerpetids tolerated a broader range of environmental conditions than pterosaurs, resulting in expansion of pterosaur distribution only after the climate became more humid following the Carnian pluvial episode.[400]
  • Sena et al. (2025) measure metadiaphyseal and nutrient foramina openings in the femora of immature specimens of Halszkaraptor and Rhamphorhynchus, and calculate similar mass-independent maximal metabolic rates and blood flow rates for the studied archosaurs in spite of their different locomotion and ecology.[401]
  • Wang et al. (2025) describe new feather specimens from the Cretaceous amber from Myanmar, including a feather type with similarities to primitive feathers of non-avian theropods, preserved with melanosomes suggestive of a black color with a red luster, and a probable ornithothoracine (possibly enantiornithean) feather type preserved with melanosomes suggestive of a gray or black color.[402]
  • Hedge et al. (2025) revise archosaur eggshells from the Mussentuchit Member of the Cedar Mountain Formation (Utah, United States), and identify remains of eggs produced by oviraptorosaur theropods, ornithopods and a crocodylomorph.[403]
  • Brown et al. (2025) describe a cervical vertebra of a juvenile specimen of Cryodrakon boreas from the Dinosaur Park Formation (Alberta, Canada), preserved with a bite mark interpreted as likely produced by a crocodilian.[404]
  • Hunt & Lucas (2025) describe regurgitalites from the Lower Cretaceous La Huérguina Formation in Spain (preserving bird bones and likely produced by a theropod or a pterosaur), from the Upper Jurassic Nusplingen Limestone in Germany (preserving pterosaur bones and likely produced by a crocodyliform) and from the Oligocene White River Formation in Wyoming, United States (preseving rodent bones and likely produced by an owl), and name new ichnotaxa Hoyasemeticus sanzi, Flugsaurierbromus schweigerti and Bubobromus kathyhuntae.[405]
  • Link et al. (2025) describe a tibiotarsus of a large phorusrhacid from the Miocene strata from La Venta (Colombia), preserved with four pits interpreted as feeding traces left by a medium-sized caiman (possibly Purussaurus neivensis).[406]
Remove ads

References

Loading related searches...

Wikiwand - on

Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.

Remove ads
Remove ads