Prehistoric Planet (2022) Accuracy Review (Part 1/2) | Dino Documentaries RANKED #28

[@redraptorwrites6778]

Before the pitchforks come out because there will be a "Problems" section, at least wait until it comes out. Jumping on this ahead of time cause I can already hear the keyboards rushing to its defense.

[@slinkbubbles6069]

It’s fine

[@treyrex5987]

I can hear the distant RREEEEEEs coming right now.

[@doctorallosaurus7529]

I mean, nothing's perfect so Prehistoric Planet is bound to have some issues, though hopefully they're not too severe. But, judging that this video was pretty much only positives, I wouldn't think so.

[@Trosvvo]

You didnt talk about the _OUTSTANDING_ velociraptor design!!!

[@ItsCreaidan]

I hope you make more of these!

[@nono9543]

This was the first documentary that actually felt like the dinosaurs were legitimate animals. Which isn't to say that there haven't been good documentaries prior but it's the combination of a good budget and solid directing. My stoner friend who saw the T.Rex scene freaked out because he believed it was real for a few seconds.

[@curious5887]

Walking with Dinosaur

[@yusufcanbaz8194]

@@curious5887 my first thot

[@hypn0298]

WWD was the first one

[@BugsandBiology]

@@hypn0298 Even WWD was a bit “awesomebro” at times, although not nearly as much as WWM. But it was definitely a big step in the right direction.

[@OK-wh5vt]

@@BugsandBiology literally the only scenes that could be seen as "awesome bro" are the lio scenes Walking with dinosaurs was one of the reasons that paleo documentaries became popular in the first place

[@GTSE2005]

Let's be real: T.rex hissing and bellowing softly is much scarier than roaring at the top of its lungs.

[@MourningCoffeeMusic]

💯💯💯

[@Latter0verVeiw5]

Exactly

[@AAC1714]

Easily imagine being in dark woods that block out the sun and feeling that come up through the bones in your feet

[@justme-jn2ur]

U guys are weird scared of a t rex bellowing rather than a t rex roaring loudly

[@kentrosaurusboi3909]

​@@justme-jn2ur It's because it's realistic, roaring loudly wouldn't help it hint anything in any way. Plus it's a documentary.

[@lvl5dino749]

Prehistoric Planet was such a great series. It is too bad that they still missed some new discoveries that occurred during its production, like Nanuqsaurus not being as small as shown, but closer to 3 tonnes. Nevertheless, the series was amazing, and I hope we get more good documentaries like it.

[@JoseHernandez-xv2bt]

They could “retcon” if they make more episodes and say that the trio were subadults

[@mhdfrb9971]

I'm still disappointed of how lacks of Crocodylomorphs in this series

[@ender_z4nd3r83]

You here, lol

[@mhdfrb9971]

@@ender_z4nd3r83 why can't he criticise it?

[@ender_z4nd3r83]

@@mhdfrb9971 what? He is just my friend and I didn't know he watched red raptor

[@brianlevine871]

Just seeing these extinct creatures perform such unconventional behaviors is enough for me to love this documentary. Even if some of them might be stretching it, this is still a major breath of fresh air and a great way of showing more depth to dinosaurs and the other animals of their time. And aside from some of the water effects, all of the animals are beautifully rendered, to the point where I'd believe these were actually filmed on camera rather than just CGI models.

[@adamtruong1759]

I would say the dromaeosaurids and troodontid in Prehistoric Planet showcase easily my favorite depictions of dinosaur intelligence, even if being an arsonist was likely not a thing yet at the time. The small predatory dinosaurs in general (Mononykus, too) have combined good looks and accuracy I that I never thought possible before. Not to mention the huge revelations I had experienced when I first saw the T-rex design. 4:39 I love that reference to the new Puss in Boots movie, I'm still obsessing over that film ever since I watched in theaters.

[@Specogecko]

The thumb spikes having a use in intraspecifuc combat in sauropods is something i absolutely love

[@kaiju115]

Absolutely loved Prehistoric Planet, I hope we get more of this show in the future, with not only more Cretaceous Era Dinosaurs, but also Late Triassic, & Jurassic Era. EDIT: well, well, well Season 2 is happening!!!

[@LoudmouthReviews]

The thing about doing much earlier time periods is it would make using live action backgrounds much harder because the flora would be much more different. The late Maastrichtian age of Prehistoric Planet is closer to our time than to the Jurassic and the plant life was more like the plant life of today then to the Jurassic Period. That said with modern digital editing tools you can easily paint out any inaccurate flora

[@kaiju115]

@@LoudmouthReviews true, true, still I hope we get a new season of Prehistoric Planet, if not more shows like it down the road.

[@LoudmouthReviews]

@@kaiju115 Netflix has a series called Life on our Planet later this year narrated by Morgan Freeman that will also over Prehistoric life in this fashion and is suppose to also have a big budget. It will have 8 episodes but unlike Prehistoric Planet will be set in multiple different time periods from the Carboniferous to the most recent ice age

[@alienstar2088]

I personally really enjoy the speculative additions to this series. Many of them make sense and I see no real reason as to why anyone would consider them a negative. Paleontology practically thrives on speculation and it's amazing to see such ideas take a very natural stance.

[@juanyusee8197]

FYI, the paper assigning _Tethydraco_ as an azhdarchid is an objectively poor one actually, with no phylogenetic analysis done at all (which is not a good sign), and its argument of it being an azhdarchid is based on their referred specimen which likely isn't even _Tethydraco_ to begin with (there's only loose similarity between holotype and referred specimen, including a wrongly interpreted 'similarity' between them). Not only the Labita/Martill paper utterly fails to put up a convincing enough argument that the pteranodontid interpretation is wrong, every phylogenetic analysis that includes _Tethydraco_ still recovers it as a pteranodontid, so Prehistoric Planet's interpretation still holds up as the pteranodontid interpretation is supported by phylogenetic analyses and is a repeatable conclusion from the available data, while the azhdarchid interpretation fails on both counts. The post-Labita/Martill studies that actually used phylogenetic analysis on _Tethydraco_ and recovered it as a pteranodontid: -Andres 2021, _Quetzalcoatlus_ monograph (Phylogenetic systematics of _Quetzalcoatlus_ Lawson 1975 (Pterodactyloidea: Azhdarchoidea)) -Pegas et al. 2021, _Aerotitan_ -Fernandes et al. 2022, _Epapatelo_ Also FYI the supposed relation between crocs and plovers is actually a myth.

[@pugg0wugg083]

4:39 - The Whistle of Death?! Very cool! 9:35 - If I recall correctly, this Troodontid segment was based on the Dinosaur Park Formation. 13:00 - Skill issue on the Nyctosaurines' part. 13:33 - They realized that Afton was right. The annoying children must go. 15:24 - That "hairless" Ornithocheirid is cursed. 15:50 - I think they were covered in a thin layer of mid-length hair-like filaments. My personal speculation. 16:16 - The gremlin child must be protected at all costs! 17:10 - Considering that T. rex was covered in the kinds of scales feathers would grow in between, I think floofy babies are very possible. 17:55 - My only problem with the Lambeosaurines in this show are that they have scutes along their backs, which to my limited knowledge, are only found in Saurolophines. 18:45 - I believe it's pronounced (Kai-oo-ah-zha-ra). The Carnotaurus model was made before the 2021 study on Carno scales was published, and there was no time to change it. I do think that it's possible that Carno might've had osteoderms along the midline of its back like the GOATed Ceratosaurus, but no other osteoderms anywhere else on its body.

[@Chef_Mordo]

Actually, I think the Troodontid segment was based on the troodontid found at the Prince Creek Formation in Alaska.

[@tessab.6351]

Ah, at last, we find another person In habituating this earth that both likes palaeontology and five nights at freddies

[@speedracer2008]

This video was a long time coming and it didn’t disappoint. I’m looking forward to your review on Prehistoric Predators. Although it definitely suffers from an overemphasis on how animals killed their prey, they definitely did their research in a few areas. For one thing, they pointed out that the modern great white shark wasn’t the best comparison for Otodus megalodon before it became more frequently pointed out in the 2010s. They also point out that, contrary to what was once thought, terror birds didn’t live until about 10,000 years ago, but, instead, died out about 2 million years ago. Finally, they pointed out that Smilodon wouldn’t have been a pursuit predator, but had a stocky build that was best suited for quick bursts of speed and tackling prey to the ground.

[@speedracer2008]

@@dineobellator_-yf7ki True. I meant the big birds that we consider terror birds, like Titanis walleri.

[@tylerscott8015]

honestly kinda liked that there was so many pterosaurs in this series, I feel like they get overlooked a lot despite being some of the most alien and interesting prehistoric animals, which is something I didn't really appreciate before. The first vertebrates to evolve flight and mastered the skies for well over a hundred million years and today not a single one remains, yet in most media we take them for granted as just being oversized birds. Seeing the proper wing morphology, movement on land, nesting habits, and how they launch into powered flight was pretty neat (imo)

[@Dinosaur_Nightlight]

I feel like for every bit of media you love you should be able to delve into why or why it doesn't work. This just emphasizes how you can acknowledge the massive pros of current and up-to-date knowledge on these creatures and the cons of what doesn't necessarily work or is just silly. Overall, I love the series and love the video, the "problems" section will be good to see to understand the critique! Also LOVE the death whistle from Puss in Boots here, absolutely spot on!

[@Jigglypoundage]

Just started and I’m hyped already. Was literally just going to recommend prehistoric predators. I loved that series growing up!

[@ryonhatcher4561]

I'm so hyped that you're finally covering Prehistoric Planet! Great idea making it a two part Episode, since the Show is mostly filled with positives. I'm sure there's some inaccuracies and outdated content in Prehistoric Planet. No Dino Doc is perfect, regardless of how much work is put into it.

[@johnheed8933]

That's true. For example, the Carnotaurus. During the making of this show it was discovered that the osteoderms were more randomly patterned on the skin, but the model was already finalized and they couldn't change it. Still the best looking Abelisaurid in any dino doc though.

[@jabbarmuhammad]

Oh my God this is got to be the best dinosaur documentary I ever seen in my life I have got to have the DVD of this documentary

[@klaud679]

Mad respect for my science teacher making us watch this show

[@wyattgoralski818]

You've got it lucky.

[@averageminecraftenjoyer9419]

Bro that is the chaddest teacher ever to exist,please be friends with him

[@velociraptor4you3291]

Since day one, I have maintained that this is *ONE OF* the best paleo-documentaries I’ve seen, *period* (new _or_ older). Even having now seen your Part 2 and am now aware of what _minor_ flaws this does have, its attention to detail and incorporation of the most up-to-date paleontological discoveries is truly _worth_ the praise (👏). I’m genuinely looking forward to Season 2 (😁)!

[@kickerwhitelion7626]

Minor attracted reptile got me, that was hilarious.

[@killiansimpson]

Hey Red raptor you haven’t done a Dino doc in a long time it’s awesome to see this review about this wonderful documentary hope you have a great day

[@StopMotionDryptosaurus]

Can’t wait for part 2. Love your content.

[@Lycan3303]

Random Baby Dino: "who are you" Every Carnivore in every Dino doc: "Death. And I don't mean it metaphorically or rhetorically or poetically or theoretically or any other fancy way. I AM DEATH. STRAIGHT UP! And I have come for you"

[@Yokomation]

i have seen this everyone morning and i still do sometimes, i still think of of the more insane things Prehistoric Planet did was how normal it made masiakasaurus look.

[@catpoke9557]

Same!! I go nuts over that. Depictions on Google make masiakasaurus look like a living paper shredder. Always mouth agape with the wildest, sharpest teeth. Not here. Just a regular animal.

[@hypersonicpaleofighterdinosaur]

Today's my birthday and I love dinosaurs, so it is a joy to watch this.

[@Astrapionte]

Oh my gawd if only you knew how much I've waited for you to cover this series!

[@suchomimustenerensis]

Interestingly Alcione had shortened wings which leads to some paleontologists theorizing that Alcione was a diver like modern Gannets and Shearwaters.Kinda wish they showed such in Prehistoric Planet.

[@bladeable1283]

YES! I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS, I LOVE THIS VID!

[@FaissalsAnimation]

As a Moroccan I had no idea Morocco had so many pterosaur fossils the only fossils I've seen here are of Atlasaurus and some prehistoric shark that I had at home

[@arturosandovalsaito2704]

This is a great review and I can’t wait for the second part. Are you also going to review “Life on our planet” after it releases?

[@WasThisMail]

Hopefully, this series sparks a new dino docu revolution, so you have many more series to review.

[@tongatapu7325]

My favorit design (and segment) might actually be Olorotitan. Only other contenders would be Deinocheirus and Dreadnoughtus. And the only bigger issue I have is with Kaikaifilu, who has an inaccurate head shape and a tail that is too short (as a Tylosaurine, its head should be longer and pointy while its tail should be longer than that of Mosasaurus).

[@torox6996]

Finally the video we've been waiting for

[@tyrannotherium7873]

omg i can't wait till you review prehistoric predators

[@danktorvosaurus]

Note: you also missed Flying Monsters with David Attenborough(2010)

[@historickingdom2023]

That’s a 2010 documentary movie, not 2014

[@danktorvosaurus]

@@historickingdom2023 oh yeah, you’re right

[@drakeknapton2963]

YES! Been waiting for this review

[@catpoke9557]

For me the only speculation I thought was too much of a stretch was not that baby tyrannosaurids were highly feathered, but that ONLY they were. No other baby dinosaurs were like this in the show. You'd think if having feathers was that important for babies, other dinosaurs would have that too. Other than that, I thought all the other speculation was plausible. EDIT: Nevermind, the mention of baby tyrannosaurids resembling their ancestors makes them being a strange exception a lot more plausible so I'm fine with it now

[@danielmalinen6337]

I hope to see Prehistoric Planet this year because the Finnish public broadcasting channel Yle has been promoting and hyping the series since it was released. It turned out that Finland is a country where the series is not available on Apple TV and since I haven't been messing around with a VPN, I've only watched clips and reviews on KZbin.

[@panzerfaust3607]

I'm Finnish and I watched it through Apple TV+ when it released, have things changed for some reason? I don't have a VPN and didn't do anything else either.

[@edgeofsevnteen]

The only real problem I had with the doc is they mostly talked about pterosaurs and raptors, like almost every other dinosaur! I also didn’t like the story line. They would talk about an animal for 5 mins and that was it, you never saw it again. It was a lot of jumping around and felt random. I definitely prefer the WWD approach where they show a single ecosystem, each dinosaur that lived in it, how they lived and how they interacted with each other. But that’s just a nit pick, other than that it was beautifully filmed and I loved it! I give it an 8/10*’s

[@seantron5291]

Bro is in the past

[@dinomation]

I can’t believe we’re finally here, excited to see how accurate it is!

[@Rivers_Cuomo_From_Weezer]

This is ironic I just finished binge watching your doc reviews and finished like 3 hours ago lol

[@barger5329]

I love your content it inspired me to create my own channel and hell right now the current series I’m making is directly inspired by your “A Truely Jurassic World”

[@flightlesslord2688]

2:38 The first Jurassic Park book. And theropods swimming, walking with dinosaurs. Or even the Spino in JP3. Don't get me wrong, it's great to see an island hopping rex father, that's definitely never been done before. But a t-rex swimming is far from as new as the advertising implied. It's still great of course, not a complaint, more just I found it odd how this was deemed as one of the fresh new takes, even though again... JP book.

[@seantron5291]

It’s a pretty new concept for the general public. Far less people nowdays have actually read the book and not just watched the movie, and they are often very surprised to hear about that swimming scene in the novel.

[@flightlesslord2688]

@@seantron5291 I mean sure, but still it wasnt something new, something people might not expect but not new.

[@uledisuddie952]

Hopefully more dino docs such as this will soon be in mass production .

[@GojiraChief]

Good review, although I do have one VERY minor nitpick. 1:53, if you showed a Dino doc that had raptors like that I would agree, but you can’t really critique Ark when along with dinosaurs you have Dragons, Meks, Kaiju, and Spaceships. I don’t think accuracy is their main goal.

[@lmaojustchangedmyname4565]

4:40 when I tell you that I did NOT expect to hear this at all

[@jeffreygao3956]

Who knew elasmosaurs had a chance against mosasaurs?

[@Plants28]

This guy is such a big nerd. I love it. So am I. I loved this show I bought apple TV JUST for this show! We need more! Take my money!

[@LoudmouthReviews]

4:00 I don't really agree there. If you only had the skeleton of a peacock would you guess its tail feather display? Likely long extinct animals had fleshy display structures just like this that will never truly know about. Many modern dinosaurs (birds obviously) have inflatable display structures that there would be no way anyone would know about if we only had their skeleton and weren't able to see in the flesh. Since sauropods had air sacs in their bones the possibility that they also used them as external display structures isn't just possible but likely in at least some species. So I thought it was a brilliant decision on the part of the creators of Prehistoric Planet to give these animals speculative soft tissue structures. As for their fight its pretty common for large males to have fights for mating dominance and since titanosaurs could stand on their hind legs for at least a short period of time them battling in such a fashion is again not just possible but very likely. So this scene in Prehistoric Planet is both completely scientifically plausible and cool as hell Though your criticism that the series ignored so many interesting lifeforms of the time period like crocodilomorphs, mammals, and birds of the time was more valid as it annoyed me that these didn't get more screen time but the series had only so much time in the budget to give

[@uledisuddie952]

Finally a good dinosaurs doc . I must be in heaven.

[@didobujin8820]

Yo I love this so much 😍 for once the dinosaurus act like animal and they have the greatest dinosaurus designs ever. No broken arms like Jurassic world, No slaughtering everything around like that embarrassing show Jurassic fight club, and dinosaurus revolution was good but they had the dinosaurus act goofy. So this show is definitely 100/100 in my book it's the most accurate.

[@yusufcanbaz8194]

Ahem ahem jurrassic world shouldnt be compared to this cuz one is for learning while the other is for entertanemant

[@didobujin8820]

@@yusufcanbaz8194 I agree 👍

[@darkshat3077]

Me when the dinosaurs in a documentary are more accurate then dinosaurs in a sci-fi action movie

[@addam6666]

Woooooo yeah baby that’s what I’ve been waiting for

[@CooperHudgins]

How did you record any of the footage from the show for this episode? I tried to do this this by recording a few clips of it on my phone, but it won’t record anything because of Apple TV copyright laws.

[@seantron5291]

You can find these clips on KZbin..

[@charcharodon7250]

Amazing Review

[@tamas5594]

maybe its just me but a lot of the show felt like they wanted to correct all the atrocities that dominion committed so that nobody believes hollywood for too long and i love it

[@haumea2097]

Here are some documentaries you missed: Lost Worlds, Vanished Lives (Mini Series 1989 by David Attenborough) When Dinosaurs Ruled (Mini Series 1999) Also, a few days ago, i had a dream where you reviewed Pixar's Cars...

[@kmaguire7161]

I feel like I have seen so many reviewers softly complaining about all the baby eating but that seems pretty accurate to me. It is why so many birds, fish, and animals today tend to have so many young. Because most of them aren't going to make it to adulthood.

[@redlinrangerstudio5331]

Also here's a fun peace of trivia, one of the jurassic park trex sound was used with the female rex, the color patter given to the king is very similar to the novel rex so someone must been a jp fan that work on this documentary

[@ComradeBobcat39]

Last time I was this early the dinosaurs still ruled the earth been waiting a long time for this

[@Gojiller202]

Honey red raptor has uploaded and it’s a very great one

[@NALTOHQ]

Prehistoric Planet was the series that kept me hooked on Apple TV+, now Part 2 is here, as well as shows like Frog and Toad. I’m happy.

[@isaacslein6432]

16:40 Once again, forgets the probability of the epiparietal and epoccipital spikes being covered in keratin in life. Even if reabsorbed at bone level, the keratin sheath would remain until it becomes worn or torn away via scrubbing against trees or interactions between members of the same or different species. Also, the Edmontosaurus is shown moving its eyes. Birds are incapable of moving their eyes, they must turn their head to see another target. However, I could not find reliable information on crocodiles, so I do not know if they can move their eyes like mammals do.

[@DreadEnder]

Seeing a violent fight between herbivores and mating in predators

[@JeremyTheBluespottedCornetfish]

Every Dinosaur documentary needs a problem section, some need really small one like Prehistoric Planet and some have bigger number of problems than number of people excited for Prehistoric Planet Season 2. Yes, that second is Jurassic Fight Club.

[@Sentryunit582]

Still more accurate than valley of the T. rex, Starring the paleontological pedophile himself: Jack Horner

[@DreadEnder]

Season 2 confirmed for May 22nd!

[@blacknoir8504]

You should do a review of the upcoming new Prehistoric Documentary Life on our Planet. It really gives me anxiety to hear a t Rex roar. The visuals are super good but the accuracy is my problem the roar is the first problem in the trailer I hope they remove it in the actual show

[@Blablabla-ol2tr]

T.rex roar was also in Prehistoric Planet trailer. So it doesn't mean that it will be in the series. I have larger problem with the head shape of smilodon (it's weird) or with standing Arthropleura (was it possibile for that big arthropod?)

[@dudotolivier6363]

Well, either if it's was a Jurassic Park T-rex roar or the one of this TV documentary, a roar still a roar. So, anything truly change.

[@DragonFae16]

Even though there were a lot of speculative elements, all of it was believable. Not once did I see an animal on the show acting in a way that seemed implausible. And this was the first time dinosaurs were shown in the same way a nature documentary would show them if they existed today. No show will ever be 100% perfect, but this show is the closest we likely will ever get to perfection.

[@redlinrangerstudio5331]

i love that you did a puss and boost reference 4:39

[@DefrostedChicken]

16:16 This one should go in the problems section. Baby Triceratops is not horrifying, he is an objectively handsome fella

[@crimsonfox_yeah]

i hope we get a season 2 for this

[@ChazzadaB]

Little nip pick in the video you said that Crocodiles get their teeth cleaned by Clovers but that is actually not true and all images of that are fake

[@redraptorwrites6778]

I rescind that remark in part two, but also I would love a nip pick 😉

[@ar.zpoint5700]

Who else immediately busts their pants when he hits you with that “Hello everyone!”

[@bartoszhallay6576]

The thing about Tethydraco is that the azdarchid classification is only from the wing bones. We also found two ulnas, two tighbones with a shin bone. The holotype is a single humerus. Crushed. Badly. As such, it is possile that the wing came from Phosthopharodraco, while at least the holotype might represent a pteranodontid, who still would be called Tethydraco. Is it possible that Tethydraco was an actual pteranodontid, and the reclassification was simply a cause of researchers falling into a trap of assigning every fragmentary pterosaur bones from Maastrichtian to an azdarchid?

[@Anthony-co4wz]

Prehistoric Planet is so good. I hope the accuracy is as good as its Entertaining.

[@SCP-Site-326]

My biggest question is what people are arguing about if Tyrannosaurus has lips, everyone should know it has lips by now.

[@areallyshortbrontothere]

I'm sort of dissopointed that t rex doesn't use the carotenoid bumps on its head. Still fun but a missed opportunity

[@chickenboi4656]

Finally, the time has come

[@NitroIndigo]

I wish I could watch this show in full, but I don't have Apple TV+. A missed opportunity, though, is that it's all about avoiding cliché depictions of prehistoric animals, yet the only mammal does nothing but get eaten.

[@Rosarian_baron]

The only thing I would have wished for it to not be so mating orientated which makes the mononykus episode my favorite one

[@Ahalaya]

Honestly, you're like the slightly more serious version of RickRaptor. (Absolutely a compliment.)

[@Hewylewis]

Please review Dinosaur! from 1985 and The Dinosaurs miniseries from 1992!

[@dudotolivier6363]

The Troodontid in the Forest's fire sequence was intentionally, obviousely, unnamed to avoid another wave of boring polemics about it's either Troodon, Stenonychosaurus, or even Latenivenatrix. Not because the producers cared or wanted to portrayed the current undefined nature of the still yet undescribed remains discovered of it. The Artic Troodontid is a animal that, obviousely, without any doubts, existed since we have confirmed fossils of his existence. It's just we don't know if they belong to one of the three upper-mentioned genus or if it's in own apart genus. Both three are still valid candidates, but we won't have the anwser until new and more deep studies on the remains are made. It's can be long before studies on a specific subject starts, even can even be long themselves even with our current highly advance technologies. And, outside that, before someone decide to "correct" me about Troodon, all know that he's officially listed as a "potential dubious genus", not as a "Invalid genus". Meaning that we even don't know for sure if it's a dubious genus. A dubious genus is a genus that we don't know if it's either a distinct apart animals, his own beings, or if it's either a member of a already named (before him) species, without any doubts. Because of this, since there any definitive confirmations showing that Troodon isn't is own genus/animal, he's still a valid species as an effect by default. A dubious genus is a genus that still valid by default. It's just a label put on it to warm people that this latter is potentially not valid in reality, that there possibilities that it's in reality an already others know genus instead. But that we just have any evidence yet to support further this hypothesis, that he could be another animal and not his own one. To remind, there numerous genus that were once believed to be dubious, to be another already described one, before it's was proved that he was at the start a complete valid genus, his own animal. Brontosaurus, against Apatosaurus, is a prime example of this. Or Triceratops, against Torosaurus. Or Tarbosaurus, against T-rex. A (old) wastebasket taxon such Troodon can be his own animal without being invalid, without problems. At the moment there still fossils materials attributed to the genus and who don't belong to any others known genus. Iguanodon is a prime example, also an old wastebasket taxon too before being completely purify today as we speak. We exit all the remains blindly attributed to the genus to others genus already known or described during the process from specimens that can't be members of the genus due to anatomical issues showing they aren't the same animal. And only the fossils materials that don't belong to any of the two case, and who obviousely represents a real being that truly existed, remain unchanged. With the genus still be completely valid at the end. There still one single, well-preserved, teeth about Troodon, the one that lead to the genus creation. She was studied and revealed to not belonging to any others known Troodontid genus or an other dinosaur genus of any kind. And, because of that, represent obviousely a dinosaurs that truly existed. We know for sure that this teeth is a Troodontid and not another dinosaur group. If one day we discovered remains of a Troodontid with teeth that matche the one of Troodon, that will mean that we will have discovered a Troodon specimen. Confirming the complete validity of the genus. Some people can argue that Stenonychosaurus can be the same animal with Troodon, thus by today knowledge they were apart but closed genus, but if it's proved one day, it's Troodon that will have dominance upon Stenonychosaurus in term of denomination. Since Troodon was named and scientificaly described by Joseph Leidy in 1856, while Stenonychosaurus was named in 1932 by Charles Mortram Sternberg. It's Stenonychosaurus who will become a synonym junior in this case if that happen. Wich is unlikely however. The two are reconized today as separate animals, with their respective teeth who don't matche togethers.

[@redraptorwrites6778]

Yes...but actually no. The problem with all this and using the Troodon name isn't solely because it's a wastebasket or nomen dubium. As you correctly pointed out, wastebaskets can be trimmed down to the point where we have a good understanding of what material actually represents a genus/species. And nomen dubiums can come out as fully accepted valid genre. However, the core of the issue here is that the single Troodon tooth is undiagnostic. You yourself mentioned this too. This separates it from the likes of Iguanodon or Megalosaurus which have had similar issues. They both have good type specimens for paleontologists to look at and thoroughly compare other fossils too. Troodon does not have this. The holotype has never been swapped for a neotype to redefine what it means to be a Troodon formosus. The type specimen is still just a tooth. This is the case with Iguanodon and why we still have the name Spinosaurus around despite the holotype being destroyed. A holotype of Stenonychosaurus does exist. We can make observations and inferences as to what is and isn't Stenonychosaurus. This cannot be done for Troodon with any kind of reliability. Therefore that name should not be used even if it came earlier. Edit: Yes, the shed tooth of course came from some troodontid that did exist at some point in Campanian North America, but it is too undiagnostic to erect a whole genus after. It should either be classified as "troodontid indet." or if there is ever a perfect match, be reclassified as whatever it matches. There's no scenario at this point where the name "Troodon" comes out on top. Maybe a neotype can be used but then it'd just be synonymized into Stenonychosaurus anyways.

[@dudotolivier6363]

@@redraptorwrites6778 Okay, I check what neotype is, and for short, it's to use and put another specimen as the new holotype type specimen to refer to IF the original holotype to describe the genus/species is lost for whatever reasons. It's overall the definition of what the term is. Even if, anyway, even if the only holotype and known fossils of an animal was lost, and any other find, since the first one was well recorded/documented and that we known that he really existed, the genus will always exist noneless, since the fossils, even lost or destroyed, represented an animal that really lived and obviousely existed (Spinosaurus is a prime example of that, even if thankfully we discovered new fossil to replace it). For, exemple, if all the T-rex specimen were destroyed, the genus will stil exist anyway. Outside that, thank for the precisions. 👍🙂 However, about the last sentences... that Stenonychosaurus or whatever other newly described troodontid genus should be use prior before Troodon to refer to the animal... I think I will not learn you something that the "International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature" (ICZN)'s rules are very stricts when it's come to nomination on the taxas. The rule is simple and strict : at the exception if the tagerted subject is hugely famous and popular among the public, when several names are given to a same, unique taxa/genus, it's ALWAYS the oldest name who is used officially to refer to it. The others becoming what is called a "junior synonym" name (a name that can be used but isn't dominant and rarely used to avoid confusion since numerous valid taxa can share the same junior synonym). And when I said "at the exception if the tagerted subject is hugely famous and popular among the public", if you're surprised to read this line, it's because exceptions have been made, only to this day to well-famous extinct animals that the public is familiar with to a point-of-no-return level. The prime, best and most recent example of this rare cases is, maybe at your stunning if you wasn't aware of it, ... Dimetrodon ! (😱😲) Yes, I don't joke ! Dimetrodon himself ! In 2015, a new study, made by the University of Toronto Mississauga, Carleton University and the Royal Ontario Museum, about the holotype and only specimen of Bathygnathus, B. borealis, an other Sphenacodontid, and catalog as ANSP 9524, was find out to in reality an apart species of Dimetrodon and not is own genus ! Where the importance you might ask ?🤷‍♀ Well, Dimetrodon was discovered somewhere in the 1870's and officialy described in 1878 by Edward Drinker Cope, from the fossils on which the creation of the genus was based. Bathygnathus, him, was discovered in 1845 by a landowner named Donald McLeod, by a partial maxilla or upper jaw bone, and was officialy described by Joseph Leidy in 1853-1854... 24 years before the creation of Dimetrodon's name. Which mean that, technically and litterally, it's in reality Bathygnathus name who is prior and have priority upon Dimetrodon, and this latter invalid and a junior synomyn. And let all agree on that, it's a BOMB, it's not nothing like information ! HOWEVER ! given the wide use and familiarity of the generic name Dimetrodon in scientific literature and popular culture, a compromise was therefore made with CINZ in order to preserve the better-known name. Thing who wasn't hard, because the scientists, for once, because this time they were dealing for the very first time with an animal of the caliber of Dimetrodon (and it's not a random animal), the first case to be a popular extinct animal, they were realistic and known that would be mission impossible and a lost case to pass this on to the public and force them to use Bathygnathus name, to which he was barely familar see completely unknown with, instead of the other, to which the popularity is so that it's literally merged with people's DNA. Scientists had already failed spectacularly with Brontosaurus during decades for poor education results (only to end up being revealed as its own animal on top of that). So, they decide for Dimetrodon to even not try one second. They known that whatever happen, people will continue to used forever Dimetrodon instead anyway, as anything have happened. (and that would be literally as if that was human talking to chimpanzees, to give a picture). Hence also why this study and info was very poorly communicated. The same treatement will be very likely the same for any of the famous and popular extinct genus, such Tyrannosaur, Triceratops, Stegosaurs, Ankylosaurs, all of them who are the ones we can think about first. And given that Troodon is among them and in a good place in term of popularity... It's also worth it to point out that, justly, public in general will noy change at all a nomination for an animal after so much time, so much decades or centuries. It's important to put ourselves in their place. Why will they change and take another name to named an animal if they already one ? That they never heard off before and barely known for the one they always used to be with ? And easy to remember and pronounced ? Because here also the point, people will not bother themselves to try to incorpotate a new new if this latter is long or complicated. Because, let be all also agree and realistic on this, if people have the complete free choice to choose between Troodon (who have 3 syllabes and 7 words) and Stenonychosaurus (6 syllabes and 16 words)... I think, see it's obvious which one they will diretly choose and get along with Troodon. Same thing for others extinct taxas. And also more easier to remember, given how the name is easy to be pronounced and is made. As far I know, everyone continue to use Brontotherium instead of Megacerops. Things are like that, people will continue to used and refer the second junior name of the animals instead their true name, so it's useless in final to made these latter the dominant name if anyone will use them, as maximum a very small minority. Of course, it's IF we Troodon was revealed to be the same animal with Stenonychosaurus, but studies have shown they are indeed separate species, at least as the current evidences and knowledge is officially (but that was rigorous and strong studies, even discovered a new genus Latenivenatrix). And same for any others known North American Troodontid. The teeth of all were compared to the one of Troodon and any of the genera implacted matches. So, at least, it's completely certain that all of the described and reconized valid (North American) Troodontid taxas ever created and known to this day were Troodon, as I writte these lines. So, that will be completely a new recent genus never described before all of these ones. And if one day we discovered a Troodontid fossil specimen/we compared this recent genus' teeth with the one of Troodon and that they matches, that mean that the firstone is a Troodon specimen, and the latter name will take priority because officialy named way before the other. But if one day we discovered that Troodon was in reality one of he other currently known Troodontid genus (which is already very, very unlikely), and was the same animal, whatever if the other genus was named before Troodon or synonymized with it as a junior synonym (because fuck up he rules), that mean that the entire family must be entirely renamed. For example, since the Troodontidae family was named after Troodon itself, if one day, for example, we find out this latter was in reality Stenonychosaurus, the family should be renamed following this latter. That mean, be called and renamed "Stenonychosauridae" instead of "Troodontidae". And Stenonychosauridae becoming the right and only recevable name to use to refer to these animals. The same problem goes for the Ceratopsia order and Ceratopsidae family btw. Since they were both named after the genus Ceratops, who, while still today alway valid, is listed as a dubious genus. So, if one day this one if revealed to be invalid, and member of another already described genus, the order and family will must to be called following the name of this latter. To conclude, currently, both Troodon and Stenonychosaurus still are viable valid distinct, apart, and their own animal, to this day, and any of them is listed/reconized as invalid taxa. As the evidences are. But, if there absolutely anything who proved and show that Troodon was definitively indeed an other described genus, I completely undestand and agree at 100% why dubious labeled taxa aren't take in Documentaries production, and to not used them in these medias. Just in case, by precaution, if they turned to be invalid and another already decribed animals. (if they turned to be completely valid however, there will of course be any problems, and can be used again). Troodon status is 50/50. But it's very unlikely that something new wil happen to change his current situation, whatever to proved is validity or invalidity. And this this situation who stall as such now for the eternity (after all, Agathamus still officially listed as a dubious genus tot his day, as comarision). But I guess it's better to be valid with the warning mention/label dubious (nomen dubium) forever than to be invalid 😔

[@michaelbuono4007]

Tethydraco is still a member family pteranodon and it’s still too fragmented to say for shore

[@andrewmarcum7189]

Wake up babe there’s a new red raptor writes video

[@joshuaW5621]

We finally reach the golden crown of dino docs.

[@tyrannoking097]

And then Prehistoric Planet 2 and Amazing Dinoworld 2 were announced

[@WPower276]

Hey there, a second season has been renewed.

[@michaelarsaadyatma]

3:04 can you please elaborate on what in hell that you just say

[@seantron5291]

“I’m gonna pretend I didn’t already come up with that plan in High School” Sure it’s slurred, but not hard to hear. I heard it perfectly fine first time.

[@michaelarsaadyatma]

@@seantron5291 no i mean why he plan to did that? whats the purpose? The sexual mimicry

[@Alexandre_Lopes1954]

Why wouldn't the giant sauropods fight each other and have those "balloons" on their necks?

[@waffletop1018]

this seems cool, I wish it could be accessed by more people

[@sonofmovienerdking7230]

What do you think it would've been like if the dinosaurs in the upcoming movie 65 looked more like they do here instead of being too similar to how they look in Jurassic Park/World?

[@seantron5291]

Would’ve been actually good

[@apersondoingthings5689]

Yes I have been waiting my whole life

[@EcoNBeBop]

GUYS WATCH 1:45-1:47 ON 0.25 SPEED!! The raptor’s claw goes through the wing and the feathers don’t move!!

[@seantron5291]

Lmao, even the best of CGI artists make mistakes 🤷‍♂️

[@EcoNBeBop]

@SeanTron yup haha. Surprised that slid by tho lol

[@jurassicroom7673]

Respect for the Zoboomafoo reference.

[@JackSnell-l8w]

9:33 But that’s basically a group name though It’s like calling a Gorgonops a Gorgonopsid instead of referring the actual species I guess this species of Troodontid is supposed to be Latenivenatrix?(I could be wrong).

[@TheSandwhichman108]

I like we see both sides of the spectrum in various instances such as quetzalquatlas both hunting baby pterosaurs as well as nurturing its own offspring. Also animals hunting the offspring of other creatures can actually be healthy for a population as it weeds out the weaker individuals and reduces competition for the individuals with better genes.

[@bjd1980]

Do you think the pterosaur wings folded as tightly? Haven't found any sources that say one way or the other. Love the way it looks with the wing folding so tightly around the digit almost leaving just the digit when walking.

[@Satoru_Gojo_Fr]

"Why is every pterosaur in this show a child predator?" bro💀

[@itsahostiletakeover]

I ADORED all of the hadrosaur love. They're constantly overlooked by media and I would argue they're the most successful non-avian group of the Cretaceous along with titanosaurs. Plus with soft material, ichnofossils, eggs and nests, etc we probably know more about them than any other group. My only nitpick would be that they oddly used their Edmontosaurus model for their Antarctic hadrosaur when they already had their Secernosaurus model. All of the hadrosaurs known from South America were more "Kritosaurus-like" than truly "duck-billed" so presumably any others from the former Gondwana would look more like the former.

[@snoweex]

Idk i never seen anyone talks about ornithomimus fire cut,like im jealous with their cut like look at them