Wikiwand AI

2026 in archosaur paleontology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fossil archosaur research published in 2026 includes the description of new taxa, as well as other peer-reviewed publications on discoveries related to archosaur paleontology.

Pseudosuchians

New pseudosuchian taxa

More information Name, Novelty ...
Name Novelty Status Authors Age Type locality Country Notes Images

Antusuchus[1]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Fernandez-Dumont et al.

Early Cretaceous (Albian)

Candeleros Formation

Argentina

A member of the family Peirosauridae. Genus includes new species A. rionegrinus.

Carinthiasuchus[2]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Dalla Vecchia & Cau

Triassic (Ladinian-Carnian)

Partnach Formation

Austria

A member of Poposauroidea. The type species is C. kandutschi.

Crocodylus lucivenator[3]

Sp. nov

Valid

Brochu et al.

Pliocene

Hadar Formation

Ethiopia

A crocodile, a species of Crocodylus.

Eosphorosuchus[4] Gen. et sp. nov Margulis-Ohnuma et al. Late Triassic (Rhaetian) Chinle Formation United States
( New Mexico)
An early member of Crocodylomorpha. The type species is E. lacrimosa.

Galahadosuchus[5]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Bodenham et al.

Late Triassic (CarnianRhaetian)

Cromhall Quarry

United Kingdom

A member of Crocodylomorpha belonging to the family Saltoposuchidae. The type species is G. jonesi.

Indosinosuchus peninsularensis[6]

Sp. nov

Valid

Lauprasert et al.

Middle-Late Jurassic

Khlong Min Formation

Thailand

A member of the family Teleosauridae.

Labrujasuchus[7] Gen. et sp. nov

Turner et al.

Late Triassic (Norian)

Chinle Formation

United States
( New Mexico)

A member of Poposauroidea belonging to the family Shuvosauridae. The type species is L. expectatus.

Shakajlura[8]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Cardillo et al.

Triassic (Ladinian-Carnian)

Chañares Formation

Argentina

Probably an early-diverging member of Paracrocodylomorpha. The type species is S. riojanensis.

Sonselasuchus[9]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Smith & Sidor

Late Triassic (Norian)

Chinle Formation

United States
( Arizona)

A member of Poposauroidea belonging to the family Shuvosauridae. The type species is S. cedrus.

Close

General pseudosuchian research

  • Evidence from the study of the histology of appendicular elements of Saurosuchus galilei, Sillosuchus longicervix, Aetobarbakinoides brasiliensis, Aetosauroides scagliai, Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum, Tarjadia ruthae and Riojasuchus tenuisceps, indicative of diversity of growth rates of the studied pseudosuchians, is presented by Ponce, Cerda & Desojo (2026).[10]
  • Terras et al. (2026) compare the cranial morphology of Triassic pseudosuchians and other reptiles (including dinosaurs), and argue that cranial similarities among pseudosuchians and other reptiles do not necessarily reflect functional similarities.[11]
  • Evidence from the study of the histology of long bones of the holotype specimen of Dynamosuchus collisensis, interpreted as indicative of a sustained rapid growth, is presented by Farias et al. (2026).[12]
  • Ulloa-Guaiquin et al. (2026) study the neurovascular anatomy of the snout of Riojasuchus tenuisceps, interpreted as consistent with presence of sensory system similar to those seen in extant crocodilians and birds, and supporting a wading-foraging behavior of the studied ornithosuchid.[13]
  • A new specimen of Postosuchus cf. kirkpatricki, comparable in size to the holotype of this species, is described from the strata of the Chinle Formation from the Petrified Forest National Park (Arizona, United States) by Marsh et al. (2026).[14]
  • Hutchinson et al. (2026) study the locomotor biomechanics of Postosuchus kirkpatricki, reporting conflicting evidence for its possible stance and gait.[15]

Aetosaur research

Crocodylomorph research

  • Paixão et al. (2026) describe isolated eggshells and egg clutches from the Upper Cretaceous Adamantina Formation (Brazil) with the egg arrangement similar to those seen in extant crocodilians, including an assemblage of at least 47 eggs representing the largest Mesozoic crocodyliform egg clutch reported to date.[17]
  • Redescription of "Erythrochampsa" longipes is published by Weiss et al. (2026), who consider the studied taxon to be a nomen dubium, and interpret its holotype as likely to be fossil material of a member or a relative of the genus Protosuchus.[18]
  • Tan et al. (2026) describe new fossil material of Edentosuchus tienshanensis from the Lower Cretaceous Lianmuqin Formation (Xinjiang, China), providing new information on the morphology of members of this species.[19]
  • Soni et al. (2026) study the sensory evolution in thalattosuchians on the basis of data from digital endocranial reconstructions, reporting evidence of proportional scaling of visual structures with skull size of members of the group, and interpret metriorhynchids as maintaining visual reliance.[20]
  • Barrientos-Lara & Alvarado-Ortega (2026) report the first discovery of geosaurine fossil material from marine deposits of the Upper Jurassic (Kimmeridgian) Sabinal Formation (Oaxaca, Mexico).[21]
  • Hua & Tabouelle (2026) identify a skull of a member of the genus Metriorhynchus from the Kimmeridgian strata from Cap de la Hève (Normandy, France) as belonging to a member of the species M. palpebrosus, and consider the species Metriorhynchus hastifer to be a junior synonym of the species Metriorhynchus brevirostris.[22]
  • Herrera, Spindler & Bronzati (2026) redescribe the anatomy and study the phylogenetic affinities of Dakosaurus maximus on the basis of data from a new specimen from the Kimmeridgian Torleite Formation (Germany), and report evidence of preservation of cartilaginous fish (likely hybodontiform) remains within the abdominal cavity of the studied individual.[23]
  • Paiva et al. (2026) provide new estimates of body length of 40 notosuchian species, and report discrepancies between estimates based on skull length and those based on femoral length.[24]
  • Candeiro et al. (2026) describe a tooth of one of the largest sphagesaurian specimens reported to date from the Upper Cretaceous Adamantina Formation in the Goiás state, representing the first notosuchian record from mid-west Brazil.[25]
  • Navarro et al. (2026) study the bone histology of Yacarerani boliviensis, and interpret it as consistent with fast growth dynamics with periods of decline.[26]
  • Carneiro et al. (2026) identify probable sebecid tooth marks on a dentary of Didelphopsis sp. from the Eocene strata from the Itaboraí Basin (Brazil), interpreted as produced during head-shaking and defleshing of the carcass by the predator, and interpret sebecids as likely killing small mammals in a manner similar to extant monitor lizards.[27]
  • Description of the internal rostral anatomy of Sebecus ayrampu is published by Bravo, Barrios & Pol (2026).[28]
  • The first formal description of crocodyliform fossil material from the Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous Missão Velha Formation (Brazil), interpreted as belonging to indeterminate neosuchians, is published by Albuquerque et al. (2026).[29]
  • Castillo-Visa et al. (2026) report evidence of preservation of cartilaginous and epidermal tissues in a specimen of Montsecosuchus depereti from the Barremian strata from Spain.[30]
  • Jouve et al. (2026) provide phylogenetic definitions for Tethysuchia and its subgroups that are valid under the PhyloCode, and coin a new name Stenorhynchosuchia for the putative clade including Tethysuchia and Thalattosuchia.[31]
  • Barbini et al. (2026) provide new information on the internal cranial anatomy of Pholidosaurus purbeckensis, reporting evidence of greater similarity of the endocranial anatomy to that of goniopholidids than dyrosaurids, and evidence of presence of possible osteological correlates of nasal salt glands.[32]
  • A study on the histology of teeth of Guarinisuchus munizi, providing evidence of variable rates of dentine deposition, is published by Izidio et al. (2026).[33]
  • Szegszárdi, Ősi & Rabi (2026) describe a new partial skull of Doratodon carcharidens from the Santonian Csehbánya Formation (Hungary), reinterpret this species as a paralligatorid, and reinterpret Ogresuchus furatus as a neosuchian likely to be an atoposaurid.[34]
  • Redescription of the anatomy and a study on the phylogenetic affinities of Koumpiodontosuchus aprosdokiti is published by Barker et al. (2026), who support the placement of the studied species within Bernissartiidae.[35]
  • Prondvai et al. (2026) report evidence of Hunter-Schreger band-like patterns in the tooth enamel of Iharkutosuchus (interpreted as differing in structural origin from Hunter-Schreger bands of mammals), as well as evidence of wavy enamel in the studied crocodyliform (a feature also known in ornithopod dinosaurs), interpreted as likely adaptations to a herbivorous diet and high-efficiency chewing.[36]
  • Redescription and a study on the affinities of Thoracosaurus isorhynchus is published by Boerman et al. (2026).[37]
  • Donzé et al. (2026) describe the morphology of endocranial structures of Leidyosuchus canadensis and Stangerochampsa mccabei.[38]
  • Bateman, Demers-Potvin & Larsson (2026) compare reconstructed jaw adductor musculature and feeding performances of Leidyosuchus canadensis and Champsosaurus lindoei, interpreted as suggestive of dietary resource partitioning between the two taxa.[39]
  • Lindblad et al. (2026) describe two new crocodyliform specimens from the Paleocene strata of the Ravenscrag Formation (Saskatchewan, Canada), including the first member of the genus Boverisuchus from the middle-late Paleocene of Saskatchewan and a specimen with probable alligatorid affinities.[40]
  • Redescription of the anatomy of the postcranial skeleton of Boverisuchus vorax is published by Iijima & Tomiya (2026).[41]
  • Taxonomic revision of the genus Diplocynodon is published by Walter et al. (2026).[42]
  • Burke & Mannion (2026) study the diversity of endocranial anatomy in extant and extinct crocodylians and basal eusuchians, reporting evidence of anatomical differences facilitating the identification of members of distinct lineages.[43]
  • Cidade et al. (2026) revise the phylogenetic nomenclature of Caimaninae, defining new clades Bottosauria, Caimanini, Purussauria and Purussauridae.[44]
  • Agne et al. (2026) identify the extinct crocodile population from Seychelles as representing the westernmost known population of saltwater crocodiles on the basis of analysis of mitochondrial genomes.[45]
  • Puncture marks interpreted as evidence of predation by a crocodylian (likely Purussaurus) are reported in bones of Pericotoxodon platignathus, Xenastrapotherium kraglievichi and Granastrapotherium snorki from the Miocene strata from La Venta (Colombia) by Wilson et al. (2026), who also report additional traces on bones of X. kraglievichi that might be evidence of scavenging by a crocodyliform similar to Langstonia.[46]
  • Review of the fossil record of late Quaternary crocodilians from Australasia is published by Ristevski et al. (2026).[47]
  • Fernandez Blanco & Bona (2026) report evidence from the study of extant and extinct crocodyliforms indicative of similarities of embryonic development of skulls of extant caimans to changes in palate and skull roof during the evolutionary history of crocodyliforms.[48]

Non-avian dinosaurs

New dinosaur taxa

More information Name, Novelty ...
Name Novelty Status Authors Age Type locality Country Notes Images

Bicharracosaurus[49]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Reutter et al.

Late Jurassic (Oxfordian-Kimmeridgian)

Cañadón Calcáreo Formation

Argentina

A macronarian sauropod. The type species is B. dionidei.

Ceratocaudia[50]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Natarajan et al.

Jurassic (Pliensbachian to Bajocian)

Kaladongar Formation

India

A macronarian sauropod. The type species is C. antiqua.

Changzhousaurus[51]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Xu

Early Cretaceous (Aptian)

Jiufotang Formation

China

A pennaraptoran theropod with an unusual mosaic of features; possibly an early-diverging deinonychosaurian. The type species is C. sinensis.

Cryptarcus[52]

Gen. et comb. nov

Valid

Holmes et al.

Late Cretaceous (Campanian)

Dinosaur Park Formation

Canada
( Alberta)

A chasmosaurine ceratopsid; a new genus for "Chasmosaurus" russelli Sternberg (1940).

Dasosaurus[53]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Mayer et al.

Early Cretaceous (Aptian)

Itapecuru Formation

Brazil

A sauropod belonging to the group Somphospondyli. The type species is D. tocantinensis.

Dinevenator[54]

Gen. et comb. nov

Valid

Jasinski & Sullivan

Late Cretaceous (Campanian)

Kirtland Formation

United States
( New Mexico)

A troodontid theropod; a new genus for "Saurornitholestes" (or Xenovenator?) robustus Sullivan (2006).

Doolysaurus[55]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Jung et al.

Cretaceous (Albian–Cenomanian)

Ilseongsan Formation

South Korea

A thescelosaurid ornithischian. The type species is D. huhmini.

Eopinacosaurus[56]

Gen. et comb. nov

Valid

Penkalski

Late Cretaceous

Bayan Mandahu Formation

China
Mongolia

An ankylosaurid; a new genus for "Pinacosaurus" mephistocephalus Godefroit et al. (1999).

Ferenceratops[57]

Gen. et comb. nov

Valid

Maidment et al.

Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian)

Sânpetru and Densuș-Ciula formations

Romania

A ceratopsian. The type species is the 'rhabdodontid' "Zalmoxes" shqiperorum Weishampel et al. (2003).

Foskeia[58]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Dieudonné et al.

Early Cretaceous (BarremianAptian)

Castrillo de la Reina Formation

Spain

A rhabdodontomorph ornithopod. The type species is F. pelendonum.

Gongshuilong[59]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Yao et al.

Late Cretaceous

Lianhe Formation

China

A saurolophine hadrosaurid belonging to the tribe Brachylophosaurini. The type species is G. fanwei.

Haolong[60]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Huang et al.

Early Cretaceous (Barremian)

Yixian Formation

China

An iguanodontian ornithopod. The type species is H. dongi.

Jian[61]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Zhou et al.

Early Cretaceous (Aptian)

Xiagou Formation

China

A microraptorine dromaeosaurid. The type species is J. changmaensis.

Kank[62]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Motta et al.

Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian)

Chorrillo Formation

Argentina

A unenlagiid theropod. The type species is K. australis.

Kryptohadros[63]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Magyar et al.

Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian)

Densuș-Ciula Formation

Romania

A hadrosauroid ornithopod. The type species is K. kallaiae.

Mesetasaurus[64]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Soto Núñez, Montenegro & Perea

Late Cretaceous

Guichón Formation

Uruguay

A titanosaur belonging to the group Aeolosaurini. The type species is M. protector.

Musango[65]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Barrett et al.

Late Triassic (Norian)

Pebbly Arkose Formation

Zimbabwe

A sauropodomorph belonging to the family Unaysauridae. The type species is M. matusadonaensis.

Nagatitan[66]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Sethapanichsakul et al.

Early Cretaceous (Aptian–Albian)

Khok Kruat Formation

Thailand

A euhelopodid macronarian sauropod. The type species is N. chaiyaphumensis.

Nipponopelta[67]

Gen. et sp. nov

In press

Oyabu et al.

Late Cretaceous (Cenomanian)

Hikagenosawa Formation

Japan

A member of the family Nodosauridae. The type species is N. yezoensis.

Phosphatotitan[68]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Longrich et al.

Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian)

Ouled Abdoun Basin

Morocco

A titanosaur sauropod. The type species is P. khouribgaensis.

Pinacosaurus hilwitnorum[56]

Sp. nov

Valid

Penkalski

Late Cretaceous

Djadochta Formation

Mongolia

An ankylosaurid; a species of Pinacosaurus.

Plesiolophus[69]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

McFeeters et al.

Late Cretaceous (Campanian)

Oldman Formation

Canada
( Alberta)

A lambeosaurine hadrosaurid belonging to the tribe Parasaurolophini. The type species is P. warnerensis.

Ptychotherates[70]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Srivastava & Nesbitt

Late Triassic (Norian or Rhaetian)

Chinle Formation

United States
( New Mexico)

A saurischian in the novel clade Morphoraptora. The type species is P. bucculentus.

Spinosaurus mirabilis[71]

Sp. nov

Valid

Sereno et al.

Late Cretaceous (Cenomanian)

Farak Formation

Niger

A spinosaurid theropod; a species of Spinosaurus.

Uragasaurus[72]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Nilpanapan et al.

Late Jurassic

Phu Kradung Formation

Thailand

A mamenchisaurid sauropod. The type species is U. kalasinensis.

Xenovenator[73]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Rivera-Sylva et al.

Late Cretaceous (Campanian)

Cerro del Pueblo Formation

Mexico

A troodontid theropod. The type species is X. espinosai.

Xiangyunloong[74]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Hu et al.

Early Jurassic

Fengjiahe Formation

China

A massopodan sauropodomorph. The type species is X. fengming.

Yantaloong[75]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Zhang et al.

Middle Jurassic

Zhanghe Formation

China

A eusauropod with possible turiasaur affinities. The type species is Y. lini.

Yeneen[76]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Filippi et al.

Late Cretaceous (Santonian)

Bajo de la Carpa Formation

Argentina

A titanosaur sauropod. The type species is Y. houssayi.

Close

General non-avian dinosaur research

  • Review of preceding studies and of methods used to study dinosaur biology and evolution is published by Xu et al. (2026).[77]
  • Henderson (2026) determines rates of discovery of new dinosaur taxa and changes geographical origin of new discoveries throughout the history of the study of the group.[78]
  • Brownstein & Griffin (2026) reconstruct early evolutionary history of dinosaurs, placing the emergence of the group between 251.2 and 230 million years ago, and reporting evidence of a burst of rapid morphological evolution in the Middle to early Late Triassic that coincided with emergence of major dinosaurian subgroups (Ornithischia, Sauropodomorpha and Theropoda).[79]
  • Aureliano et al. (2026) compare the microstructure of appendicular bones in non-avian dinosaurs and large-bodied mammals, and interpret it as indicating that gigantism was achieved through divergent evolutionary pathways in the two groups.[80]
  • Wilson et al. (2026) study the evolution of the body size of Mesozoic dinosaurs, finding no evidence of a correlation between body size and climatic conditions before or after shifts in preferred climatic niches.[81]
  • Saitta (2026) argues that models of growth in dinosaurs used in studies from preceding years may be underfit, failing to account for possible causes variation between specimens other than ontogeny.[82]
  • Evidence of limited range of motion of fingers of Camarasaurus and Stegosaurus is presented by Senter (2026).[83]
  • Evidence from the study of extant birds and crocodylians, interpreted as indicating that gastrolith shape is a reliable proxy for diet and stomach muscularity in extinct dinosaurs, is presented by Takasaki et al. (2026).[84]
  • Review of factors influencing the formation of dinosaur tracks is published by Falkingham & Gatesy (2026).[85]
  • Hartmann et al. (2026) provide a method for recognizing patterns of shape variation differentiating dinosaur tracks with the use of unsupervised machine learning, and use it to study affinities of controversial dinosaur tracks, reporting evidence of small, three-toed, bird-like footprints from the Triassic and Early Jurassic falling within the bird-dominated region of morphospace, and evidence of some Middle Jurassic tridactyl tracks from the Isle of Skye (Scotland, United Kingdom) grouping with ornithopods rather than with theropods.[86]
  • Ha & Kim (2026) present a new automated system for detection of dinosaur tracks across diverse tracksites and preservation conditions.[87]
  • Peng & Xing (2026) review the utility of new analytical tools for reevaluation of long-standing hypotheses in dinosaur ichnology, and argue that not all tridactyl tracks can be assigned to either theropod or ornithopod trackmakers solely on the basis of footprint shape, that parallel trackways increase the probability of group movement of sauropods but do not concusively prove it, and that Triassic and Early Jurassic tracks with bird-like morphology do not conclusively prove an early origin of birds.[88]
  • Granata et al. (2026) report evidence of impact of erosion on preservation of dinosaur tracks from the Carnian strata of the Lerici ichnosite in Italy (the type locality of Evazoum sirigui).[89]
  • Ait Haddou et al. (2026) report the discovery of new tracksites preserving theropod and quadrupedal dinosaur (possibly stegosaur or sauropod) tracks from the strata of the Jurassic Tilougguit and Guettioua formations (Morocco).[90]
  • Evidence indicating that theropod and ornithopod tracks from the Middle Jurassic strata in the Tizi N'Talghemt area (Morocco) were originally left on tidal flats during low tide points is presented by El Ouali et al. (2026).[91]
  • Tracks of sauropods, probable ankylosaurs and undetermined bipedal dinosaurs preserved in aeolian depositional setting are described from the Hauterivian strata of the Agrio Formation (Argentina) by Heredia et al. (2026).[92]
  • Ornithischian and theropod (possibly including large dromaeosaurid) tracks are described from the Lower Cretaceous strata of the Serra do Tucano Formation (Brazil) by Barros et al. (2026).[93]
  • A new assemblage of ornithopod (representing two distinct ichnotaxa), sauropod and theropod tracks is described from the Aptian-Albian strata of the Matoushan Formation at the Huashiban tracksite (Yunnan, China) by Xu et al. (2026).[94]
  • An ornithopod-dominated track assemblage, also including ankylosaurid and theropod tracks, is described from the Coniacian strata of the Marshybank Formation (British Columbia, Canada) by Plint & Helm (2026).[95]
  • Choi et al. (2026) identify dinosaur eggs assigned to at least two distinct oogenera (Macroelongatoolithus and Mosaicoolithus) from the Cenomanian strata of the Dadaepo Formation (South Korea).[96]
  • Evidence indicating that dinosaur eggs from the Upper Cretaceous strata of the Wido Volcanics (Wi Island, South Korea) assigned to the ootaxon Propagoolithus widoensis were laid in nests established before the igneous intrusion rather than in a rock that was already metamorphosed as a result of volcanic activity is presented by Kim et al. (2026).[97]
  • Cardozo et al. (2026) report the discovery of faveoloolithid eggshells from the late Maastrichtian strata of the Lago Colhué Huapí Formation (Argentina), originating from strata with abundant hadrosaurid remains and no sauropod remains reported to date, and expanding known geographic distribution of Faveoloolithidae in South America.[98]
  • Pantelides et al. (2026) present a new mechanistic energetic model for the studies of the capability of terrestrial vertebrates for transoceanic dispersal, apply it to extant vertebrates, Lambeosaurus and Rapetosaurus, and interpret their findings as suggestive of feasibility of dispersal of hadrosaurs and titanosaurs between Africa and Europe through the oceanic corridor separating Iberia from Morocco during the Cretaceous.[99]
  • Evidence of Albian age of dinosaur-rich Candeleros and Huincul formations (Argentina) is presented by Maniel et al. (2026).[100]
  • Dai et al. (2026) study the stratigraphy and palaeoenvironmental features of the strata of the Zhengyang Formation (Chongqing, China) preserving fossils of Late Cretaceous dinosaurs, interpreted as living in a restricted intermountain basin.[101]
  • Roberts et al. (2026) study the stratigraphy and age of the strata of the Hell Creek Formation from the excavation site of the "Dueling Dinosaurs", from other locations on the Murray Ranch and from the McGinnis Butte section (Montana, United States), and determine the age of the "Dueling Dinosaurs" locality to be approximately 66.895 million years.[102]
  • Wyenberg-Henzler & Scannella (2026) study a skull of Edmontosaurus from the Hell Creek Formation (Montana, United States) with a tyrannosaurid tooth embedded in the nasal around the time of death of the hadrosaurid, interpreted as likely resulting from a bite to the snout of Edmontosaurus during a predation attempt.[103]
  • Han et al. (2026) study the hydrodynamic evolution of the Shanyang Basin (China) during the latest Cretaceous, reporting evidence of reduction of suitable nesting habitats of dinosaurs before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event.[104]
  • A study on the fossil record of non-mammalian vertebrates from the Cretaceous-Paleogene transition of the Ferris Formation (Wyoming, United States) is published by Wroblewski (2026), who places the local Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary 50 m above the previous proposed location, and reports evidence of decrease of recorded diversity of dinosaurs during the latest Maastrichtian that might have either taphonomical or biological causes.[105]

Saurischian research

  • Pawlak et al. (2026) identify lungfish aestivation burrows in the Triassic strata of the Ørsted Dal Formation (Greenland), interpreted as indicative of a seasonally dry climate in the studied area during the late Norian, and indicating that aridity was not a barrier for dispersal of theropods and sauropodomorphs living in the studied area at the time.[106]
  • Menkem et al. (2026) study the sedimentary setting of sauropod and theropod tracks (including a footprint of a large-bodied theropod) from the Lower Cretaceous (Berriasian–Hauterivian) strata of the Koum Basin (Cameroon), and report evidence of shared ichnological and sedimentological traits with tracksites of similar age from northeastern Brazil, interpreted as consistent with existence of a dispersal corridor linking West Africa and South America before the full opening of the Atlantic Ocean.[107]
  • A new assemblage of sauropod and theropod tracks is described from the Lower Cretaceous (Barremian–Aptian) strata of the Shinekhudag Formation (Mongolia) by Mainbayar et al. (2026).[108]

Theropod research

  • Boisvert et al. (2026) compare the median size classes of ceratosaurians, megalosauroids, allosauroids, megaraptorans and tyrannosauroids throughout the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, and report evidence of higher median number of missing size classes in tyrannosauroid-dominated ecosystems compared to allosauroid/megalosauroid-dominated ones.[109]
  • A study on the skull biomechanics and likely feeding behaviors of members of diverse theropod subgroups, with a focus on tyrannosauroids, is published by Johnson-Ransom et al. (2026).[110]
  • Hendrickx (2026) explores the evolution of the dentition in non-coelurosaur theropods (e.g.,Ceratosauria, Megalosauroidea, and Allosauroidea).[111]
  • Evidence from the study of teeth of Allosaurus fragilis, Ceratosaurus dentisulcatus, Irritator challengeri and Tyrannosaurus rex, indicating that tooth position is one of the factors affecting microwear texture in theropod teeth, is presented by Morrison et al. (2026).[112]
  • Pereyra (2026) compares the evolution of maxillary shape and size in medium-sized and large abelisaurids, carcharodontosaurs and coelurosaurs, reporting evidence of different adaptive responses to ecological and environmental pressures in the studied groups.[113]
  • Scherer, Steell & Upchurch (2026) report evidence of different patterns of forelimb reduction in at least five distinct theropod lineages, as well as evidence of correlation of forelimb reduction with cranial robusticity and gigantism (itself likely linked to the increased size of prey animals), and interpret forelimb reduction in theropods as likely linked to redundancy of forelimbs in prey capture.[114]
  • Evidence from elliptic Fourier analysis of pedal phalanx bones of North American tyrannosaurids, ornithomimids, caenagnathids and troodontids, indicating that theropod pedal phalanges can be identified down to the family level on the basis of the study of their morphology, is presented by Warnock-Juteau, Smith & Cullen (2026).[115]
  • Drzewiecki et al. (2026) interpret theropod tracks from the Lower Jurassic East Berlin Formation (Connecticut, United States) as produced in an area with an ephemeral lake system rather than at the margin of a perennial lake.[116]
  • Xing et al. (2026) report the discovery of new theropod fossil material from the Lower Jurassic Fengjiahe Formation (Yunnan, China), including a tooth of a theropod distinct from Sinosaurus and two morphotypes of theropod tracks.[117]
  • Lallensack et al. (2026) reevaluate factors influencing shapes of theropod tracks from the Middle Jurassic of El Mers Group (Morocco) and from the Lower Cretaceous Cameros Basin (Spain), and interpret the type ichnospecies of the ichnogenera Saurexallopus, Magnoavipes, Theroplantigrada, Ordexallopus and Archaeornithipus as nomina dubia.[118]
  • Dridi (2026) reports the discovery of new theropod tracks from the Callovian strata of the El Miit Member of the Foum Tataouine Formation (Tunisia), providing evidence of more persistent presence of theropods in the studied area throughout the Jurassic than indicated by earlier discoveries.[119]
  • Gesualdi et al. (2026) assign theropod trackway from the Tithonian strata from the Plagne tracksite (France) to the ichnospecies Megalosauripus transjuranicus, extending known geographical range of this ichnotaxon.[120]
  • Grallatorid tracks representing two morphotypes, associated with microbial mats that might have contributed to the formation and preservation of the tracks, are identified in the strata of the Tuchengzi Formation from the Jurassic-Cretaceous transition (Hebei, China) by Xing et al. (2026).[121]
  • Evidence from the study of theropod footprints from the Lower Cretaceous Enciso Group (Spain), indicating that differences in morphology of the studied footprints reflect distinct phases of running involving different foot postures and load distributions, is presented by Díaz-Martínez et al. (2026).[122]
  • Theropod tracks representing two distinct morphotypes, including tracks providing possible evidence of gregarious behavior of ornithomimosaurs, are described from the Cretaceous Chaochuan Formation (Zhejiang, China) by Zheng et al. (2026).[123]
  • Charles, Polet & Hutchinson (2026) reconstruct the optimal jumping performance of Coelophysis bauri as overall similar to that of extant elegant crested tinamou, but achieved through different joint kinematics and muscle work throughout the hindlimbs, and report evidence of potential impact of the long, mobile tail on jumping performance.[124]
  • Redescription of the skeletal anatomy and a study on the affinities of Panguraptor lufengensis is published by Zhang et al. (2026).[125]
  • A new non-averostran theropod specimen distinct from Sinosaurus, preserved with evidence of presence of tetanuran-like skeletal characters, is described from the Lower Jurassic Lufeng Formation (Yunnan, China) by Wang et al. (2026), who also name the new clade Averostriformes that includes all neotheropods more closely related to Allosaurus fragilis than to Coelophysis bauri.[126]
  • Oswald & Curtice (2026) report evidence of similarities between the morphometrics of teeth of Ceratosaurus and upper canines of machairodontines, and argue that the dentition of the former might have been an adaptation to quick-killing middle-sized prey.[127]
  • Rowe, Cerroni & Rayfield (2026) study mechanical performance of skulls of Ceratosaurus, Masiakasaurus, Carnotaurus and Majungasaurus, and report evidence of adaptations of skulls of large abelisaurs to resist feeding-induced loads, suggestive of similarity of ecological roles of abelisaurs and tyrannosaurs, as well as possible evidence of adaptation of Masiakasaurus to capture of small prey.[128]
  • Seculi Pereyra et al. (2026) review the history of studies on abelisaurid phylogeny, and provide recommendations for future studies.[129]
  • Seculi Pereyra (2026) studies the evolution of abelisaurid orbit shape, interpreted as more likely influenced by selective pressures such as those related to specialized predation than by phylogenetic constraints.[130]
  • Seculi Pereyra, Soto & Perez (2026) study the evolution of skull ornamentation in abelisaurids, interpreted as following directional patterns and possibly driven by sexual selection.[131]
  • Probable teeth of majungasaurine abelisaurids from the Cenomanian strata of the Algora site (Province of Guadalajara, Spain) are identified by López-Miguel et al. (2026).[132]
  • Boschetto et al. (2026) describe an abelisaurid tooth from the Upper Cretaceous (Campanian-Maastrichtian) Argiles et Grès à Reptiles Formation (France), preserved with a bite mark interpreted as most likely self-inflicted during carcass consumption.[133]
  • Description of the anatomy of the skull of Skorpiovenator bustingorryi is published by Canale et al. (2026).[134]
  • Valdéz et al. (2026) report evidence of polycamerate internal structure and an advanced degree of pneumaticity in the fifth cervical vertebra of Viavenator exxoni.[135]
  • Pradelli et al. (2026) describe the anatomy of the axial skeleton of Piatnitzkysaurus floresi.[136]
  • Li et al. (2026) report the discovery of an isolated theropod tooth from the Lower Cretaceous Lianmuqin Formation (China), interpreted as evidence indicating that, in addition to Kelmayisaurus petrolicus and small coelurosaurs, the theropod assemblage from the studied formation also included a medium-sized tetanuran.[137]
  • A study on the skull anatomy of spinosaurids, providing evidence of presence of osteological correlates of supraorbitally placed salt glands similar to but evolved independently from salt glands seen in birds, is published by Cau et al. (2026).[138]
  • Evidence from the study of the neurovascular system in spinosaurid premaxillae, interpreted as consistent with sensitivity of spinosaurid snouts and high rate of tooth replacement in members of the group, is presented by Pittet (2026).[139]
  • An isolated theropod tooth with possible metriacanthosaurid affinities is reported from the Upper Jurassic–Lower Cretaceous strata of the Phu Kradung Formation (Thailand) by Samathi, Suteethorn & Suteethorn (2026).[140]
  • Malafaia, Maggia & Rauhut (2026) describe a maxilla of a hatchling Allosaurus from the Upper Jurassic strata from the Guimarota coal mine (Portugal) with a corrosion pattern interpreted as caused by digestion, most likely resulting from a consumption by a non-avian theropod.[141]
  • Two partial braincases of Siamraptor suwati, providing new information on the cranial anatomy of the species, are described from the Lower Cretaceous Khok Kruat Formation (Thailand) by Hattori et al. (2026).[142]
  • Seculi Pereyra & Ibiricu (2026) report evidence of coupled evolution of shape and size of manual claws of megaraptorids, and interpret the studied theropods as likely utilizing forelimbs in a specialized predation strategy.[143]
  • Nielsen et al. (2026) identify tooth marks on a tyrannosaurid metatarsal BDM 124 from the Judith River Formation (Montana, United States) as produced by a small-bodied, likely juvenile tyrannosaurid scavenging on a larger individual.[144]
  • Evidence of preservation of micro- and nanoscale histological features (including Haversian canal and lacunocanalicular network permineralization) in bones of Albertosaurus sarcophagus from the Horseshoe Canyon Formation (Alberta, Canada) is presented by Williams et al. (2026).[145]
  • A natural mold of a partial rostrum of a juvenile specimen of Gorgosaurus libratus is described from the Campanian strata of the Wapiti Formation (British Columbia, Canada) by Coppock, Larsson & Currie (2026), extending known geographical range of the species.[146]
  • Longrich et al. (2026) report the discovery of a tibia of a large-bodied tyrannosaurid from the Campanian strata of the Kirtland Formation (New Mexico, United States), interpreted as likely to be a bone of an early representative of Tyrannosaurini.[147]
  • Yun (2026) studies the affinities of the tyrannosaurid maxilla TMM 41436-1 from the Javelina Formation (Texas, United States), and interprets the available evidence as insufficient for placement of the studied specimen in a tyrannosaurid taxon distinct from Tyrannosaurus rex.[148]
  • Raun et al. (2026) revise proposed diagnostic characters of Asiatyrannus xui and Raptorex kriegsteini, and interpret the type material of both taxa as likely to be juvenile specimens of Tarbosaurus bataar.[149]
  • Woodward, Myhrvold & Horner (2026) reconstruct the life history of Tyrannosaurus on the basis of bone histology, reporting evidence of a more gradual annual growth rate slope than indicated by earlier studies and evidence of a protracted subadult stage, and find that growth trajectories of the tyrannosaur specimens BMRP 2002.4.1 (the holotype of Nanotyrannus lethaeus) and BMRP 2006.4.4 did not fit the T. rex growth curve model.[150]
  • A study on the locomotion of Tyrannosaurus, indicative of similarity of foot-strike patterns to those of the ostrich, is published by Boeye et al. (2026).[151]
  • Longrich et al. (2026) identify fossil material of hatchlings and young juveniles of Gorgosaurus libratus and Tyrannosaurus rex from the Upper Cretaceous formations in United States and Canada, interpreted as indicative of small body size of tyrannosaurid hatchlings and their precociality; the authors also interpret tooth wear of hatchlings as indicating that they fed on relatively large vertebrates, and estimate that tyrannosaurids were capable of producing large clutches of eggs.[152]
  • New theropod vertebrae, including fossil material of a troodontid and a probable ornithomimosaurian, are described from the Upper Cretaceous Iren Dabasu Formation (China) by Xu et al. (2026), expanding known morphological diversity of theropod vertebrae from this formation.[153]
  • Arbour, Bullard & Evans (2026) report the discovery of an ornithomimosaur caudal vertebra from the Campanian Cedar District Formation, representing the first confirmed dinosaur record from outcrops of the Nanaimo Group in Canada and the second confirmed record of dinosaur fossil material from the Nanaimo Group overall.[154]
  • Calvo-Pérez & Cuesta (2026) study the neuroanatomy of the endocranial cavity of Pelecanimimus polyodon, and report evidence of similarity of endocranial morphology to those of other ornithomimosaurs.[155]
  • Libke et al. (2026) support the interpretation of isolated dentaries from the Upper Cretaceous Judith River Formation (Montana, United States) described by Chinzorig et al. (2025)[156] as belonging to an aberrantly large ornithomimosaur, but argue that the studied fossils cannot be confidently assigned to a member of the family Deinocheiridae.[157]
  • Makovicky et al. (2026) report the discovery of a new specimen of Alnashetri cerropoliciensis from the Candeleros Formation (Argentina), providing new information on the anatomy of members of this species; the authors also interpret the Late Jurassic theropod vertebra described by Makovicky (1997),[158] the theropod astragalus YPM 9163 from Como Bluff (Morrison Formation, Wyoming, United States; formerly referred to Coelurus fragilis) and Calamosaurus foxi as alvarezsauroids, and study the phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary history of members of this group, interpreting it as having Pangaean ancestral distribution.[159]
  • A study on the functional capacity of forelimbs of alvarezsauroids, supporting their adaptations for digging, is published by Leedham et al. (2026).[160]
  • Meso et al. (2026) redescribe the anatomy of the holotype specimen of Bonapartenykus ultimus.[161]
  • Wang et al. (2026) report the first discovery of a maniraptoran egg from the Cenomanian Quantou Formation (Jilin, China), and name a new ootaxon Jilinoolithus lamellotestus.[162]
  • The first clutch of non-avian dinosaur eggs from the Cretaceous Dengta Basin (Guangdong, China), assigned to the ootaxon Elongatoolithus elongatus, is described by Wang et al. (2026).[163]
  • A study on the biomechanics of the forelimbs of Falcarius is published by Smith (2026).[164]
  • Description of the inner ear anatomy of Epichirostenotes curriei and two caenagnathid specimens from the Judith River and Hell Creek formations (Montana, United States) is published by Bazzana-Adams, Funston & Evans (2026).[165]
  • Su et al. (2026) determine heat transfer during the incubation of a clutch of oviraptorid eggs on the basis of incubation experiments, and find that oviraptorid parents transferred heat to their eggs less efficiently than extant birds and depended in part on environmental heat sources for incubation.[166]
  • Hao & Xu (2026) report the discovery of a new nest-associated oviraptorid specimen from the Upper Cretaceous strata from Jiangxi (China), and interpret Huanansaurus ganzhouensis, Corythoraptor jacobsi and the new specimen as likely representing a single species.[167]
  • Hefler et al. (2026) study the aerodynamics of Microraptor during flight, reporting evidence of beneficial impact of forewing–hindwing interactions on flow dynamics.[168]
  • The first deinonychosaurian (probably troodontid) track from Japan is described from the Lower Cretaceous Kitadani Formation by Tsukiji, Hattori & Azuma (2026).[169]
  • A probable troodontid tooth with similarities to Troodon is described from the Upper Cretaceous strata of the Kallamedu Formation (India) by Dhiman et al. (2026).[170]
  • Yin et al. (2026) study the external and internal anatomy of two troodontid teeth from the Maastrichtian Yuliangzi Formation (Heilongjiang, China), including a new specimen with similarities to Troodon.[171]
  • Serio et al. (2026) present a reconstruction of the forelimb of Troodon formosus, and reconstruct its range of motion.[172]
  • Review of evidence of troodontid dietary habits is published by Fan, Miller & Pittman (2026).[173]
  • García-Gil et al. (2026) identify isolated theropod teeth from the Upper Cretaceous El Gallo Formation (Mexico) as belonging to dromaeosaurids, troodontids, maniraptorans of uncertain affinities and indeterminate theropods.[174]

Sauropodomorph research

  • Schuurman, Bruner & Knoll (2026) reconstruct the topology of skulls of 14 sauropodomorph species spanning the entire evolutionary history of the group, and report probable evidence of limitation of morphological changes of individual bones by spatial constraints.[175]
  • A study on the evolution of the humeral morphology of sauropodomorphs, providing evidence of different pattern of evolution of sauropod-like traits in the proximal and distal half of the humerus, is published by Lefebvre et al. (2026).[176]
  • Evidence from the study of the fossil record of sauropodomorph tracks, indicative of changes through time related to increase of body size in the morphology of the sauropodomorph manus (but not in the morphology of the pes), is presented by Yamaguchi, Kubo & Kubo (2026).[177]
  • A footprint and an associated tail trace that were probably produced by a bipedal sauropodomorph, representing the oldest dinosaur trace fossil from Australia reported to date, are described from the Carnian strata of the Aspley Formation in Queensland by Romilio & Runnegar (2026).[178]
  • D'Orazi Porchetti et al. (2026) assign tetradactyl footprints from the Carnian strata of the Hassberge Formation (Germany) to the ichnogenus Evazoum, and interpret the studied footprints as likely produced by bipedal sauropodomorphs.[179]
  • Campos et al. (2026) describe the fossil material and study the bone histology of a small-bodied, juvenile sauropodomorph from the Upper Triassic strata from the Cerro da Alemoa site (Santa Maria Formation, Brazil), representing the smallest well-preserved skeletal remains of a sauropodomorph from Brazil reported to date.[180]
  • Description of the anatomy of the axial skeleton and a study on the affinities of Macrocollum itaquii is published by Fonseca et al. (2026).[181]
  • Xing et al. (2026) report the discovery of probable sauropodomorph tracks from a new tracksite from the Upper Triassic Xujiahe Formation (Sichuan, China).[182]
  • Chen et al. (2026) determine the oldest sauropodomorph fossils from the Kunming Basin (Yunnan, China) to be 200.17-million-years-old, and interpret this result as evidence of colonization of low palaeolatitude area of southwest China by medium- to large-bodied dinosaurs in the aftermath of the Triassic–Jurassic extinction.[183]
  • Evidence from the study of tooth morphology and replacement patterns, indicative of diverse feeding ecologies of Early Jurassic sauropods from the Cañadón Asfalto Basin (Argentina), is presented by Gomez, Carballido & Pol (2026).[184]
  • Saleiro et al. (2026) present the workflow behind the creation of a large dataset of surface texture measurements of teeth of Late Jurassic sauropods.[185]
  • The largest sauropod tracksite from the Lower Cretaceous Madongshan Formation (Ningxia, China), preserving tracks with a morphology intermediate between those typical of Brontopodus and Parabrontopodus tracks, is described by Yang et al. (2026).[186]
  • Sauropod tracks produced in wet aeolian environmental, possibly while the trackmakers travelled towards a habitat with greater resource availability, are described from the Lower Cretaceous Três Barras Formation (Brazil) by Nascimento et al. (2026).[187]
  • Kubo et al. (2026) study tooth wear of a specimen of Omeisaurus maoianus, finding no evidence of significant differences of microwear texture in the same individual based on tooth position, and report evidence of tooth wear differences between Yunnanosaurus and derived sauropods that were likely related to dietary differences.[188]
  • Shui, Shao & Yin (2026) present the first three-dimensional reconstruction of a mamenchisaurid tooth based on data from a new specimen from the Upper Jurassic Qigu Formation (China), interpreted as likely representing a taxon distinct from the specimen reported by Maisch & Matzke (2019).[189][190]
  • A study on the bone histology of cervical ribs of a juvenile mamenchisaurid specimen from the Jurassic Shaximiao Formation (Sichuan, China) is published by Zhou et al. (2026).[191]
  • Ghosh et al. (2026) describe a probable turiasaur tooth from the Bathonian strata of the Jaisalmer Basin (India), interpreted as the oldest record of group from the Indian Subcontinent reported to date.[192]
  • Casts of sauropod teeth from a private quarry near Skull Creek in northwestern Colorado (United States) interpreted as the first record of a member of Turiasauria from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation are described by Foster, Woodruff & Royo-Torres (2026).[193]
  • Gouellec et al. (2026) study dental morphotypes in the turiasaur from the Angeac-Charente bonebed (France), reporting evidence of heterodonty.[194]
  • A study on the caudal vertebrae of Cetiosaurus sp., "Cetiosaurus" glymptonensis, Wamweracaudia keranjei, Dicraeosaurus sattleri, Tornieria africana and Giraffatitan brancai, providing evidence of at least five independent origins and/or reversals of pneumaticity of anterior caudal vertebrae in Neosauropoda, is published by Beeston et al. (2026).[195]
  • Foster et al. (2026) review the history of excavation and study of the fossil material of Dystrophaeus viaemalae, review the geological setting of the fossil material, and interpret the morphology of the fossil material of D. viaemalae (including additional material collected since 2014) as unlikely to be a member of Diplodocoidea.[196]
  • Lerzo (2026) reevaluates Nopcsaspondylus alarconensis and considers it to be a nomen dubium.[197]
  • The sauropod specimen MMCh-PV 47 from the Candeleros Formation (Argentina), originally described as a titanosaur by Otero et al. (2011),[198] is interpreted as a rebbachisaurid by Lerzo (2026), providing new information on the tail musculature of members of this group.[199]
  • Garderes, Lerzo & Knoll (2026) study the endocranial morphology of Sidersaura marae, and report evidence indicating that rebbachisaurids might have differed from other sauropods in the variation in hearing capabilities relative to body size.[200]
  • Pal & Deshmukh (2026) described an ulna and radius of two titanosaur specimens discovered from Lameta Formation (India), with the first osteohistological description of a juvenile specimen from the country.[201]
  • Garderes et al. (2026) present a reconstruction of the cranial musculature of Bajadasaurus pronuspinax.[202]
  • Hullinger et al. (2026) describe apatosaurine remains from Arches National Park (Utah, United States), representing a medium-sized yet geologically young member of the group.[203]
  • A vertebra interpreted as the northernmost record of Barosaurus lentus from the Morrison Formation reported to date is described from the Pryor Mountains (Montana, United States) by Woodruff et al. (2026).[204]
  • van der Linden et al. (2026) report on a specimen of Barosaurus with a pathology in the "whip" part of the tail.[205]
  • Carpenter, Ikejiri & Wilson (2026) study the anatomy of postcranial skeleton of two immature specimens of Camarasaurus lentus from the strata of the Morrison Formation from Dinosaur National Monument (Utah, United States), interpreted as representing sequential stages in the ontogeny of the species and providing new information on its morphological variability.[206]
  • Yoshida, Carpenter & Kobayashi (2026) report the discovery of fossil material of members of Somphospondyli from the Cedar Mountain Formation (Utah, United States), providing evidence of coexistence of members of this group and brachiosaurids in North America during the Aptian.[207]
  • A new dinosaur tracksite dominated by tracks of sauropods (probably non-titanosaurian members of Somphospondyli) is described from the Lower Cretaceous strata of the Wawukuang Formation (Shandong, China) by Ren et al. (2026).[208]
  • Averianov et al. (2026) describe a partial fibula of a probable member of Euhelopodidae from the Lower Cretaceous Ilek Formation (Kemerovo Oblast, Russia), interpreted as evidence of presence of two sauropod taxa at the Shestakovo 3 locality.[209]
  • A study on the bone histology and growth patterns of Malarguesaurus florenciae is published by Previtera (2026).[210]
  • Redescription of the anatomy and a study on the affinities of Triunfosaurus leonardii is published by Mannion & Carvalho (2026), who interpret the studied species as a member of Somphospondyli belonging or closely related to Titanosauria.[211]
  • Iangrai et al. (2026) report the discovery of probable titanosaur remains from the Upper Cretaceous Mahadek Formation (India).[212]
  • Averianov et al. (2026) describe the first cervical vertebra referable to Tengrisaurus starkovi, and recover it as a basal member of Colossosauria in an updated phylogenetic study including this new material.[213]
  • Fossil material of a non-saltasaurine titanosaur (possibly a member of Colossosauria), representing the first dinosaur record from the Oriente Basin at the Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) Tena Formation (Ecuador), is described by Balcázar-Loaiza et al. (2026).[214]
  • Pérez Moreno et al. (2026) revise the fossil material attributed to Muyelensaurus pecheni, interpret it as belonging to sauropods from more than one taxon, and restrict M. pecheni to the holotype specimen only.[215]
  • Navarro et al. (2026) describe a titanosaur axis with possible lognkosaurian affinities from the Upper Cretaceous São José do Rio Preto Formation (Brazil), providing evidence of presence of a sauropod with body dimensions comparable to those of Futalognkosaurus in the Bauru Group prior to the Campanian, and report evidence of presence of phylogenetically informative character in the sauropod axis vertebrae.[216]
  • A caudal vertebra of a small-bodied titanosaur (probably a non-saltasaurid member of Eutitanosauria) is described from the Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) strata of the Santa Marta Formation (James Ross Island, Antarctica) by Barrett et al. (2026).[217]
  • A study on changes in the skeleton of Neuquensaurus australis, based on data from the skeleton of a juvenile individual, is published by Zurriaguz et al. (2026), who also study the bone histology of the new individual, reporting evidence of an overall rapid growth, but also evidence of at least one cyclical growth mark in the cortex.[218]
  • Capurro & Fernández (2026) study the structure of shells of titanosaur eggs from the Auca Mahuevo site (Argentina), reporting evidence that the studied eggshells had comparable values of water vapour conductance and porosity to eggshells of extant archosaurs incubating their eggs in open nests.[219]
  • A bowl-shaped depression with scratch and claw traces, interpreted as likely resulting from repeated sauropod foot movement and possibly representing an abandoned nest dug by a titanosaur sauropod, is reported from the Maastrichtian strata of the El Molino Formation (Bolivia) by Meyer et al. (2026).[220]
  • Alessandretti et al. (2026) describe sauropod undertracks from the Upper Cretaceous Capacete Formation (Brazil), determine the environmental conditions that resulted in their formation and preservation, and interpret the sedimentological and paleontological data from the Sanfranciscana Basin coupled with reconstructions of Late Cretaceous climate as suggestive of sauropod migrations from the Bauru Basin to the Sanfranciscana Basin.[221]

Ornithischian research

  • Reid, Fonseca & Madzia (2026) evaluate the history of ornithischian clade names and their synonymy.[222]
  • A study on the life history of Changchunsaurus parvus, providing evidence of one of the slowest growth rates reported in dinosaurs, is published by Wang et al. (2026).[223]
  • Avrahami & Zanno (2026) describe the anatomy of the cranial elements of Fona herzogae.[224]

Thyreophoran research

  • Sánchez-Fenollosa, Cobos & Suñer (2026) describe new stegosaurian fossil material from the Villar del Arzobispo Formation (Spain), and revise the fossil record of Stegosauria from the eastern part of the Iberian Peninsula.[225]
  • Hunt-Foster et al. (2026) describe portions of forelimbs of an indeterminate stegosaurid from the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation (Utah, United States), estimated to be the largest stegosaurid specimen from the Morrison Formation reported to date.[226]
  • Costa (2026) identifies five additional occurrences of dacentrurine stegosaur fossils (besides the holotype of Alcovasaurus/Miragaia longispinus) in the Upper Jurassic strata of the Morrison Formation (United States).[227]
  • A juvenile specimen representing the smallest individual of Stegosaurus stenops reported to date is described from the strata of the Morrison Formation in Wyoming (United States) by Carpenter (2026).[228]
  • New thyreophoran fossil material with probable stegosaurian affinities is described from the Lower Cretaceous (Berriasian–Valanginian) Bajada Colorada Formation (Argentina) by Riguetti et al. (2026).[229]
  • Agnolín et al. (2026) report the discovery of new fossil material of Patagopelta cristata, providing new information on the anatomy of members of this species and supporting its placement within Parankylosauria.[230]
  • Cross et al. (2026) modify and develop new tooth characters for ankylosaur systematics, and study the phylogenetic relationships of members of this group.[231]
  • New information on the internal anatomy of the skull of Panoplosaurus mirus is provided by Livius et al. (2026).[232]
  • Yoon et al. (2026) identify probable ankylosaurid tracks, referred to as cf. Ruopodosaurus, from the Cenomanian Jindong Formation (South Korea).[233]
  • Zhu et al. (2026) describe new fossil material of Pinacosaurus grangeri from the Upper Cretaceous Wulansuhai Formation (China), refine the diagnosis of this species, study changes in its skull morphology during its life history, and report possible evidence of sexual dimorphism.[234]

Cerapod research

  • Kim, Lee & Gihm (2026) report the discovery of a trackway of a running ornithopod from the Lower Cretaceous (Aptian–Albian) strata of the Hasandong Formation (South Korea).[235]
  • Rotatori et al. (2026) study the phylogenetic relationships of iguanodontian ornithopods and reconstruct the evolutionary history of the group, name a new clade Ouranosauria, and trace the major radiation of Iguanodontia to the Early Jurassic (Pliensbachian–Toarcian).[236]
  • Naugolnykh & Afonkin (2026) report the discovery of ornithopod footprints from the Lower Cretaceous (Valanginian) strata from Stavropol Krai (Russia), and name a new ichnotaxon Iguanodontipus lermontovi.[237]
  • Description of new fossil material of Muttaburrasaurus langdoni and a study on its craniodental anatomy, palaeoneurology and sensory palaeobiology is published by Herne et al. (2026).[238]
  • Three iguanodontian specimens with a morphology distinct from those of members of the genera Dryosaurus and Camptosaurus are described from the strata of the Morrison Formation from the Simon Quarry (Wyoming, United States) by Krumenacker et al. (2026).[239]
  • Rocchi et al. (2026) provide new information on the anatomy of Dysalotosaurus lettowvorbecki and changes in its skeleton during its ontogeny on the basis of the study of an immature individual from the Tendaguru Formation (Tanzania).[240]
  • Dieudonné, Paulina-Carabajal & Cruzado-Caballero (2026) redescribe the anatomy of the skull of Gasparinisaura cincosaltensis, and name a new clade Dysalotosaurinae within Dryosauridae.[241]
  • Galton & Carpenter (2026) redescribe the anatomy of the holotype and paratypes of Camptosaurus dispar and the holotype of C. medius, and support the interpretation of C. medius, C. nanus and C. browni as junior synonyms of C. dispar.[242]
  • Gônet, Allain & Houssaye (2026) determine probable locomotor preferences of Iguanodon bernissartensis, Ouranosaurus nigeriensis and Lurdusaurus arenatus, interpreting the studied taxa as likely obligate quadrupeds, and interpreting Lurdusaurus as the first known graviportal ornithopod.[243]
  • Kondo et al. (2026) identify a sternal plate of an indeterminate member of Iguanodontia (possibly a hadrosauroid) from the Upper Cretaceous (Turonian-Coniacian) Ashizawa Formation (Futaba Group), belonging to an individual that was smaller than other iguanodontians reported from the Upper Cretaceous marine strata from Japan.[244]
  • Salas-Herrera et al. (2026) diagnose a specimen of Iguanodon bernissartensis from the Barremian Arcillas de Morella Formation (Spain) with a pathological overgrowth in the tibia as affected by acute overlying skin ulceration, possibly a tropical ulcer.[245]
  • Ma et al. (2026) report the discovery of a new skull of Qianjiangsaurus changshengi from the Upper Cretaceous Zhengyang Formation (China), preserving evidence of presence of a hollow crest on the skull of the studied dinosaur that was structurally non-homologous with crests of lambeosaurine hadrosaurids.[246]
  • Ma et al. (2026) study the taphonomy and age profile of the assemblage dominated by specimens of Bactrosaurus johnsoni from the Upper Cretaceous Iren Dabasu Formation (China) collected during fieldwork conducted in 2014 and 2015, report that the assemblage is dominated by nestling and juvenile individuals (interpreted as consistent with population segregation between juveniles and adults and with herding behavior of B. johnsoni), and interpret the studied fossil assemblage as likely affected by an attritional mortality pattern.[247]
  • Yu et al. (2026) report the first discovery of lambeosaurine hadrosaurid fossil material from the Campanian Nenjiang Formation (China), interpreted by the authors as supporting Asian origin of the group.[248]
  • Sharpe & Brown (2026) describe fossil material of Hypacrosaurus altispinus from the Horseshoe Canyon Formation (Alberta, Canada), representing the northernmost record of the species reported to date; the authors also provide evidence of morphological separation between H. altispinus and "Hypacrosaurus" stebingeri, and propose a new combination Corythosaurus stebingeri for the latter species.[249]
  • Dudgeon, Brown & Evans (2026) describe the internal crest anatomy of mature individuals of Corythosaurus casuarius, C. intermedius and Lambeosaurus lambei.[250]
  • A study on bite force and stress distribution in the skull of Corythosaurus casuarius, providing evidence of changes of feeding mechanics of the studied hadrosaurid during its life history, is published by Dudgeon & Evans (2026).[251]
  • Hunter & Janis (2026) compare tooth wear in juvenile and adult individuals of Maiasaura peeblesorum, and report evidence of differences interpreted as consistent with a shift from feeding on nutritious, low-fiber plants to feeding on nutritionally poor, high-fiber plants during the life of the studied dinosaur.[252]
  • Duarte-Bigurra et al. (2026) describe partial hadrosaurid specimens from the Campanian strata of the Fronteras section of the Cabullona Group from Arroyo del Alamito and Puerto Viejo localities (Sonora, Mexico), providing evidence of presence in southern Laramidia of members of the tribe Kritosaurini related to "secernosaurs" from Patagonia (Argentina).[253]
  • Bateman & Larsson (2026) compare the cranial musculature and likely feeding performance of Stegoceras validum and other ornithischians, providing evidence of greater similarity of the feeding performance of S. validum to those of basal ornithischians and ornithopods than to that of Psittacosaurus lujiatunensis, and interpret their findings as indicating that evolution of cranial domes of pachycephalosaurs constrained the evolution of their jaw musculature and their feeding performance.[254]
  • Moore et al. (2026) describe postcranial remains of an indeterminate, early juvenile pachycephalosaur specimen from the Maastrichtian Frenchman Formation (Saskatchewan, Canada), representing the ontogenetically youngest pachycephalosaur postcranium reported to date.[255]
  • Maidment et al. (2026) use new remains of Ajkaceratops kozmai from the Late Cretaceous Csehbánya Formation (Hungary) to conclude that this species is confidently a ceratopsian, "Mochlodon" vorosi is a junior synonym of this species, and Late Cretaceous Europe preserves a previously unrecognized diversity of horned dinosaurs represented by taxa otherwise accepted as 'rhabdodontids', despite previous records having suggested the contrary.[57]
  • Reconstruction of the nasal soft tissues of ceratopsids is presented by Tada et al. (2026).[256]
  • Theurer et al. (2026) provide new information on the structure of the ceratopsid lower leg and feet on the basis of the study of an indeterminate ceratopsid hindlimb from the Upper Cretaceous Dinosaur Park Formation (Alberta, Canada).[257]
  • A pathological caudal vertebra of Medusaceratops lokii affected by chronic osteomyelitis with a draining sinus tract is described from the Upper Cretaceous Judith River Formation (Montana, United States) by Wang et al. (2026).[258]

Birds

New bird taxa

More information Name, Novelty ...
Name Novelty Status Authors Age Type locality Country Notes Images

Asio pythiotus[259]

Sp. nov

Zelenkov

Pleistocene

Crimea

An owl, a species of Asio.

Coracias chauvireae[260]

Sp. nov

Zelenkov

Pleistocene

Crimea

A roller, a species of Coracias.

Corvus venustus[261]

Sp. nov

Valid

Zelenkov

Pleistocene

Crimea

A species of Corvus.

Eopavo[262]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Yu et al.

Miocene

Liushu Formation

China

A peafowl. The type species is E. hezhengensis.

Eschatornis[263]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Machado et al.

Pleistocene

Brazil

A member of the family Phorusrhacidae. The type species is E. aterradora.

Gorgonavis[264]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Nebreda et al.

Early Cretaceous (Barremian)

La Huérguina Formation

Spain

A member of Enantiornithes belonging or related to the family Longipterygidae. The type species is G. alcyone.

Jamninkaornis[265]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Bochenski et al.

Oligocene

Poland

A passerine in the suborder Tyranni. The type species is J. kencampbelli.

Kunpengornis[266]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Huang et al.

Early Cretaceous

Jiufotang Formation

China

A euornithean. The type species is K. anhuimusei. Announced in 2025, the final article version was published in 2026.

Meterchen[267]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Tennyson et al.

Miocene

Bannockburn Formation

New Zealand

A probable goose. The type species is M. luti.

Pavo miejue[268]

Sp. nov

Valid

Lan, Mayr & Tsai

Pleistocene

Chiting Formation

Taiwan

A species of Pavo.

Plumadraco[269]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Clark et al.

Early Cretaceous (Aptian)

Jiufotang Formation

China

A member of Enantiornithes. The type species is P. bankoorum.

Porphyrio claytongreenei[270]

Sp. nov

Valid

Worthy et al.

Pleistocene

New Zealand

A swamphen.

Pujatopouli[271]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Irazoqui et al.

Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian)

López de Bertodano Formation

Antarctica

A probable member of Neoaves with affinities with the group Aequornithes. The type species is P. soberana. Announced in 2025, the final article version was published in 2026.

Rhynchaeites mcfaddeni[272]

Sp. nov

Valid

Ksepka et al.

Eocene

Green River Formation

United States
( Wyoming)

A stem-ibis.

Shargaotis[273]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Zelenkov

Miocene

Mongolia

A bustard. The type species is S. ignipes. Published online in 2026, but the issue date is listed as December 2025.

Strigops insulaborealis[270]

Sp. nov

Valid

Worthy et al.

Pleistocene

New Zealand

A parrot related to the kākāpō.

Urmiornis shargensis[274]

Sp. nov

Valid

Zelenkov

Miocene

Mongolia

A member of Ergilornithidae.

Vegavis geitononesos[275]

Sp. nov

Valid

Irazoqui et al.

Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian)

López de Bertodano Formation

Antarctica

A neornithine; a species of Vegavis.

Vegavis notopothousa[275]

Sp. nov

Valid

Irazoqui et al.

Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian)

López de Bertodano Formation

Antarctica

A neornithine; a species of Vegavis.

V. notopothousa (d, i, k, o)

Zhengheornis[276]

Gen. et sp. nov

Wang et al.

Late Jurassic (Tithonian)

Nanyuan Formation

China

An early member of Avialae. The type species is Z. buyu.

Close

Avian research

  • Benito et al. (2026) contest the conclusions of the study of Wilken et al. (2025)[277] about the evolution of the ability of birds to move parts of the skull independently, arguing that these conclusions were based on inadequate taxon sampling and morphological misinterpretations;[278] in response Wilken et al. (2026) agree that the bone interpreted in the 2025 study as a coracoid of Janavis is more likely to be a pterygoid, but question the affinities of this bone among Mesozoic birds, and overall reaffirm their original conclusion that powered prokinesis is most likely an autapomorphy of neognath birds.[279]
  • Lechki & Benson (2026) compare the reproductive output of extant and extinct amniotes, and link the increase of size of eggs and offspring (relative to adult size) in birds compared to other dinosaurs to the evolution of larger brain, likely also related to increased parental care.[280]
  • Liu et al. (2026) identify the best predictors of body mass in extant birds, and provide new estimates of body mass of Mesozoic birds.[281]
  • Jo et al. (2026) report the first discovery of Mesozoic avialan-type eggs from Korea, discovered in the mid-Cretaceous strata of the Ilseongsan Formation (South Korea), and name a new ootaxon Onggwanoolithus aphaedoensis.[282]
  • O'Connor & Marugán-Lobón (2026) revise the fossil record of avialans from the Upper Jurassic Solnhofen Limestones (Germany), consider purported diagnostic characters of Ostromia crassipes and Alcmonavis poeschli to be equivocal, and interpret the studied fossils as most likely representing a single taxon (Archaeopteryx).[283]
  • Evidence indicating that Archaeopteryx was capable of achieving take-off velocity sufficient to become airborne in two to three leaps is presented by Meilak et al. (2026).[284]
  • Zhou et al. (2026) interpret the evolution of teeth of Mesozoic birds as random and mainly influenced by phylogeny and evolution time, with no evidence of a consistent trend towards tooth loss.[285]
  • Wu et al. (2026) study the evolution of the triosseal canal of birds on the basis of data from Archaeorhynchus and a new enantiornithean specimen from the Jiufotang Formation (Liaoning, China), interpreting the triosseal canal as resulting from evolution of the coracoscapular joint into synchondrosis in members of Ornithothoraces, and from subsequent closing of the canal in members of Ornithuromorpha as a result of the appearance of the acrocoracoclavicular joint between their coracoid and furcula.[286]
  • Kuo et al. (2026) report the discovery of an enantiornithean specimen from the Jiufotang Formation with distinctly shaped uncinate processes of ribs and study the morphological diversity of the uncinate processes of birds, reporting evidence of a link between uncinate process length and ecological attributes of birds, including their flight performance.[287]
  • Holdaway et al. (2026) study the variation within the moa genus Euryapteryx, and find that their phylogenetic relationships indicated by the study of ancient mitochondrial DNA do not match patterns recovered in morphometric analysis.[288]
  • A study on the hindlimb morphology of extant rheas, and a taxonomic revision of fossil and archaeological rheid material, is published by Picasso, Acosta Hospitaleche & Quaggia (2026).[289]
  • Evidence from the study of ostrich eggshells from Middle Pleistocene to late Holocene sites in Israel, indicative of shift from eggshells with pore patterns similar to those seen in extant Somali ostrich to eggshells with pore patterns similar to those seen in Arabian ostrich which might related to a species turnover in the studied area between 100,000 and 70,000 years ago, is presented by Tsahar et al. (2026).[290]
  • Niespolo et al. (2026) determine the youngest known eggshells of Genyornis to be approximately 46-44,000 years old.[291]
  • Sosa & Acosta Hospitaleche (2026) describe a synsacrum of an indeterminate member of Neognathae from the Ypresian strata of the La Meseta Formation from the Seymour Island, interpreted as evidence of presence of a small shorebird or marine bird in Antarctica during the Eocene.[292]
  • Somogyi et al. (2026) interpret cases of apparent morphological convergence in members of major lineages of Neoaves that lack consistent functional drivers as likely linked to high levels of incomplete lineage sorting during the early radiation of the group in the aftermath of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, resulting in difficulty of phylogenetic placement of early Cenozoic members of the group.[293]
  • Hellyer-Price, Venditti & Humphries (2026) calculate the drag on the bill of Pelagornis while skimming, and argue that the studied bird was likely unable to skim-feed.[294]
  • Goedert et al. (2026) report the discovery of a braincase of Pelagornis orri from the Miocene Astoria Formation (Oregon, United States), providing new information on the anatomy of the species, as well as discovery of isolated vertebra and phalanx bone of Pelagornis sp. from the Eocene Keasey Formation (Oregon), representing one of the oldest pelagornithid records reported to date.[295]
  • Degrange et al. (2026) study the anatomy of the brain endocast of Conflicto antarcticus, reporting the absence of Wulsts, lack of adaptations to filter-feeding seen in extant anatids, and presence of large olfactory bulbs.[296]
  • Van der Meer & Langeveld (2026) report the discovery of fossil material of the harlequin duck from the Quaternary strata from the Dutch North Sea, representing the second fossil record of the species from Europe reported to date.[297]
  • Citron et al. (2026) study the anatomy of skulls and endocasts of the dodo and the Rodrigues solitaire, and report evidence of differences in the visual and olfactory systems of the dodo compared to those of extant doves and pigeons.[298]
  • Zelenkov (2026) describes fossil material of Pleistocene bustards from the Taurida Cave (Crimea), confirms the validity and distinctiveness of Otis lambrechti and "Otis" kalmani, and assigns the latter species to the genus Tetrax.[299]
  • De los Reyes, Acosta Hospitaleche & Sosa (2026) report the discovery of a tarsometatarsus of the grey-cowled wood rail from the strata of the La Esperanza Formation (Buenos Aires Province, Argentina), interpreted as suggestive of presence of seasonal wetlands and/or humid scrublands in the studied area during the early Pleistocene.[300]
  • Lenser, Reed & Worthy (2026) interpret the fossil record of shorebirds from the Blanche Cave (South Australia) as indicative of mostly terrestrial environment in the studied area in the Pleistocene, including open forest and woodland but also with wetland elements, and interpret changes of composition of the studied assemblage as indicative of decrease in available wetlands at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum.[301]
  • Evidence of distinct cranial anantomy, sexual size dimorphism and adaptions of hindlimbs to underwater locomotion in the spectacled cormorant is presented by Samsonov et al. (2026).[302]
  • Xia, Wu & Li (2026) interpret elemental distribution in fossils of Eocene penguins from the La Meseta and Submeseta formations (Seymour Island, Antarctica) as providing evidence of changes of weathering intensity, depositional energy and redox conditions in Antarctica related to shift from a warm climate during early Eocene to subsequent cooling during middle-late Eocene.[303]
  • Mayr & Richter (2026) describe new fossil material of Hassiavis laticauda from the Eocene Messel Formation (Germany), providing new information on the anatomy of members of this species, and reevaluate the phylogenetic affinities of Archaeotrogonidae.[304]
  • New fossil material of the Cuban pauraque and the Antillean nighthawk is described from the Pleistocene and Holocene strata from the El Abrón Cave (Cuba) by Gorbatcheva & Zelenkov (2026).[305]
  • Hunt, Lucas & Smith (2026) describe bromalites from the Eocene Willwood Formation (Wyoming, United States) interpreted as owl regurgitalites containing bones of glyptosaurid lizards, and name a new ichnotaxon Sauresus osteodermus.[306]
  • Fossil material of members of two honeyguide species, representing the earliest record of members of this group reported to date, is described from the Pliocene strata of the Varswater Formation from the Langebaanweg site (South Africa) by Louchart, Manegold & Pavia (2026).[307]
  • A study on the bone histology of Andrewsornis abbotti and Physornis fortis, providing evidence of uninterrupted growth strategy in phorusrhacids, is published by Dreyer, Cooper & O'Connor (2026).[308]
  • Lo Coco et al. (2026) reinterpret Pleistoanser bravardi as a parrot belonging to the genus Cyanoliseus, resulting in a new combination Cyanoliseus bravardi.[309]
  • Mayr (2026) studies the phylogenetic relationships of Parapsittacopes and Psittacomimus, assigning them to the new family Psittacomimidae interpreted as likely sister group of Parapasseres (the clade formed by the Zygodactylidae and Passeriformes).[310]
  • A study on the phylogenetic relationships of the Hawaiian honeyeaters, indicative of a relationships with the clade including the families Hypocoliidae and Hylocitreidae rather than a sister relationship with Hypocoliidae alone, is published by Zhao, Kimball & Braun (2026).[311]
  • Campana et al. (2026) study the phylogenetic relationships of extant and extinct Hawaiian honeycreepers, and report evidence of adaptive radiation the group following the formation of Oʻahu, and find that the ʻiʻiwi is not closely related to extinct members of the genus Drepanis.[312]
  • A study on the morphological diversity of Cretaceous to Pleistocene avian tracks from continents that were parts of Gondwana is published by Farina et al. (2026).[313]
  • Review of the composition of the Eocene bird assemblage from the Walton Member of the London Clay (United Kingdom) is published by Mayr (2026).[314]
  • Mayr & Collinson (2026) revise the fossil record of stomach contents of Eocene birds from the Messel Pit (Germany), reporting evidence of ingested seeds in representatives of ten species belonging to different bird groups, and interpret the studied fossil record as indicative of Eocene frugivorous birds exploiting existing diversity of flowering plants with edible fruits (whose origin predated those of the studied birds) rather than indicative of coevolution of flowering plants and early frugivorous birds.[315]
  • Farina, Krapovickas & Marsicano (2026) study the composition of the bird track assemblage from the Miocene Vinchina Formation (Argentina), including the oldest rheiform track in southern South America reported to date and probable phorusrhacid track.[316]
  • Serrano et al. (2026) describe Early Pleistocene bird remains from the Venta Micena site (Spain), interpreted as indicative of presence of wetland environment.[317]
  • Zelenkov et al. (2026) report the discovery of fossil material of a new late Pleistocene bird fauna from the Khondu locality (Sakha Republic, Russia), including at least 25 taxa.[318]
  • Oros Sršen et al. (2026) study the composition of the late Pleistocene bird assemblages from the Marlera site (Croatia), reporting evidence of presence of taxa associated by open and dry environments, as well as aquatic taxa.[319]
  • A new, diverse Late Pleistocene bird assemblage is reported from the Taguatagua 3 site in the Tagua Tagua Lake area (Chile) by Alarcón-Muñoz et al. (2026).[320]
  • Evidence from the study of ancient environmental DNA indicative of changes of composition of bird communities in high-latitude areas of Eurasia and Alaska from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene is presented by Sander et al. (2026).[321]
  • Peralta et al. (2026) report the discovery of a new avian assemblage from the early Holocene strata from the Molino Doll locality (Entre Ríos Province, Argentina).[322]
  • A study on the composition on the middle Holocene avian assemblage from the Cueva del Llano site (Fuerteventura, Canary Islands), providing evidence of presence of taxa typical of forest environments and the edges of bodies of water, is published by Sánchez-Marco, Sánchez-Sastre & Castillo (2026).[323]

Pterosaurs

New pterosaur taxa

More information Name, Novelty ...
Name Novelty Status Authors Age Type locality Country Notes Images

Laueropterus[324]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Hone

Late Jurassic

Mörnsheim Formation

Germany

An early member of Monofenestrata. The type species is L. vitriolus.

Rexarthuria[325]

Gen. et comb. nov

Thomas & McDavid

Early Cretaceous (Valanginian)

Tunbridge Wells Sand Formation

United Kingdom

An azhdarchoid; a new genus for "Palaeornis' cliftii Mantell (1844).

Tylodorhynchus[326]

Gen. et comb. nov

Valid

Pêgas & Holgado

Early Cretaceous (Barremian)

Wessex Formation

United Kingdom

A coloborhynchine anhanguerid; a new genus for "Uktenadactylus" rodriguesae Holgado & Pêgas (2020).

Close

Pterosaur research

  • Walters, Rayfield & Donoghue (2026) argue that modern reconstructions of pterosaur wings likely underestimate the diversity of wing shapes within this group.[327]
  • Ji (2026) describes a partial skeleton of an indeterminate pterosaur, marking the first record of the group from the Mazongshan Dinosaur Fauna (Xiagou Formation, China).[328]
  • Cerqueira et al. (2026) compare the allometry in the skeletal elements of Rhamphorhynchus muensteri and pterodactyloid pterosaurs, reporting evidence of differences interpreted as likely linked to different flight capabilities and to differing ecology.[329]
  • Tong et al. (2026) report the discovery of two specimens of Cascocauda rong from the Jurassic Tiaojishan Formation (China) providing new information on the anatomy of anurognathids, including evidence of presence of a skull element resembling the supraorbital (or palpebral) bones found in extant lepidosaurs and possibly helping to secure the pterosaurs' eyes within the orbits.[330]
  • A probable pterodactyloid radius is reported from the Bathonian strata from the Stonesfield Slate locality (United Kingdom) by Averianov & Lopatin (2026).[331]
  • Grice et al. (2026) report evidence of preservation of molecular biomarkers in a pterosaur wing phalanx from the Lower Cretaceous Romualdo Formation (Brazil), and interpret the results of molecular analyses of steroids from the studied fossil as consistent with a diet including fish and/or cephalopods.[332]
  • Unwin et al. (2026) argue that the holotype of purported pterosaur Bakiribu waridza is actually fossil material of an indeterminate ray-finned fish (possibly an amiid).[333]
  • Averianov & Gubarev (2026) report the discovery of a pterosaur cervical vertebra from the Cenomanian Melovatka Formation (Saratov Oblast, Russia) with similarities to a probable targaryendraconid vertebra from the Albian Toolebuc Formation (Australia), and interpret the studied vertebrae as likely to be the first diagnostic postcranial remains of members of Targaryendraconia.[334]
  • A wing phalanx bone of a member of Ornithocheiriformes that is the first known pterosaur bone from Egypt is described from the Cenomanian Bahariya Formation by Salem et al. (2026).[335]
  • Wang et al. (2026) describe an articulated forelimb of Hamipterus tianshanensis from the Lower Cretaceous strata in Xinjiang (China), providing new information on the anatomy of members of this species.[336]
  • Jung et al. (2026) describe track of a large pterosaur (possibly a member of Neoazhdarchia) from the Lower Cretaceous (Albian) strata of the Jinju Formation (South Korea), found in close association with a small tetrapod trackway and possibly documenting predation of a pterosaur on a small tetrapod, and name a new ichnotaxon Jinjuichnus procerus.[337]

Other archosaurs

Other new archosaur taxa

More information Name, Novelty ...
Name Novelty Status Authors Age Type locality Country Notes Images
Close

Other archosaur research

General research

  • Sookias et al. (2026) study the diversification of Permian to Early Jurassic Archosauromorpha, reporting evidence of initial high diversification that decreased through time in archosauromorph subgroups (including archosaur ones), but with different trajectories of this pattern in the studied subgroups.[341]
  • Napoli (2026) reevaluates two methods (geometric morphometrics and cladistic analysis of ontogeny) used in the studies of extinct vertebrates (especially dinosaurs) aiming to determine which differences between fossil specimens result from variation between different species and which differences result from variation between specimens representing different growth stages (possibly of the same species), reports that application of these methods to extant American and Chinese alligators does not consistently result in correct specific identification, and identifies invariant characters that provide consistent identification of members of different alligator species throughout their life history.[342]
  • Lechki & Benson (2026) report evidence of uneven effectiveness of energetic fitness models at predicting body size distributions in different amniote groups, with good results in the study of birds but not in the study of crocodylians and non-avian dinosaurs, and interpret the body size distribution of dinosaurs (including lack of non-avian dinosaurs with body mass of less than 300 g) as influenced not only by their physiology but also by ecological constraints (possibly by competition with mammals and with juveniles of large dinosaurs excluding adult dinosaurs from small body sizes), which were lifted in the bird lineage around the time of the evolution of flight.[343]
  • Seymour et al. (2026) determine blood flow rates of 81 species of extinct archosauriforms on the basis of the study of nutrient foramina in their long bones, interpreted as consistent with widespread tachymetabolism in Mesozoic archosaurs.[344]
  • Liard, Liard & Buffetaut (2026) review the fossil record of tracks of vertebrates (mostly archosaurs) from the Mesozoic strata from Thailand.[345]
  • Evidence supporting the presence of extraoral tissues ("lips") similar to those seen in extant lepidosaurs in Triassic pseudosuchians and dinosaurs from southern Brazil is presented by Terras et al. (2026), who interpret the presence of "lips" in the form of labial scales associated with extensive gingiva covering the teeth as likely to be the plesiomorphic condition in Sauropsida.[346]
  • Marchetti et al. (2026) study the composition of the tetrapod (mostly archosaur) track assemblage from the Carnian strata from the Lerici site (Italy), identifying pseudosuchian, theropod and sauropodomorph tracks and providing evidence of co-occurrence of two different sauropodomorph ichnogenera.[347]
  • García-Cobeña et al. (2026) report the discovery of new fossil material of vertebrates, including crocodylomorphs and dinosaurs, from the Lower Cretaceous El Castellar Formation (Spain), expanding known vertebrate diversity from the studied formation.[348]
  • A cluster of bones of an ornithuromorph bird (possibly Gansus), interpreted as most likely to be originally contained within a pellet produced by a non-avian theropod (possibly Jian changmaensis), is described from the Lower Cretaceous strata of the Xiagou Formation (China) by Wang et al. (2026).[349]
  • Egan et al. (2026) reconstruct the ecology and environment of the Late Cretaceous (Campanian) ecosystem of the Dinosaur Park Formation (Saskatchewan, Canada) on the basis of the study of isotopic composition of tooth enamel of vertebrates (mostly archosaurs) and amber, interpreting the studied archosaur assemblage as living close to the coastline of the Western Interior Seaway, and finding no evidence of significant differences in dietary and migratory behaviors between hadrosaurs and ceratopsians.[350]
  • Fanti et al. (2026) identify the Late Cretaceous (Campanian) fossil assemblage (including ornithopod Tethyshadros insularis and crocodyliform Acynodon adriaticus) from the Villaggio del Pescatore site (Italy) as living in a tidal flat ecosystem repeatedly affected by tropical cyclones and flood events.[351]
  • Soto-Acuña et al. (2026) describe fossil material of large-bodied ornithopods from the Maastrichtian strata of the Quebrada Municipalidad Beds (Chile), and identify purported Eocene presbyornithid remains from the same locality as actually originating from the Upper Cretaceous strata.[352]
  • Hack et al. (2026) report the discovery of two isolated unguals from the Late Triassic (Rhaetian) Exter Formation (Germany), interpreted as belonging to a sauropodomorph and potentially the largest Triassic pterosaur.[353]

References

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks