I just wanted to share what I’ve learned since my last comment.

Short Version: I overestimated non-avian dino intelligence & underestimated fowl intelligence.

Long Version: Based on what I’ve since read (E.g. See the 1st 3 quotes), 1) Archaeopteryx were probably as intelligent as domestic chickens (& thus, fell “about mid- range on the intelligence scale of birds”), & 2) non-avian maniraptorans were probably either as intelligent as or more intelligent than Archaeopteryx (I’m thinking the latter, given the Bakker quote’s emphasis on the difference btwn wild & domestic fowl, intelligence-wise). I was originally thrown off by the facts that 1) non-avian maniraptorans probably had the intelligence for pack-hunting (See the Buchholtz quote), & 2) the only pack-hunting birds I knew of were diurnal raptors, corvids, & shrikes. However, I’ve since learned that ground hornbills (which, as indicated by the Firestone et al. quote, are turkey-like birds, behavior-wise) are also pack-hunting birds (See the Tudge quote).

Quoting Burish et al. (See “Abstract”: [link] ): “Vertebrate brains vary tremendously in size, but differ- ences in form are more subtle. To bring out functional contrasts that are independent of absolute size, we have normalized brain component sizes to whole brain vol- ume. The set of such volume fractions is the cerebrotype of a species. Using this approach in mammals we pre- viously identified specific associations between cerebro- type and behavioral specializations. Among primates, cerebrotypes are linked principally to enlargement of the cerebral cortex and are associated with increases in the complexity of social structure. Here we extend this analy- sis to include a second major vertebrate group, the birds. In birds the telencephalic volume fraction is strongly cor- related with social complexity. This correlation accounts for almost half of the observed variation in telencephalic size, more than any other behavioral specialization ex- amined, including the ability to learn song. A prominent exception to this pattern is owls, which are not social but still have very large forebrains. Interpolating the overall correlation for Archaeopteryx, an ancient bird, suggests that its social complexity was likely to have been on a par with modern domesticated chickens. Telencephalic vol- ume fraction outperforms residuals-based measures of brain size at separating birds by social structure. Telen- cephalic volume fraction may be an anatomical sub- strate for social complexity, and perhaps cognitive abili- ty, that can be generalized across a range of vertebrate brains, including dinosaurs.”

Quoting Riggs et al. ( [link] ): “Some birds mimic the sounds of other birds and animals; few other animals mimic sounds. You can’t, however, teach chickens to talk as you can with some bird species, and they don’t mimic other animals, and so chickens probably fall about mid- range on the intelligence scale of birds.”

Quoting Walsh (See “Reptiles including nonavian dinosaurs and birds”: [link] ): “It is now clear that while some theropod clades pos-sessed typically ‘reptile’-like brains (Giffin et al. 1988; Gif-fin 1989; Rogers 1999; Brochu 2000; Franzosa and Rowe 2005; Sanders and Smith 2005; Witmer and Ridgely 2009), at least some maniraptoran theropods had surpris-ingly bird-like brains (Kundra´t 2007; Balanoff et al. 2009; Norell et al. 2009). In these taxa, not only is the telen-cephalon significantly enlarged (sometimes to an extent greater than in Archaeopteryx), but flight-related regions such as the cerebellar flocculus, which are especially enlarged in birds, are also very well developed (Kundra´t 2007). This has fuelled the debate about whether these taxa, which often bear feathers, are in fact secondarily flightless birds rather than bird-like theropods (Witmer 2009; Kavanau 2010).”

Quoting Bakker ( [link] ): “These mini-raptors were big-brained by dinosaur standards — as smart as a wild turkey (not the dumbed-down domestic version). Their eyes were huge — an adaptation for chasing nimble prey, like furry mammals and tree-climbing lizards. The extra-long arms and fingers gave the raptors three-dimensional abilities — they could scramble up trees quadrupedally, grabbing branches with claws on front and back paws. Long feathers on the arms and legs let the raptors glide from branch to branch like dino-flying squirrels.”

Quoting Buchholtz ( [link] ): “Endocasts of small coelurosaurs (Russell 1969, 1972; Colbert and Russell 1969; Kundrát 2007) display a strikingly different anatomical pattern (Fig. 10.6). They retain details of brain anatomy and roofing bone sutures on their surfaces, suggesting that the brain filled the braincase nearly completely. Brain flexures are minimal and olfactory bulbs are small, indicating that smell was not a dominant sense. Cerebral hemispheres are separable, convex, and expanded laterally and/or posteriorly (Kundrát 2007), suggesting an active intelligence. The large optic lobes are visible either dorsally or displaced laterally by the large cerebrum, as in living birds. Russell (1969) associated the large optic lobes with large eyes and binocular vision, and it is likely that sight was the dominant sense. Kundrát (2007) described an expanded cerebellum with presumptive cerebellar folia among the avianlike characters of the oviraptorid theropod Conchoraptor, inferring excellent balance and coordination.
Encephalization quotients of small coelurosaurs vary with predictions of body mass and percentage of braincase fill, but even conservatively, they are far higher than those of any other dinosaur group, overlapping those of living birds (Hopson 1977; Kundrát 2007). Larsson et al. (2000) estimated cerebral volumes by superimposing ellipsoids on endocasts with surficial indications of cerebral extent. Their data suggest at least three stages of increase of relative cerebral size to total brain size over a period of only 40 million years: of coelurosaurs over allosaurs, of Archaeopteryx over coelurosaurs, and of ornithurine birds over Archaeopteryx. The high encephalization values of small coelurosaurs indicate an active, complex, and social lifestyle that agrees well with their frequent interpretation as pack hunters.”

Quoting Firestone et al. ( [link] ): “The largest of Africa’s hornbills, the ground hornbill is almost entirely terrestrial, and is also the only Southern African bird that walks on the tips of its toes. Like a large turkey (and the ground hornbill is sometimes mistakenly called the turkey buzzard), small groups patrol grasslands and open woodland looking for prey.”

Quoting Tudge ( [link] ): “The sociality that is encouraged by the diet tends to spill over into all aspects of life. So it is that hornbills are fruit eaters and also, as we will see in Chapter 7, are outstandingly social breeders, with various kinds of social arrangements. But also among hornbills we see an interesting twistiwhere the innate sociality has in turn become adapted to a quite different kind of feeding. For among the biggest of all hornbills, and in various ways distinct from the rest, are the two species of ground-hornbills from Africa. Ground-hornbills are not mere fruit eaters: they are formidable predators. The beak is like an icepick. They can hack their way into a tortoise. The Northern species is among the biggest of all avian predators. The ancestors of ground-hornbills were presumably fruit eaters, and that, perhaps, is how they first evolved their sociality. Now, as predators, they hunt in packs. Typically they chase some hapless creature like a hare into a bush and then some act as beaters while others lie in wait and deliver the coup de grace. The packs are usually family groups. They can be seen as strategic predators like wolves or perhaps as problem families, terrorizing the neighborhood.”

But I miss theropodan Guaibasaurus, ceratosaurian Berberosaurus and carnosaurian Marshosaurus (although Carrano et al. 2012 imply there's still hope for the second one). What say you?

Amen!!

Hey, isn't the "ruined my childhood" stuff a way of jokingly telling someone that one used to be very into paleontology before moving to stuff like fantasy, sci-fi, war, etc. in times before all the new stuff appeared?

I just think a raptor would look bigger and scarier with feathers. Same with owls and eagles.

And anyone who thinks feathered raptors were non-dangerous and stupid should go piss a rooster or even a mockingbird off.

It would be nice if they were pack predators but other than that the "new" raptors don't bother me. I hate people who think dinosaurs can't be scary any more because they were fluffy. I mean look at wolves and hyenas! Or listen to the sound a barn owl makes!