Reexamination of a primitive ornithomimosaur, <i>Garudimimus brevipes</i> Barsbold, 1981 (Dinosauria: Theropoda), from the Late Cretaceous of Mongolia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The holotype of Garudimimus brevipes, discovered from the Upper Cretaceous sediments of Mongolia and named by Barsbold in 1981, is redescribed in detail in this paper. Reexamination of the holotype reveals a great deal of anatomical information, which allows us to revise the original diagnosis of this taxon and make comparisons with other ornithomimosaur taxa to understand the evolution of ornithomimosaurs. This paper suggests that characters used to differentiate this taxon in the original paper (short ilia, short metatarsals, exposure of the proximal end of metatarsal III, presence of pedal digit I, and absence of pleurocoels) are not apomorphies but represent the primitive conditions in ornithomimosaurs and are symplesiomorphies. Revised diagnoses are assigned for G. brevipes (posteriorly positioned jaw articulation, fossae at base of dorsal process of supraoccipital, paired depressions on neural spines of proximal caudal vertebra, and deep groove on lateral surface of pedal phalanges III-1 and III-2). Metatarsals of Garudimimus display a non-arctometatarsalian condition as in an Early Cretaceous form, Harpymimus, but the constriction of metatarsal III in Garudimimus is intermediate between Harpymimus and the arctometatarsalian condition in Gallimimus and other derived ornithomimosaurs (ornithomimids). Garudimimus is the only non-ornithomimid ornithomimosaur with edentulous jaws, which were probably covered by rhamphothecae. The loss of teeth with evolution of rhamphothecae and development of a cutting edge in the dentary of Garudimimus suggest the acquisition of feeding habits that included plucking food at the anterior portion of the jaw and cutting at the middle portion, similar to ornithomimids.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".