Basic info Taxonomic history Classification Relationships
Morphology Ecology and taphonomy External Literature Search Age range and collections

Dromaeosaurus albertensis

Reptilia - Avetheropoda - Dromaeosauridae

Dromaeosaurus albertensis was named by Matthew and Brown (1922). Its type specimen is AMNH 5356, a skull, and it is a 3D body fossil. Its type locality is right bank, Sand Creek (150 ft level) [AMNH], which is in a Campanian terrestrial horizon in the Dinosaur Park Formation of Canada. It was considered monophyletic by Currie (2000).

Synonymy list
YearName and author
1922Dromaeosaurus albertensis Matthew and Brown pp. 385-387 fig. 1
1927Dromaeosaurus albertensis Huene p. 260
1930Dromaeosaurus albertensis Russell p. 148
1934Dromaeosaurus albertensis Stromer p. 79
1964Dromaeosaurus albertensis Russell p. 12
1969Dromaeosaurus albertensis Colbert and Russell p. 3
1969Dromaeosaurus albertensis Ostrom p. 148
1970Dromaeosaurus albertensis Steel p. 16
1972Dromaeosaurus albertensis Osmólska et al. p. 135
1974Dromaeosaurus albertensis Molnar p. 1011
1977Dromaeosaurus albertensis Sues p. 591
1978Dromaeosaurus albertensis Molnar p. 74
1978Dromaeosaurus albertensis Sues p. 395
1980Dromaeosaurus albertensis Wolberg p. 50
1983Dromaeosaurus albertensis Rich et al. p. 284
1986Dromaeosaurus albertensis Gauthier p. 11
1988Dromaeosaurus albertensis Paul p. 360
1990Dromaeosaurus albertensis Currie et al. p. 108
1992Dromaeosaurus albertensis Currie p. 246
1995Dromaeosaurus albertensis Currie
1996Dromaeosaurus albertensis Osmólska p. 26
1997Dromaeosaurus albertensis Currie p. 194
1998Dromaeosaurus albertensis Brinkman et al. p. 11
1998Dromaeosaurus albertensis Makovicky and Norell p. 3
2000Dromaeosaurus albertensis Burnham et al. p. 8
2000Dromaeosaurus albertensis Currie p. 435
2001Dromaeosaurus albertensis Eberth et al. p. 58
2001Dromaeosaurus albertensis Larsson p. 23
2001Dromaeosaurus albertensis Peng et al. p. 36
2002Dromaeosaurus albertensis Sankey et al. p. 752
2003Dromaeosaurus albertensis Rauhut p. 37
2004Dromaeosaurus albertensis Currie and Varricchio p. 114
2004Dromaeosaurus albertensis Kiernan and Schwimmer p. 89
2004Dromaeosaurus albertensis Norell and Makovicky p. 198
2004Dromaeosaurus albertensis Senter et al. p. 5
2005Dromaeosaurus albertensis Currie p. 4
2007Dromaeosaurus albertensis Turner et al. p. 6
2008Dromaeosaurus albertensis Godefroit et al. p. 435
2008Dromaeosaurus albertensis Longrich p. 138
2008Dromaeosaurus albertensis Torices et al. p. 210
2009Dromaeosaurus albertensis Bever and Norell p. 11
2009Dromaeosaurus albertensis Godefroit et al.
2009Dromaeosaurus albertensis Longrich and Currie
2009Dromaeosaurus albertensis Norell et al. p. 52
2011Dromaeosaurus albertensis Brown and Druckenmiller p. 1343
2011Dromaeosaurus albertensis Jasinski p. 199
2012Dromaeosaurus albertensis Gong et al. p. 82
2012Dromaeosaurus albertensis Prieto-Marquez et al. p. 120
2013Dromaeosaurus albertensis Larson and Currie p. 9
2014Dromaeosaurus albertensis Williamson and Brusatte p. 12
2015Dromaeosaurus albertensis DePalma et al. p. 1
2015Dromaeosaurus albertensis Torices et al. p. 619
2016Dromaeosaurus albertensis Bell and Currie p. 8
2016Dromaeosaurus albertensis Mallon et al. p. 33

Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data

phylumChordataHaeckel 1847
OlfactoresJefferies 1991
subclassDipnotetrapodomorpha(Nelson 2006)
SauriaGauthier 1984
Archosauromorpha(Huene 1946)
ArchosauriformesGauthier 1986
AverostraPaul 2002

If no rank is listed, the taxon is considered an unranked clade in modern classifications. Ranks may be repeated or presented in the wrong order because authors working on different parts of the classification may disagree about how to rank taxa.

W. D. Matthew and B. Brown 1922Comparable in size with Ornithomimus. Dental formula Pmx. ? 3; Max. 9/Den. 10. Teeth well developed, asymmetrically oval or compressed, sharp-pointed, recurved, serrated on anterior and posterior border. Premaxillary teeth three or more, not reduced in size, strongly convex antero-externally but not of fully U-shaped section. Posterior teeth similar but more compressed and blade-like in both upper and lower jaw, the last maxillary tooth small. Jaws elongate, not massive. Orbital fenestra larger proportionately than in Deinodon, not so large as in Struthiomimus. Lateral temporal fenestra of good size, much as in Deinodon, not reduced as in Struthiomimus. Preorbital fenestree at present known only inferiorly, but evidently large. Frontals comparatively long and wide, the nasals overlapping them considerably, especially at the median line. The prefrontal and postfrontal sutures continuous, not separated by an orbital notch. Maxillo-premaxillary suture nearly vertical, the premaxilla large. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A.M/. The top of the skull is fragmentary and the specimen is at present only partly
prepared, so that the above diagnosis will be completed and perhaps modified
in some details in a later article. The skull is most like that of Deinodon in general
proportions, but from a third to a fourth as large lineally, and but little larger than
that of Struthiomi'mu8 altu8. It differs from Deinodon in the reduced number of teeth,
the large premaxillary teeth and the
'unsymmetric form of the maxillary teeth as well
as in the light skull construction, large fenestr£e and numerous details that might be
largely associated with its small size.
The foot bones are very different from those of either Deinodon or Struthiomimus,
but so fragmentary that they are not positively identifiable, and no generic characters
can be based upon them.
The distal half of a metapodial, slightly larger than the mc. II of Struthiomimubs
and only a little smaller than mc. -II of Deinodon (despite the enormous difference in
size of the skeleton) has a deeply grooved ginglymoid distal facet, as in Deinodion, but
shows a very distinct lateral appression surface. In Struthiomimus there is an appression surface on me. II, but the distal end of the bone is wholly different with a convex condylar facet; it also is of about the same size. Another much smaller metapodial has a less distinctly grooved distal facet and more irregular shaft that may be incomplete proximally. Of the phalanges there are three that fit so closely that they appear to belong with the metapodial first mentioned, but if so it must be the fourth digit, not the second, and may belong to the pes instead of the manus. A fourth phalanx is of similar type but distinct in details from any of the first three. A fifth is a proximal phalanx of size more suited to the smaller metapodial above mentioned,
but does not fit it; it is rather short with concave basined head and laterally compressed distal end, apparently a phalanx of the first digit. A sixth phalanx is much larger than the others but only the distal end is preserved, its facet deeply grooved and very similar to the distal facet of the metapodial first noted. Possibly, but not probably, this is a median metapodial.