Dinosaurs were big, whereas birds — which evolved from dinosaurs — are small. This variation is of great importance, because body size affects lifespan, food requirements, sensory capabilities and many other fundamental aspects of biology. The smallest dinosaurs1 weighed hundreds of grams, but the smallest living bird, the bee hummingbird (Mellisuga helenae)2, weighs only 2 grams. How did this difference come about, and why? In a paper in Nature, Xing et al.3 describe the tiny, fossilized, bird-like skull of a previously unknown species, which they name Oculudentavis khaungraae. The discovery suggests that miniature body sizes in birds evolved earlier than previously recognized, and might provide insights into the evolutionary process of miniaturization.
Fossilization of bones in sediments such as clay, silt and sand can crush and destroy the remains of small animals, and can flatten and decay soft parts such as skin, scales and feathers. By contrast, preservation of small animals in Burmese amber (which formed from the resin flows of coniferous trees about 99 million years ago) helps to protect their soft parts. A wide range of invertebrates4 and small vertebrates, including lizards5 and birds6, have been found in Burmese amber. Specimens preserved in this material are rapidly emerging as an exceptional way to study tiny vertebrates from the age of dinosaurs5,6.
It is in Burmese amber that the single known fossil skull of Oculudentavis has been preserved (see Fig. 1a of the paper3). Oculudentavis means eye tooth bird, a name that Xing et al. chose because of two unusual features of the skull, each of which provides evidence about the likely lifestyle of this 99-million-year-old species.
First, the skull is dominated by two enormous eye sockets containing scleral ossicles — rings of bone that form the eye skeletons of birds (Fig. 1). The opening at the centre of these ossicles is narrow, restricting access for light into the eye and providing strong evidence that Oculudentavis was active in well-lit, daytime environments.
Second, the jaws of Oculudentavis have many small teeth. This might seem odd, given the absence of teeth in today’s birds, but teeth are in fact common among early fossil birds7. However, Oculudentavis has more teeth than other birds of the period, and these extend unusually far back in the jaws to a point just under the eye. On the basis of these facts, along with observations of the fossilized tongue, the authors suggest that Oculudentavis was a predator that mainly ate invertebrates. This diet differs considerably from the nectar-based diet of the smallest living birds, and suggests that extinct and living birds took different paths to miniaturization (although how diet might be involved in this process remains unknown).
Oculudentavis is just one fossil species. However, even single fossils can contribute greatly to our understanding of the history of life on Earth. In this case, weighing perhaps 2 grams, Oculudentavis is about one-sixth of the size of the smallest known early fossil bird1. This indicates that, only shortly after their origins late in the Jurassic period (which lasted from about 201 million to 145 million years ago), birds had already attained their minimum body sizes. By contrast, the smallest dinosaurs weighed hundreds of times more1 (Fig. 2). Understanding when, how and why the lower limits of body size shifted in this way requires greater knowledge of the earliest fossil birds. But Oculudentavis is a stepping stone towards this.
The evolutionary relationships between Oculudentavis and other dinosaurs and birds are difficult to determine, but are central to clarifying the evolutionary implications of this discovery. Xing and colleagues’ analysis suggests two possibilities. Oculudentavis could belong to the most common group of birds of the Cretaceous period (about 145 million to 66 million years ago), the enantiornithines. Alternatively, it could be much more closely related to dinsosaurs, lying almost midway on the evolutionary tree between the Cretaceous birds and Archaeopteryx, the iconic winged dinosaur from the Jurassic.
This confusion is a result of the bizarre features seen in Oculudentavis. These include many characteristics that differ from those of other birds, such as more-robust, fused bones, and proportionally enlarged sensory organs relative to the overall body size. The authors suggest that these features could have arisen from the constraints of evolutionary miniaturization or from ecological specialization. Both of these might have required Oculudentavis to have a strengthened skull and proportionally large eyes to maintain sensory capacity at such a tiny size. In addition, Oculudentavis has features that are not seen in dinosaurs or birds, but are present in lizards — these include the spoon shape of its scleral ossicles and the fact that its teeth are attached to the jaw bone by their sides, rather than being implanted in sockets. The challenge of determining how Oculudentavis is related to other early birds and bird-like dinosaurs would be greatly assisted by knowing more about its skeleton.
The past decade has generated much data on the dinosaur–bird transition, greatly advancing our understanding of this major evolutionary event7,8. In the past few years, Burmese amber has yielded surprising insights, including previously unseen feather and skeletal structures in other extinct birds6. The study of small vertebrates preserved in amber, their ecosystems and their evolutionary relationships with one another is in a nascent phase. But Oculudentavis suggests that the potential for continued discovery remains large — especially for animals of diminutive sizes.
Nature 579, 199-200 (2020)
Updates & Corrections
Retraction 22 July 2020: In view of the fact that the authors of ‘Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the Cretaceous period of Myanmar‘ (L. Xing et al. Nature 579, 245–249; 2020) are retracting their report, the author has retracted this News & Views article, which dealt with the study and was based on the accuracy and reproducibility of the data in the paper.
Benson, R. B. J., Hunt, G., Carrano, M. T. & Campione, N. Palaeontology 61, 13–48 (2018).
Del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. & Sargatal, J. (eds) Handbook of the Birds of the World Vol. 5 (Lynx, 1999).
Xing, L. et al. Nature 579, 245–249 (2020).
Grimaldi, D. A., Engel, M. S. & Nascimbene, P. C. Am. Mus. Novit. 3361, 1–71 (2002).
Daza, J., Stanley, E. L., Wagner, P., Bauer, A. M. & Grimaldi, D. A. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501080 (2016).
Xing, L., McKellar, R. C., O’Connor, J. K., Nou, K. & Mai, H. Sci. Rep. 9, 15513 (2019).
O’Connor, J. K., Chiappe, L. M. & Bell, A. in Living Dinosaurs: The Evolutionary History of Modern Birds (eds Dyke, G. & Kaiser, G.) Ch. 3, 39–114 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011).
Xu, X. et al. Science 346, 1253293 (2014).
Benson, R. B. J. et al. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001853 (2014).