January 25, 2011
Linhenykus: A weird, one-fingered dinosaur

A reconstruction of the skeleton of Linhenykus. The lighter (white) elements represent what was actually discovered. From Xu et al., 2011.
When it was first described in 1993, Mononykus was one of the strangest dinosaurs known. It had the slender, light build of some of the “ostrich mimic” dinosaurs, yet it possessed two stubby, one-clawed hands and a few other subtle characteristics that placed it in a new group called the alvarezsaurs. Since that time, multiple species of alvarezsaur have been found, and the latest discovery has just been announced in the journal PNAS.
Named Linhenykus monodactylus, the new dinosaur is known from a partial skeleton found in the 84- to 75-million-year-old fossil deposits of Inner Mongolia. It was not a very large dinosaur—as Dave Hone commented at Archosaur Musings, “the living animal would probably have been able to s[t]and comfortably in the palm of your hand”—but what makes it stand out are its heavily built forearms.
Like many of its close relatives, Linhenykus had only one functional finger—a single, stout digit tipped with a heavy-duty claw. Where Linhenykus differs, however, is that it lacked any additional fingers. Other alvarezsaurs discovered so far had tiny, vestigial fingers that were still retained alongside the primary finger. Even in Mononykus, where only the functional finger has been found, there were small indentations in the bone of the hand which suggest that it also had two additional, tiny fingers. Not so in Linhenykus. There is a small, second bone of the palm of the hand next to the large finger, and since this small bit of bone could not have supported a finger we can say that Linhenykus is the first one-fingered dinosaur known.
Curiously, however, the loss of the additional fingers in Linhenykus was not the culmination of a long-term evolutionary trend among the alvarezsaurs. When compared to other members of this group, Linhenykus fell out closer to the base of the family tree than species which retained the vestigial fingers. This means that the anatomy of Linhenykus represents a pattern of mosaic evolution: It retained a suite of archaic characteristics seen among early members of the group, but it also had peculiar specializations not seen among later species such as Mononykus. The loss of the vestigial fingers in Linhenykus was a specialization not yet seen among any other alvarezsaurs.
Further discoveries and future analyses will flesh out the evolutionary pattern seen among these dinosaurs, but one of the recurring questions is why alvarezsaurs had such unique forelimbs. How did they evolve, and what were they used for? These are two distinct questions—even if we can determine the function of a particular trait, that does not necessarily explain how that trait evolved in the first place.
At the moment, the favored hypothesis is that Mononykus, Linhenykus and their relatives used their claws for digging into ant and termite nests. As pointed out by Phil Senter in a 2005 Paleobiology study, the forelimbs of Mononykus were modified so that the palms of their hands faced downward and they were capable of scratch digging with their functional fingers. No one had yet found a preserved termite or ant nest that was raided by an alvarezsaur, but, given the similarity of their claws to those of modern anteaters and pangolins, the idea that these dinosaurs feasted on insect colonies remains the most popular explanation for their unique anatomy.
References:
Xu, X., Sullivan, C., Pittman, M., Choiniere, J., Hone, D., Upchurch, P., Tan, Q., Xiao, D., Tan, L., & Han, F. (2011). A monodactyl nonavian dinosaur and the complex evolution of the alvarezsauroid hand Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1011052108
Senter, P. (2005). Function in the stunted forelimbs of Mononykus olecranus (Theropoda), a dinosaurian anteater Paleobiology, 31 (3), 373-381 DOI: 10.1666/0094-8373(2005)031[0373:FITSFO]2.0.CO;2
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
4 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI






















[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ed Yong and Chris Rowan, JP – Research Lab. JP – Research Lab said: Linhenykus: A weird, one-fingered dinosaur: A reconstruction of the skeleton of Linhenykus. The lighter (white)… http://bit.ly/hQM7Ml [...]
The termite eating hypothesis doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. The arms are so short, that the animal would habodyve been scratching “blind”, and would have been unable to dig to any depth into nests. Besides all modern ant/termite eaters are exceptionally heavily built, slow animals whose arms and claws are actually very large in relation to the body. Whilst we shouldn’t necessarily expect extinct animals to be exact analogues of modern equivalents, the fact that this is an exceptionally gracile creature is not a good sign. I think something else is going on – maybe like the carnotaurs, the arms were becoming highly reduced because they weren’t useful – but then acquired a secondary utility (brooding, mating, intraspecific competition or display?)
Since you left effectievly the same comment on my blog I guess I should leave the same reply here.
The arms are very short, but then so are those of things like pygmy anteaters. Most things dig blind in any case becuase they close their eyes to avoid getting dirt in them. I’d see the long neck as an advantage, not a disadvantage – once the nest is open, the head and neck can get in there. A giant anteater or aardvark or pangolin has a long snout well in front and above the claws but this is not an issue there at all.
I’d disagree about ant eating animals being slow. The tamandura and giant anteater are both surprisingly quick and the aardvark and aardwolf both travel long distances on any given day. Most of these animals are heavily built because they dig down seriously (they can or do burrow, or may deep excavations) but as I describe above, alvarezsaurs do have a long list of digging adaptations and they do have a short and powerful chest and arms, just mounted on long legs. This is not an especially gracile animal in terms of the functional morphology for digging. I think you are confusing digging (in this case, specifically hook and pull digging [not scratch digging as I mistakenly said earlier]) with burrowing.
If these were non functional then they would ultimately be lost (as the fingers were). If there is another function no one has suggested one and this would have to ignore aqll the actually strong evidence that these things could, and did, dig.
Its arms were probably so scrawny because it didn’t use them at all.