Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the Cretaceous period of Myanmar –


Skeletal inclusions in approximately 99-million-year-old amber from northern Myanmar provide unprecedented insights into the soft tissue and skeletal anatomy of minute fauna, which are not typically preserved in other depositional environments1,2,3. Among a diversity of vertebrates, seven specimens that preserve the skeletal remains of enantiornithine birds have previously been described1,4,5,6,7,8, all of which (including at least one seemingly mature specimen) are smaller than specimens recovered from lithic materials. Here we describe an exceptionally well-preserved and diminutive bird-like skull that documents a new species, which we name Oculudentavis khaungraae gen. et sp. nov. The find appears to represent the smallest known dinosaur of the Mesozoic era, rivalling the bee hummingbird (Mellisuga helenae)—the smallest living bird—in size. The O. khaungraae specimen preserves features that hint at miniaturization constraints, including a unique pattern of cranial fusion and an autapomorphic ocular morphology9 that resembles the eyes of lizards. The conically arranged scleral ossicles define a small pupil, indicative of diurnal activity. Miniaturization most commonly arises in isolated environments, and the diminutive size of Oculudentavis is therefore consistent with previous suggestions that this amber formed on an island within the Trans-Tethyan arc10. The size and morphology of this species suggest a previously unknown bauplan, and a previously undetected ecology. This discovery highlights the potential of amber deposits to reveal the lowest limits of vertebrate body size.

Data availability

Owing to their size, the raw computed tomography data are available upon request from L.X. ([email protected]). All other materials are included in the Supplementary Information or are available at


  1. 1.

    Xing, L. et al. Mummified precocial bird wings in mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber. Nat. Commun. 7, 12089 (2016).

  2. 2.

    Xing, L. et al. A feathered dinosaur tail with primitive plumage trapped in mid-Cretaceous amber. Curr. Biol. 26, 3352–3360 (2016).

  3. 3.

    Daza, J. D. et al. An enigmatic miniaturized and attenuate whole lizard from the Mid-Cretaceous amber of Myanmar. Breviora 563, 1–18 (2018).

  4. 4.

    Xing, L.-D. et al. A mid-Cretaceous enantiornithine (Aves) hatchling preserved in Burmese amber with unusual plumage. Gondwana Res. 49, 264–277 (2017).

  5. 5.

    Xing, L.-D. et al. A flattened enantiornithine in mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber: morphology and preservation. Sci. Bull. (Beijing) 63, 235–243 (2018).

  6. 6.

    Xing, L. et al. A fully feathered enantiornithine foot and wing fragment preserved in mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber. Sci. Rep. 9, 927 (2019).

  7. 7.

    Xing, L., McKellar, R. C., O’Connor, J. K., Niu, K. & Mai, H. A mid-Cretaceous enantiornithine foot and tail feather preserved in Burmese amber. Sci. Rep. 9, 15513 (2019).

  8. 8.

    Xing, L. et al. A new enantiornithine bird with unusual pedal proportions found in amber. Curr. Biol. 29, 2396–2401.e2 (2019).

  9. 9.

    Hanken, J. & Wake, D. B. Miniaturization of body size: organismal consequences and evolutionary significance. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24, 501–519 (1993).

  10. 10.

    Westerweel, J. et al. Burma Terrane part of the Trans-Tethyan Arc during collision with India according to palaeomagnetic data. Nat. Geosci. 12, 863–868 (2019).

  11. 11.

    Shi, G. et al. Age constraint on Burmese amber based on U-Pb dating of zircons. Cretac. Res. 37, 155–163 (2012).

  12. 12.

    Field, D. J. et al. Complete Ichthyornis skull illuminates mosaic assembly of the avian head. Nature 557, 96–100 (2018).

  13. 13.

    Smith, R. D. A. & Ross, A. Amberground pholadid bivalve borings and inclusions in Burmese amber: implications for proximity of resin-producing forests to brackish waters, and the age of the amber. Earth Environ. Sci. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. 107, 239–247 (2018).

  14. 14.

    Lovette, I. J. & Fitzpatrick, J. W. The Handbook if Bird Biology 3rd edn (Princeton Univ. Press, 2004).

  15. 15.

    Dalsgaard, B. et al. Trait evolution, resource specialization and vulnerability to plant extinctions among Antillean hummingbirds. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 285, 20172754 (2018).

  16. 16.

    Glaw, F., Köhler, J., Townsend, T. M. & Vences, M. Rivaling the world’s smallest reptiles: discovery of miniaturized and microendemic new species of leaf chameleons (Brookesia) from northern Madagascar. PLoS ONE 7, e31314 (2012).

  17. 17.

    Yeh, J. The effect of miniaturized body size on skeletal morphology in frogs. Evolution 56, 628–641 (2002).

  18. 18.

    Griffith, H. Miniaturization and elongation in Eumeces (Sauria: Scincidae). Copeia 1990, 751–758 (1990).

  19. 19.

    Chiappe, L. M., Ji, S., Ji, Q. & Norell, M. A. Anatomy and systematics of the Confuciusornithidae (Theropoda: Aves) from the Late Mesozoic of northeastern China. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 242, 1–89 (1999).

  20. 20.

    Elzanowski, A. Embryonic bird skeletons from the Late Cretaceous of Mongolia. Palaeontologica Polonica 42, 147–179 (1981).

  21. 21.

    Jollie, M. T. The head skeleton of the chicken and remarks on the anatomy of this region in other birds. J. Morphol. 100, 389–436 (1957).

  22. 22.

    Edinger, T. Über Knöcherne Scleralringe (Fisher, 1929).

  23. 23.

    Schmitz, L. Quantitative estimates of visual performance features in fossil birds. J. Morphol. 270, 759–773 (2009).

  24. 24.

    Schmitz, L. & Motani, R. Morphological differences between the eyeballs of nocturnal and diurnal amniotes revisited from optical perspectives of visual environments. Vision Res. 50, 936–946 (2010).

  25. 25.

    Schmitz, L. & Motani, R. Nocturnality in dinosaurs inferred from scleral ring and orbit morphology. Science 332, 705–708 (2011).

  26. 26.

    Rauhut, O. W. M. The Interrelationships and Evolution of Basal Theropod Dnosaurs (Special Papers in Palaeontology 69) (The Palaeontological Association, London, 2003).

  27. 27.

    O’Connor, J. & Chiappe, L. M. A revision of enantiornithine (Aves: Ornithothoraces) skull morphology. J. Syst. Palaeontology 9, 135–157 (2011).

  28. 28.

    Xu, X. & Norell, M. A. A new troodontid dinosaur from China with avian-like sleeping posture. Nature 431, 838–841 (2004).

  29. 29.

    O’Connor, J. K. The trophic habits of early birds. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 513, 178–195 (2019).

  30. 30.

    Rittmeyer, E. N., Allison, A., Gründler, M. C., Thompson, D. K. & Austin, C. C. Ecological guild evolution and the discovery of the world’s smallest vertebrate. PLoS ONE 7, e29797 (2012).

  31. 31.

    Hu, H. et al. Evolution of the vomer and its implications for cranial kinesis in Paraves. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 19571–19578 (2019).

  32. 32.

    Bout, R. G. & Zweers, G. A. The role of cranial kinesis in birds. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 131, 197–205 (2001).

  33. 33.

    Rayfield, E. J. Aspects of comparative cranial mechanics in the theropod dinosaurs Coelophysis, Allosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 144, 309–316 (2005).

  34. 34.

    Degrange, F. J., Tambussi, C. P., Taglioretti, M. L., Dondas, A. & Scaglia, F. A new Mesembriornithinae (Aves, Phorusrhacidae) provides new insights into the phylogeny and sensory capabilities of terror birds. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 35, e912656 (2015).

  35. 35.

    Holliday, C. M. & Witmer, L. M. Archosaur adductor chamber evolution: integration of musculoskeletal and topological criteria in jaw muscle homology. J. Morphol. 268, 457–484 (2007).

  36. 36.

    Witmer, L. M. The evolution of the antorbital cavity of archosaurs: a study in soft-tissue reconstruction in the fossil record with an analysis of the function of pneumaticity. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 17, 1–73 (1997).

  37. 37.

    O’Connor, J. K., Chiappe, L. M. & Bell, A. in Living Dinosaurs: the Evolutionary History of Birds (eds Dyke, G. D. & Kaiser, G.) 39–114 (John Wiley & Sons, 2011).

  38. 38.

    Bailleul, A. M., Li, Z., O’Connor, J. & Zhou, Z. Origin of the avian predentary and evidence of a unique form of cranial kinesis in Cretaceous ornithuromorphs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 24696–24706 (2019).

  39. 39.

    Zhou, Z. & Zhang, F. A long-tailed, seed-eating bird from the Early Cretaceous of China. Nature 418, 405–409 (2002).

  40. 40.

    Xu, X. Mosaic evolution in birds: brain vs. feeding apparatus. Sci. Bull. (Beijing) 63, 812–813 (2018).

  41. 41.

    Goloboff, P. A., Carpenter, J. M., Arias, J. S. & Esquivel, D. R. M. Weighting against homoplasy improves phylogenetic analysis of morphological data sets. Cladistics 24, 758–773 (2008).

  42. 42.

    Xing, L.-D., McKellar, R. C. & O’Connor, J. An unusually large bird wing in mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber. Cretaceous Res. 110, 104412 (2020).

  43. 43.

    Chen, R.-C. et al. PITRE: software for phase-sensitive X-ray image processing and tomography reconstruction J. Synchrotron Radiat. 19, 836–845 (2012).

  44. 44.

    Symonds, M. R. E. & Blomberg, S. P. in Modern Phylogenetic Comparative Methods and their Application in Evolutionary Biology (ed. Garamszegi, L. Z.) 105–130 (Springer, 2014).

  45. 45.

    Jetz, W., Thomas, G. H., Joy, J. B., Hartmann, K. & Mooers, A. O. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491, 309–316 (2012).

  46. 46.

    Jetz, W. et al. Distribution and conservation of global evolutionary distinctness in birds. Curr. Biol. 24, 919–930 (2014).

Download references


This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 41888101, 41790455 and 41772008), the National Geographic Society (no. EC0768-15) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (2015-00681). We thank BL13W of the Shanghai Synchrotron Radiation Facility for beamtime access based on proposal 16ssrf 01737, and the Beijing Synchrotron Radiation Facility for supplying the high MTF imaging detector. We thank S. Abramowicz for assistance with figures and D. Blackburn, D. Steadman and E. Stanley for making the computed tomography scan of M. minima accessible.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Lida Xing, Jingmai K. O’Connor, Lars Schmitz, Gang Li


  1. State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, China University of Geosciences, Beijing, China
    • Lida Xing
  2. School of the Earth Sciences and Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing, China
    • Lida Xing
  3. Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Beijing, China
    • Jingmai K. O’Connor
  4. Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
    • Jingmai K. O’Connor
  5. Dinosaur Institute, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA, USA
    • Lars Schmitz
    •  & Luis M. Chiappe
  6. W. M. Keck Science Department, Claremont McKenna, Scripps and Pitzer Colleges, Claremont, CA, USA
    • Lars Schmitz
  7. Royal Saskatchewan Museum, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
    • Ryan C. McKellar
  8. Biology Department, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
    • Ryan C. McKellar
  9. Beijing Advanced Sciences and Innovation Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
    • Qiru Yi
    •  & Gang Li
  10. Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
    • Gang Li


  1. Lida Xing

    You can also search for this author in

  2. Jingmai K. O’Connor

    You can also search for this author in

  3. Lars Schmitz

    You can also search for this author in

  4. Luis M. Chiappe

    You can also search for this author in

  5. Ryan C. McKellar

    You can also search for this author in

  6. Qiru Yi

    You can also search for this author in

  7. Gang Li

    You can also search for this author in


L.X. and J.K.O. designed the project, L.X., J.K.O., L.M.C., L.S., R.C.M., Q.Y. and G.L. performed the research: G.L. and Q.Y. performed computed tomography scanning of the specimen and processed the data. L.S. performed the eye-scaling statistical analyses. J.K.O. performed the cladistic analysis. J.K.O., L.M.C., L.S., L.X. and G.L. wrote the manuscript. L.X., J.K.O., L.S. and G.L. contributed equally.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Jingmai K. O’Connor.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Close-up photographs of HPG-15-3.

a, Entire skull in left lateral view. b, Left eye. c, Maxillary dentition. The black arrows in a indicate decay products from the soft tissue of the dorsal surface of the skull and the original position of skull, which drifted before the resin hardened; the black arrow in b indicates the position of decay products released from the left eye. Scale bars, 2 mm (a), 500 μm (b), 200 μm (c).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Computed tomography scan of HPG-15-3 in palatal view, with the mandibles removed, and an isolated quadrate.

a, Full palatal view. b, Close-up of the preserved lingual papillae of the roof of the mouth. c, Isolated left quadrate in lateral view. d, Quadrate in caudal view. Dashed square box in a indicates the region enlarged in b. bp, basipterygoid process; bs, basisphenoid plate; bsr, basisphenoid rostrum; ch, choana; dt, developing tooth; pt, pterygoid; pp, papillae; pmc, medial contact of the palatal processes of the premaxillae.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Raw computed tomography slices showing the anatomy of important cranial sutures of HPG-15-3.

a, Interparietal suture, cranial portion (closed). b, Interfrontal suture (closed). c, Palatal processes of the premaxilla (open). d, Frontoparietal suture (open). e, Interparietal suture, caudal portion (open). f, Image of the entire skull, showing position of the slices shown in ac, e (image shown in d is a sagittal slice through the middle of the skull). Boxes outlined in dashed pink lines show the region enlarged in the insets, to clearly demonstrate the morphology of the suture or contact.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Rendering of the cranial endocast of HPG-15-3.

a, Dorsal view. b, Ventral view. c, Caudal view. d, Cranial view. e, Right lateral view. f, Left lateral view. g, Interior view of the brain cavity, showing the bivalve boring that intrudes through the ventral surface. Because the ventral surface of the cranium is damaged by a bivalve boring and the bones supporting the cranial margins of the brain are not preserved, only the dorsal surface of the endocast reveals reliable information. The white dashed lines indicate the portions of the endocast that probably were not occupied by brain tissue. The cerebrum appears to be prominent but a distinct optic lobe—as seen in other birds—cannot be identified. bb, bivalve boring; c, cerebrum; ot, part of the olfactory tract and/or olfactory lobe.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Isolated mandible of HPG-15-3.

a, Right mandible in (from top to bottom) ventral, dorsal, medial and lateral views. b, Left mandible in (from top to bottom) ventral, dorsal, medial and lateral views. c, Articulated mandibles in ventral (left) and dorsal (right) views. cor, coronoid process; mds, mandibular symphysis; mf?, possible mandibular foramen; nf, nutrient foramina.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Skull size in HPG-15-3 compared to other birds.

The skull of HPG-15-3 is small compared to those of extant birds (total of n = 213 extant bird species sampled), here illustrated through a box plot of log10-transformed postnasal skull length (as a proxy for the braincase), measured from the craniofacial hinge to the caudal end of the cranium. Each box plot illustrates the median (thick line) the 1st and 3rd quartiles (the hinges), and the distance from the upper and lower hinge to the largest and smallest value no further than 1.5× the interquartile range (the whiskers). HPG-15-3 is smaller than swifts (n = 12), passerines (n = 23) and hummingbirds (n = 22)—and may even be smaller than the smallest hummingbird, M. helenae.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Scleral rings of selected neornithines.

a, Asio flammeus, short-eared owl. b, Buteo jamaicensis, red-tailed hawk. c, Cerorhinca monocerata, rhinoceros auklet. d, Dendrocopus villosus, hairy woodpecker. e, Chordeiles minor, common nighthawk. f, Selaphorus sasin, Allen’s hummingbird. g, Cypseloides niger, American black swift. h, Megaceryle alcyon, belted kingfisher.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Summary of the slope estimates obtained from phylogenetic generalized least squares with the Ericson and the Hackett backbone tree sets, containing 1,000 trees each.

a, Ericson backbone tree set. b, Hackett backbone tree set. The x axes represent the estimated slope values, and the y axes represent the number of the tree sampled from the entire set of 1,000 trees. Dots signify the actual slope estimate, and grey bars visualize the s.e. of the slope estimates. The blue dashed line is the slope value obtained from ordinary least square regression, and the red dashed line represents the slope of isometry. Results from the phylogenetic generalized least squares iterations (n = 1,000) suggest the presence of negative allometry (slope < 1) in the relation between eye socket and skull length (P < 0.001).

Extended Data Fig. 10 Results of analysis using a priori weights and the unsimplified cladogram depicting the results of the phylogenetic analysis.

For further discussion, see Supplementary Information. a, A priori weighting results in a polytomy consisting of all taxa more derived than Archaeopteryx. b, Results of the analysis using implied weighting with a k value of 16; results were the same for k values of 12–20 and of 25; k values between 2 and 11 differed only from higher k values in the relative placement of some derived enantiornithines. Here Nanantius valifanovi is considered a junior synonym of Gobipteryx minuta (thus the operational taxonomic unit name is given as ‘Gobipteryx_N_valifanovi’).

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Combined PDF containing supplemental text and ethical statement regarding the amber provenance. Additional supplemental files (scripts for all analyses in the manuscript and 3D interactive model of HPG-15-3) can be found online:

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xing, L., O’Connor, J.K., Schmitz, L. et al. Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the Cretaceous period of Myanmar.
Nature 579, 245–249 (2020).

Download citation


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Read More

Add Comment