Troodontids had some of the highest
encephalization quotients (a measure of the ratio between actual brain size and the brain size predicted from body size) among non-
avian dinosaurs. As suggested by their large eye-sockets and well-developed
middle-ears, they appear to have had keen senses. They also had proportionately long legs, which indicates they were agile. Lü and colleagues discussed the previous studies of troodontid diet, and suggested that the loss of serrations in the teeth of
Byronosaurus and some other troodontids was related to a change in their diet. Since the teeth would appear to have lost their typical ability to slice meat, at least these troodontids may therefore have been either herbivorous or omnivorous.
Reproduction Mark Norell and colleagues described two "perinate" (hatchlings or embryos close to hatching) specimens of
Byronosaurus (specimens IGM 100/972 and IGM 100/974) in 1994. The two specimens were found in a nest of
oviraptorid eggs in the
Late Cretaceous "Flaming Cliffs" of the
Djadochta Formation of
Mongolia. The nest is quite certainly that of an
oviraptorosaur, since an oviraptorid embryo is still preserved inside one of the eggs. The two partial skulls were first described by Norell et al. (1994) as dromaeosaurids, but reassigned to
Byronosaurus after further study. The juvenile skulls were either from hatchlings or embryos, and fragments of eggshell are adhered to them although it seems to be oviraptorid eggshell. The presence of tiny
Byronosaurus skulls in an oviraptorid nest was considered an enigma. Hypotheses explaining how they came to be there included that they were the prey of the adult oviraptorid, that they were there to prey on oviraptorid hatchlings, or that an adult
Byronosaurus may have laid eggs in a
Citipati nest (see
nest parasite). However, these interpretations have all been shown to not be the case. In 2011, Norell stated that the
Byronosaurus nest was found two metres uphill from the oviraptorid nest, with the oviraptorid nest at the end of a drainage course from the
Byronosaurus nest, suggesting that the baby
Byronosaurus skulls must have been washed from one nest to the other. Norell is officially preparing to publish this information with more important details. Not only is the claim regarding nest parasitism considered dubious, but other researchers have pointed out the differences in skull morphology, suggesting that these specimens do not belong to this genus. ==See also==