Are they?
Most who look into the palaeozoology field thinks so, and even I thought so. We assume that fragmentary taxa look just like their relatives.
But after Deinocheirus, which with it's unique, unexpected features, does this line of thought still hold true? We have long assumed Deinocheirus to look just like a plain ornithomimosaur, but much larger.
To me, at least, it placed doubt on my idea of conservative > liberal in palaeo-restorations.
Conservative reconstructions may still be better than liberal ones, but the difference between their validity may likely never be as significant as it once was, to me at least.
