its close relation to flying or gliding dromaeosaurs like Microraptor. Chatterjee and Templin 2004 found S. millenii as grouping within dinosaurs with aerodynamic potential for aerial locomotion, an opinion latter also expressed by Darren Naish, while Longrich & Currie 2009 have expressed that it was probably too heavy to fly, though it is worth to note that this latter study was published before the formal description of Changyuraptor, a larger microraptorine with evident flight capacities. Classification Sinornithosaurus was a member of the family Dromaeosauridae, a group of agile, predatory dinosaurs with a distinctive sickle-shaped toe claw, which also includes Deinonychus and Utahraptor. S. millenii lived about 125 million years ago in the Barremian age of the Early Cretaceous period, which makes it among the earliest and most primitive dromaeosaurids yet discovered. Fossils of S. haoiana and the possible Sinornithosaurus specimen NGMC 91 were found in younger strata dating to about 122 million years ago. The presence of vaned feathers on Sinornithosaurus is consistent with feather evidence from other dromaeosaurs. Two species of Sinornithosaurus have been described. S. millenii ("millennium Chinese bird-lizard") is the type species, described in 1999. A second species, S. haoiana ("Hao's Chinese bird-lizard") was described by Liu et al. in 2004 based on a new specimen, D2140, which differed from S. millenii in features of the skull and hips. However, according to Turner, Makovicky and Norell (2012) the supposed distinguishing features of S. haoiana "are either present in Sinornithosaurus millenii or variable among the number of Sinornithosaurus specimens"; the authors considered S. haoiana to be a junior synonym of S. millenii. An incredibly well-preserved microraptorian nicknamed "Dave" (specimen NGMC 91), was first described in a paper published in the journal Nature by Ji Qiang and colleagues in 2001. They declined to name the specimen because, although it is completely articulated, almost all of the bones shattered when the fossil slabs were split, so that only the silhouettes of these bones are clear in most of the part and counterpart. This obscured diagnostic skeletal features, which made the specimen's genus uncertain. They noted that it was similar in some respects to Sinornithosaurus millenii, and they suggested that the differences between the two could have been due to age. Ji, along with another team of scientists, further emphasized this similarity in a 2002 paper, in which they formally referred the specimen to Sinornithosaurus, though they considered the exact species