

Life reconstruction of the Hell Chicken Infernogallus munching on early fruit, while a T. rex lurks in the background.
© Danielle Dufault, 2025
A dinosaur nicknamed the “hell chicken” might sound like an especially unpleasant predator, but its remarkable skull suggests rather different eating habits. Infernogallus jamesi, a turkey-sized dinosaur from the approximately 66-million-year-old Hell Creek Formation of North America, appears to have specialised in processing soft plant foods, probably including fleshy fruit. Behind the entertaining name lies a useful illustration of evolution: a lineage descended from carnivorous ancestors acquiring a feeding apparatus suited to a very different diet.
The discovery is described in a paper in Nature Communications by Gregory Funston and colleague. Infernogallus belonged to the caenagnathids, a group of toothless, feathered oviraptorosaurs whose feeding habits have been difficult to establish. Its unusually complete skull has now provided evidence that isolated bones could not supply.
Using CT scans and anatomical reconstruction, the researchers investigated how its jaws would have worked. The arrangement of the palate and jaw muscles indicates that the lower jaw could move backwards and forwards, while opposing ridges and grooves helped process food inside the mouth. Rather than an apparatus for tearing flesh, this was suited to mashing softer material. Particularly revealing is the resemblance to feeding adaptations in living fruit-eating parrots: an example of convergent evolution, in which similar functional demands produce comparable adaptations in separate evolutionary lineages.
There is an important distinction here between reconstructing a feeding mechanism and finding the remains of an animal’s last meal. The evidence supports specialised herbivory and makes fleshy fruit a strong candidate, but it does not establish an exclusively fruit-based diet. Nor does it demonstrate that these dinosaurs dispersed seeds or drove the evolution of fruit. The authors identify a potentially significant relationship between dinosaur feeding specialisations and the diversification of flowering plants, while acknowledging that the ecological details remain uncertain.
For creationism, the difficulty extends beyond the familiar problem of a dinosaur living tens of millions of years before the supposed biblical Creation Week. This animal belongs within an evolutionary history of changing anatomy, changing diets and changing ecosystems. Its feeding apparatus was built from the inherited structures of a theropod skull, modified for a new way of obtaining food. Calling it a separately created “kind” supplies neither an explanation for those anatomical relationships nor a testable account of how its specialisations arose.


































