Troodontidae

TL;DR - Sometimes a generic prehistoric creature in media isn't meant to be any specific real species or genus. But just because its not specific, doesn't mean it's always necessarily 100% imaginary either.

By now you're probably familiar with the debates that happened last year about whether or not the horned rexes from the first episode were Ceratosaurus or imaginary theropods (which admittedly I was a part of initially too) that were eventually cleared up when Pitch animatics came out. More recently on the primal wiki and tv tropes I've also seen people insisting that the raptors from Blood Moon were supposed to be all sorts of actual dromaeosaurid genera, or that the pale cavemen from the same episode are a real species of non-human hominid.

But it got me thinking... Why does every prehistoric creature in media need to be assigned a "real" genus or species?

I'm not saying it's wrong to speculate over what a creature is intended to be. I do it a all the time, and I probably still will. But why does it always have to be something so specific or real? Why does it have to be utahraptor/deinonychus/velociraptor instead of just "a raptor?" Why Xenocyon or Lycaon instead of just "a prehistoric wild dog?"

I don't think even the show creators ever intended many of the shows creatures to be any specific real species or genus. This isn't to say they don't research anything and are making up everything. I'm sure they have taken influence from real prehistoric animals.

For example I've noticed several ungulates in the show that had bore many similarities to real esoteric groups such as Protoceratids and Palaeomerycids. The pitch animatic also showed surprising accurate details towards the sick hadrosaurid in Plague of Madness (although much of those details were lost in the actual episode). Heck, I wouldn't be surprised the Horned T.rexes probably were influenced by Ceratosaurus.

But notice how I said "influenced" or "similarities". Aside from some super iconic types like T.rex or Woolly Mammoths, I doubt the show creators usually set out with specific real species or genera of animals in mind when making the show (and even when they do, creative liberties are taken). I think the animals were inspired by whatever media, paleoart and skeletons that the show creators found, fancied and felt could fit an episode's themes. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even know the names of the animals they took influences from (for example, in the pitch animatics the ungulates I mentioned were just called "prehistoric deer" even though they're clearly not cervids. The pterosaurs are also called "pterodactyls" despite not looking like Pterodactylus).

This is not a paleo accurate show. However Primal is not just another "lets just copy jurassic park because we're too lazy to research" that one often sees in media. This show is something far more special than that.

I think Genndy himself words it best in an interview where he says "Even though we try to keep some of the creatures historically accurate, this really isn’t a realistic prehistoric land, but rather a fantastically brutal and horrific prehistoric land. The main focus was to have it feel pulpy. The fun of historic beasts fighting beasts from our imagination was the goal, and when you keep some things historically accurate, it gives more substance to the made-up things."

They take inspiration from real life but aren't trying to be exactly real.

This isn't just limited to Primal either. For example, The Land Before Time (especially in the first few movies) also had lots of generic prehistoric critters that, while likely influenced by real animals, likely aren't meant to be anything specific or real. Just like Primal, The Land Before Time was inspired by real life but isn't setting out to be exactly real.

I recently saw a discussion a few days ago, regarding using isotope signatures to determine diets, that brought up a question I haven't found an answer to. What would the difference be in results for a carnivorous animal that eats C3-plant-eating mammals, and an insectivorous (particularly myrmecophagus) animal that eats C3-plant-eating insects?

After briefly joining in the discussion, I was told this paper had insectivorous xenearthrans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58575-6 , and that their results were different from the carnivores that ate herbivores that fed on C3 plants. But I could find any mention insectivores in the paper or it's supplementary material (although maybe I was just being oblivious and overlooked them).

All the xenarthrans I found mentioned in the paper were herbivores (glyptodonts and ground sloths). The only non-herbivore I could find in the supplementary material was Macroeuphractus. But I thought Macroeuphractus had adaptations for carnivory and was basically an armadillo equivalent of a badger. Was I just overlooking something? (Also just to clarify who might be thinking about it based on recent news, my question is not about a certain sparassodont. I'm just curious how one can tell the difference between carnivory and insectivory through isotope signatures).