Gotta say they resemble eachother quite alot.
View attachment 22843View attachment 22844
(Hypothetical restoration of the Bornholmensis, based on related genera.)
Thing bout nomina dubiae, is that yes - they'll generally look like the group they belong to - it's like, imagine if we find skeletal remains of tigers, then remains of lions, then remains of leopards; three different species. But when we restore them, no matter what we do - we kind of end up restoring the same animal!
So, indeed - if I were to restore Dromaeosauroides bornholmensis, I would probably just draw a Velociraptor, Dromaeosaurus or Deinonychus, and just swap the name, and none would be any wiser
Huh. Dinosaurs didn't like the Danish. Who would have thought.
Dinosaur fossils have been found on every continent of Earth, including Antarctica but most of the dinosaur fossils and the greatest variety of species have been found high in the deserts and badlands of North America, China and Argentina
Argentina and China, alright.
Many factors play in, but most important is *stagnant environments* Mongolia, for example is a fossil hotspot, because the Gobi desert is still there, unchanged. Argentina and North America have badlands, where dry sediment falls off in great canyons, revealing entire time-spans in thick layers, you get the same in Spain.
In Europe and China, you get lagerstätte, which are typically highly specific conservation conditions, typically deeply sedimentary (Germany, preserving tiny animals PERFECTLY in lake sediments, including Der Urvogel Archaeopteryx, or China, where perfect, perfect fossils are preserved in volcanic ash sediments)
Worst conditions are humid and evolving/eroding lands. Norway is a nightmare, because although it was a huge landmass in the Mesozoic, ALL land dinosaurs walked or died on, has been eroded by the ice age, and Norwegian geology consists primarily of super-ancient rock, cambrian and older. We got a tiny spot of Jurassic in a single area (oceanic) and some Cretaceous in Svalbard.