Small horned dinosaur from China, a Triceratops relative, walked on two feet

No, brontosaurus turned out to be an incorrectly assembled/restored partial skeleton with incorrect skulls substituted when unavailable, including bones from two different animals (apatosaurus and diplodocus or brachiosaurus), to depict a single animal. This naming fiasco happened starting around 1969 and validity opinions became widely held toward the end of the 1980's.

That's why Jurassic Park went with brachiosaurus as the lead sauropod. Brontosaurus, for a period of time, was viewed as incorrect and the product of archeological errors.

Since then, naming conventions have re-adopted brontosaurus as a subtype of apatosaurus to alleviate some of the confusion as to whether brontosaurus is a valid dinosaur name. As of 2015, opinions have solidified with deeper context and better data. It's sort of like the rebellion against whether Pluto is the ninth planet or not. So many people just like the name, brontosaurus, that there's been a consensus to squeeze it back into a usable, valid place that doesn't leave the world confused and dismayed.

Brontosaurus has always either been a genus or a younger sysnonym. The most prominent species of that genus has always been Brontosaurus excelsus, apart from the few years up to 2014, when it was Apatosaurus excelsus,

JFYI ;-):

https://tinyapps.org/blog/200702250700_why_in_my_day.html

And one day, we may encounter them as dramatized in Star Trek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distant_Origin

Yeah, add feathers and it'll almost look like a chicken. The question is if that's just the illustrator's bias, or if they actually did look like that.

You are reading too much into the picture.

Please keep nationalistic flamebait off this site. It leads to nationalistic flamewars, which we've had enough of here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html