[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> > A check of _The Dinosaur Encyclopedia_ by Lessem & Glut revealed
> > ... There is no picture of Ankylosaurus in the
> > book (pp 34-35). The Euoplocephalus entry (pp 188-189) shows both
> > a reconstruction and the skeleton of this ankylosaur.
> > Am I correct in my impression that the only sharply pointed features
> > on Ankylosaurus were on the head, and that there were no spikes at
> > all on the body?
> One main reason: the known skeletons of Ankylosaurus are less complete.
When ankylosaurs were first being described the dinosaur Palaeoscincus
rugosidens Gilmore, 1930, now named Edmontonia rugosidens, was the bases
for the lateral spines on Ankylosaurus magniventris Brown, 1908.
Edmontonia is a nodosaurid (no tail club, no skull spines, lateral body
spines) and Ankylosaurus is an ankylosaurid (tail club, skull spines, no
lateral body spines). For many years after the popular view of
ankylosaurs was a combination of both animals...people do love the looks
of a heavily armored and weapon toting dino. It wasn't until the work of
Carpenter on Euoplocephalus that the mistake is being corrected. But a
lot of books have been published showing Ankylosaurus with lateral spines
and old habits die very slowly.
John Schneiderman <firstname.lastname@example.org>