[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ankylosaurs & Nodosaurs
Aaron Gwin writes;
>A thought struck me the other day; most nodosaurs dies out in the
>early Cretaceous, right? It seems that ankylosaurs were advanced
>relatives, if not off-set descendants of the nodosaurs. Why then,
>were there nodosaurs, and big ones, like Edmontonia, still around at
>the end of the dinosaur reign with the likes of Euplocephalus and
>Ankylosaurus? What advantage did nodosaurs have over ankylosaurs?
AFAIK, the real difference between the two is that nodosaurs tended to have
rather simple armoring schemes; simply thickening the skin, very large
spines, etc. Ankylosaurs seem to have more complex armoring, thick scutes
and the like. Plus, ankylosaurs are the only ones with tail clubs.
AFAIK, the spines on _Edmontonia_ are designed for a more aggressive
defence. Perhaps that's why they continued right till the end, unlike
their closer nodosaur cousins.