[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: re-introduction of Titanosaurs to North America?
David Krentz wrote:
> Thanks for the info. From what i understand, there has been no
> armour associated with Alamosaurus.
That's my understanding too.
> Saltasaurs (patagonia) had armour and Opisthocoelicaudia (asian) did not ; at
> least according to
> my refs.
Yes, I believe that's true. _Saltasaurus_ had armor, but no armor was found
associated with the skeleton of _Opisthocoelicaudia_. Given that the the
skeleton of _Opisthocoelicaudia_ is nearly complete (except for head and neck),
it's a good indication that the absence of armor from this titanosaur is real
(i.e., not a taphonomic artifact).
> Could that play a part in the origin of Late Cretaceous Titanosaurs?
The presence of armor may correlate inversely with size. No quantifiable study
has been done on this, so this will sound very hand-wavey, but body armor tends
to turns up in many of the smaller titanosaurs (such as _Saltasaurus_ and some
of its close relatives_), but not the really big ones. Of course, this is
complicated by the fact that many titanosaurs are so incompletely known that
the absence of armor might be an artifact.
Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble
challenge with star power.