Talk:Edmontonia

Restoration
Is it just me, or may the restoration here be a bit outdated? It seems to be based on this model. Would the tail be as flaccid as here? The claws also seem a bit big. Other issues to fix, ? FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, this is a very problematic question (Good :o). First of all, what is today subsumed under Edmontonia really consists of three taxa: Edmontonia longiceps, Chassternbergia and, yes, Denversaurus. I suspect that a description of "Tank" will make distinguishing all three with separate generic names fashionable again — assuming of course that "Tank" can be shown to share unique traits with the Denversaurus holotype. Now, the restoration clearly shows Chassternbergia.


 * Apart from this need to have at least one additional image, there are some problems with the accuracy. The claws are broad but not that tall. In general, the hands and feet could not have been that big, even taking soft tissues into consideration. Of course the tail would normally be kept horizontally and yes, it seems too fat — although it might have been a fat storage organ. More fundamentally, the front torso is shown strongly sloping to below. However, Panoplosaurinae (Nopcsa revenged) have relatively long forelimbs. The armour is inaccurate on many points. There was no side spike below the first halfring. The secondary point on the famous "forked" side spine was less large. The spike behind it pointed to the front, not to behind. The osteoderms on the back were much smaller. Paul shows nineteen transverse rows and these are largely backed up by actual discoveries. Also these osteoderms had the cute peculiarity of having sagittally oriented keels on the front torso, gradually shifting to transversely oriented keels on the rear. These keels did not possess points visible from the apparent distance used here.


 * So, many changes are required and it will be difficult to preserve the artistic unity of the image...--MWAK (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, so this model may be wrong for the same reasons? What about this restored skeleton? FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the sloping tail is inaccurate if it's within possible range of motion. As long as it's not too steeply down-turned at the base. The hands of ankylosaurians would have been columnar like stegosaurians and sauropods, though, so the image and model are both wrong there. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the model has the same imperfections. The skeleton is either USNM 11868 itself, the holotype of Chassternbergia/E. rugosidens, or constructed from good casts of its main elements.--MWAK (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. Does sound like a complicated task to fix that drawing, I'll probably give it a shot some time anyway, starting with the overall proportions... The style isn't too hard to imitate, buit let's see... FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's some very preliminary modification, mainly overall proportions, and trying to make the head less amorphous: Original for comparison: Will work on armour details when it looks better overall. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Already looks a lot more accurate! Thank you for the new image — and the catch of a Denversaurus!--MWAK (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, it seems I've followed all your points, the back armour could perhaps need some work. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Good that Dinoguy pointed out that the metacarpus was vertical, I missed that. Perhaps it's better to show a small claw on the fourth finger.--MWAK (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool! About the fourth claw, some people, like Bob Bakker, I guess Darren Naish too, have pointed out that only the three first fingers of any dinosaur would have had visible claws, as this should apparently be a primitive condition for archosaurs (see crocodile hands, for example)... Gregory S. Paul follows this too, though it can be hard to see in the Field Guide... FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but phylogenetic bracketing not being possible in this case — birds lacking digit four and five under the standard interpretation — extant crocodiles can only provide a hint at what might have been typical. Their system of overlapping scales also makes a complete covering much more functional and easy to accomplish. Of course, when the claw is reduced to a nib, it likely did no longer stick out from other tissue. However, while in Ankylosauria the hand is not well known, it is still clear that the fourth metacarpal is a robust element, clearly a part of the "metacarpal stilt". As an obvious weight-bearing element the fourth digit would have been subjected to a lot of friction and so it is reasonable to assume a fourth "hoof" functioned as, well, a hoof. Paul shows protruding claws on all ankylosaurian fourth fingers pictured in the Field Guide; the "dubious" claws are those of the fifth finger! So he rejects Carpenter's assessment of 1990 that the hand were tetradactyl.--MWAK (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Paul's ankylosaur hands seem a bit fuzzy, so it's hard to see what's going on... But it seems the fourth digit of ceratopsians were also weight bearing, but they have mainly been depicted as clawless in recent years (same with stegosaurs, here by Paul, seems even the third digit is clawless)... But there seems to be some inconsistency between restorations... Maybe  has thought about this as well? By the way, I gather from the above that this model is rather inadequate as well? FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the specific evidence, but even if digit 4 was weight bearing, it does not necessarily follow that a claw would be present. A thick and semi-keratinized pad as in hadrosaurids and sauropods would have worked too. I'd be interested to learn what the footprint evidence shows. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The model is in many ways better than the other one (flatter rump, more vertical metacarpus, reasonable spikes) but still imperfect (wrong back osteoderms, flanks not expanding enough). The problem is of course that the sculptors generally lack the anatomical knowledge to understand the build of such a creature while the scientists often simply don't care or are unable to integrate such knowledge into a coherent image. As regards the drawings of Paul, the small digit on the outer side of the hand is the fifth, as proven by its having two phalanges (claw included). It's interesting that Paul consistently shows fourth fingers with three phalanges, even when they have more commonly been assumed to possess four. The Spinops (I guess) of the Csotonyi cover has a clawed fourth finger; the little one is again the fifth. Indeed in, at least derived, stegosaurs the fourth and fifth digit are strongly reduced. The Paul cover stegosaur apparently has six digits on the right hand!


 * The ankylosaurian track record includes prints of hands with four fingers, not combined into a pad. But of course, there is an element of circular reasoning in this, for how would you know it's an ankylosaur if you see a pad? Rare Jurassic robust tetradactyl finger prints are usually ascribed to nodosaurids.--MWAK (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On claws, I'm trying to look through some of my books now, and if you have the "Scientific American book of Dinosaurs", Greg Paul has an image on page 76-77 showing galloping Triceratops where only the three first fingers are clawed (quite clearly, as it shows many angles). Then on page 85, he shows a hand with four claws, and on page 100 and 101 the images seem to contradict each other again! And on page 8 in the "Field Guide", he again has a Stegosaurus with only two claws on the hands. In "Dinosaur Art", if you have that one, the Edmontonia and Euoplocephalus on page 39 also seem to clearly have only three claws on the hands... Same with his Triceratops on page 44. Hope I'm not just seeing things, hehe, I can scan some of these images if you don't have the books, can't find them on the web... Here, Bob Bakker says something about number of hand claws (he said something similar in "Dinosaur Heresies"): "In all dinos, meat-eater and plant-eater,  only the inner three fingers had claws. In herbivores the claws are blunt and hoof-like. Carnivores tend to have sharp-tipped claws. In all dinos, the outer two fingers had no claws at all. The five fingers/three claws is standard equipment for most ancestors of dinos too. Who has this  five/three  hand in a zoo today?  Only in one clan – gators and crocs. Lizards and turtles have claws on all five fingers. Crocs & gators have three claws, five fingers, no claw on outer two. Watch out when you draw dino hands – a lot of books make the mistake of giving a dino  four or five claws. Even the movie “Jurassic Park” makes that error with the Triceratops. Don’t YOU do it! Remember: five fingers but only three claws in most plant-eating dinosaurs." Not sure what he means with the last disclaimer. Perhaps because some had less than three... The reason I'm giving this issue some extra space now is because it's something I've been wondering about for years, without getting consistent answer anywhere...  FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, Paul's magnificent illustration on page 39 — which should convince anyone that we, the Dutch, really need both a Denversaurus and an Ankylosaurus for our new Tyrannosaurus hall in Leyden ;o) — shows clawless outer fingers. It's an artistic choice. Bakker has a point: you shouldn't show the outer fingers with large real talons. But the claim "In all dinos, the outer two fingers had no claws at all" of course depends on the definition of "claw".


 * Look at this detail of a Iguanodon hand. The claw of the fifth finger is extremely reduced. It's hard to imagine it was visible. But that of the fourth finger still looked like a hoof. It is still a claw in that sense, even if it were covered by a pad. In many dinosaur species an outer phalanx of the fourth finger is present that is strongly reduced; in some it seems possible that an intermediate morphology was reflected in an intermediate soft tissue covering. But the situation is complex: in fact the outer claws are present in crocodiles — they are just covered with scales.
 * How I interpret this is that when they say "claw", they mean the external keratin covering, not the ungual bone itself, which is of course the "claw bone"... I think Bakker goes into more formal detail about the issue in Dinosaur Heresies, but for some reason I can't find it on my book shelf right now... Right when one needs it! FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I have it in front of me, but can't find the relevant passage :o). Even when the presence of a "claw" is only admitted when the keratin sheath is present, it is hard to proof that it is absent. However, I must retract my previous statement that the fourth finger would usually be assumed to have four phalanges; three is the usual number. I tried to find exact data about fourth unguals in Ankylosauria but the record is very poor indeed. In Pinacosaurus a small one is reported by Currie (2011) and he also mentions that even the fifth ungual is still hoof-shaped. So that might indicate a horn surface at the underside of the outer fingers. Sternberg reported an imprint of thick padding with the third Panoplosaurus finger however, so perhaps this simply engulfed the hoof.--MWAK (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Edmontonia
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Edmontonia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "eberth1997": From Daspletosaurus:  From Ankylosaurus: Eberth, D.A. (1997). "Edmonton Group". In:  From Albertosaurus:  From Hell Creek Formation: Eberth, D.A. (1997). "Edmonton Group". In:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edmontonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106163315/http://vertpaleo.org/PDFS/a9/a987ca97-54e1-408a-b65d-b0d3e1507868.pdf to http://vertpaleo.org/PDFS/a9/a987ca97-54e1-408a-b65d-b0d3e1507868.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)