Talk:Ankylosaurus

Pronunciation

I've had a difficult time finding a definitive pronunciation of Ankylosaurus, and this article is no different in that it suggests two very different possibilities. Does anyone know how we can determine if the original pronunciation was intended to have the accent on the first or second syllable? Is the first "eng" or "ahn?" The second "kai" or "kee?" The difference between "ENG-kee-losaurus" and "ahn-KAI-losaurus" are very different indeed, and even this article's two different pronunciations aren't entirely clear. This site (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/a/Ankylosaurus-Facts.htm) has some suggestions, but is also unclear. MXVN (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

Requested peer review just now. Let's see what happens. Sheep81 09:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs

Was it an Ankylosaurus or a Saichania that fought with the Velociraptor? Dora Nichov 14:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Saichania. Ankylosaurus was from a different continent and age.--Câmara 21:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. But what did they call it in the show? Sheep81 13:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It was Pinacosaurus and sculpted as such. Anky-man 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Anky-man

I don't think it's identified as any species... Dora Nichov 14:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good article passed

I have included the article in the list of good articles. Oddly, the nomination did not appear on this talk page but the article was on the page of GA nominations. I was hesitant to pass it for a few minor reasons. First, it's not clear how stable the page will be in the future since there probably is room for more content. Secondly, it's a bit short on references and on pictures (by moved the BBC rendering to the top and made both images 50% larger).Thirdly while the writing is good it could be improved. In particular, there are a lot of very short sentences which to me is a typical sign of a Wikipedia which has not completely matured. Also sentences that struck me as unclear or poorly written include "This was the last, largest and most famous of the armored dinosaurs, known for its heavily-armored body and for its tail club.", "The known fossil skulls are wider than they are long,". But overall a solid article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pascal.Tesson (talk • contribs).

Bulleting

Should we be trying to remove the bulleting of 'In popular culture' section? - Ballista 04:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Restorations from Brown 1908

I don't think the restorations from Brown 1908 should be used as a restoration, they are outdated. We should use the restorations of Carpenter 2004 as the most correct, and probably refer Brown's as Brown's view of it.Câmara (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• First one in the article simply shows the Armour in a correct manner, and second one, which is clearly incorrect, is in the discovery section, where appropriate. If we want Carpenter's, we'll have to make our own version, because it isn't free. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • But the armour image is also from Brown 1908. In Carpenter 2004 we see the armour rearranged in a different way, this ones does not even have the specialised cervical armour. Yes, we need to get some free updated Ankylosaurus images.Câmara (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, you can bet that I'll add it if I ever find something like that. Maybe the first armour image should be moved to the discovery section as well. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In the popular culture section..

Should it be mentioned Torterra,a Pokemon,is particlly based off this dinosaur? 98.14.15.12 (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it's uncited, potentially original research, and connective trivia that's more critical for the Pokemon than the dinosaur, so probably not. J. Spencer (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ankylosaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of the GA sweeps, which helps to ensure that all articles tagged and listed as Good articles meet the GA criteria. Overall, the article is clear, detailed, and well-referenced to reliable sources. All images are public domain or have appropriate free use tags. The article is in good condition and remains a GA. Sasata (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

ankylo- means fused or curved?

The article seems to contradict itself about the meaning of ankylo-. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.110.157.85 (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ankylo- = combining forms meaning 'bent or crooked, curved, stiff, fixed' Jabberwockgee (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very specific. Fused could possibly be associated with 'fixed'. Jabberwockgee (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Any direct reference for Ankylosaurus meaning "fused lizard" please? I thought (and still think its most likely origin) the first bit came from Ancient Greek ἀγκύλος. The meaning "fused/fixed" in Medicine probably comes from the idea of a limb "fixed in a crooked position" but "crooked lizard" seems a more straightforward translation to me anyway. --87.217.184.9 (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The best option would be to look at the documentation created by Barnum Brown where the genus was established to see if he provided a translation/explanation. --87.217.184.9 (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Size diagram all wrong

The size diagram suggest a much smaller animal of about 6m. Not the 8-9m of an Ankylosaurus. - 86.25.214.130 (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Read the article, you'll find the answer. Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The legs seem too long, though... FunkMonk (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

They do seem to have been lengthened to achieve the listed hip height estimate of 1.7m. The scale should probably be tweaked based on this: [1] Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Conty doesn't seem to be active anymore, so I guess a new comparison will have to be made... FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm doing one anyway for a different project, I can make a Wiki version sometime next week if needed. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool! Yeah, the plan is to submit this to FAC within the coming months (once fully expanded), so any help would be great. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

How accurate is that reconstruction today? it resembles a lot reconstructions that Carpenter made in the 80s, which have been updated relatively recently and now resemble Greg Paul's, compare his Sauropelta and Euoplocephalus from 1984 and 1982 to his new versions in the tree of life web project. I once tried to scale the vertebrae using the measurements in Carpenter (2004) and aside from the cervicals, the vertebral column of Carpenter's Ankylosaurus was too small to fit the dorsals and caudal. Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• On the different size estimates, are they really out of date, or just alternate possibilities? The nine metre estimate is from the same year as the Carpenter paper (Dinosauria 2004), and Gregory Paul gives 6 tonnes for a seven metre animal in his recent Field Guide. Carpenter gives no weight estimate. And of course thanks for the new diagram, Dinoguy2! Though it seems to exceed 7 metres? FunkMonk (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know about the estimates, but I agree with FunkMonk on the topic of the size of the scale chart. The person seems a little short, maybe 1.5m. Based on my measurements and calculations if the human is 1.8 meters tall then the Ankylosaurus is 7.55 meters long. IJReid ^discuss 00:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, yeah looks like I made the tail too long in the original drawing. Corrected. "The nine metre estimate is from the same year as the Carpenter paper" This came from a volume published in 2004... as anybody who's submitted contributions for these kind of volume knows, that chapter was probably written in like 1998 ;) The Carpenter reference should be taken as a correction of older estimated based on less data. Paul's 7m estimate is within a meter of Carpenter's so I think those fall within the margin of error. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Cool. By the way Dinoguy2, perhaps you can help sort a thing out: What does "ankylosaur" refer to? Members of Ankylosauria? Or also just ankylosaurids? Would it be better to use ankylosaurian and ankylosaurid instead? FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think technically ankylosaur should refer to the genus Ankylosaurus, but that's not how most people use it. See also tyrannosaur (for tyrannosaurids/oids, not just Tyrannosaurus), dinosaur (for dinosaurians, not just Dinosaurus), theropod (for theropodans, not just Theropodus), etc. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Also a 2017 study put Ankylosaurus at 8 metres and 8 tonnes 125.63.25.175 (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Ankylosaurus

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 Ankylosaurus'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 "ThompsonEtAl":

• From Pinacosaurus: Thompson, R. S.; Parish, J. C.; Maidment, S. C. R.; Barrett, P. M. (2012). "Phylogeny of the ankylosaurian dinosaurs (Ornithischia: Thyreophora)". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 10 (2): 301. doi:10.1080/14772019.2011.569091.
• From Nodosauridae: Richard S. Thompson, Jolyon C. Parish, Susannah C. R. Maidment and Paul M. Barrett (2011). "Phylogeny of the ankylosaurian dinosaurs (Ornithischia: Thyreophora)". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 10 (2): 301–312. doi:10.1080/14772019.2011.569091.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• From Dyoplosaurus: Richard S. Thompson, Jolyon C. Parish, Susannah C. R. Maidment and Paul M. Barrett (2011). "Phylogeny of the ankylosaurian dinosaurs (Ornithischia: Thyreophora)". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. in press. doi:10.1080/14772019.2011.569091.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

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⚡ 19:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Cladogram

With the FAC, I just thought you guys might want me to update the cladogram on the basis of the Zaarapelta paper. I will add it below so you guys can add it yourselves. Note, this is the 50% majority tree with all taxa. There is another cladogram instead with three pruned and thus higher resolution if you want it. IJReid ^discuss 18:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Ankylosaurinae	Tsagantegia Scolosaurus Pinacosaurus Dyoplosaurus Nodocephalosaurus Tianzhenosaurus Saichania Tarchia Zaraapelta Talarurus Euoplocephalus Anodontosaurus Ankylosaurus

• I guess it's newer? Does seem to have more taxa... FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you combine Pinacosaurus to one? We don't really need that much detail in an article about a different genus. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. It is newer, and has more taxa and is similar with different groups in different locations. IJReid ^discuss 21:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will add it! FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• This new, massive paper[2] on ankylosaur classification was published minutes ago, and has an improved cladogam (including the new clade ankylosaurini). IJReid, if you can make a new cladogram of ankylosaurinae based on that paper (just combine Pinacosaurus), you can go ahead and add it directly to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Added. Btw how do you know about these publications within minutes. IJReid ^discuss 19:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Dinosaur Mailing List, quite useful (sometimes): http://dml.cmnh.org/information.html And thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Denversaurus or Edmontonia?

An IP replaced one instance of Edmontonia with Denversaurus[3], and though I know about the synonym situation, Carpenter 2001 only refers to an "Edmontonia sp.", not a specific species. Is this, whatever it is, now considered Denversaurus? Maybe MWAK knows? FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think that most workers, Carpenter included, tend to accept that this is a separate taxon. If so, we might as well apply the available generic name Denversaurus — which has been more or less revived by Burns. However, for the sake of accuracy we should also mention that this has been considered an Edmontonia species.--MWAK (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess Denversaurus/E. schlessmani is considered separate today, but how do we know the animal Carpenter refers to is that species, when he only said "Edmontonia sp."? Something to do with the age or formation of the fossils or something? Or have the specimens in question been reclassified as E. schlessmani since 2001? FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

With "Carpenter 2001" you mean The Armored Dinosaurs? Then you have to help me a bit by indicating the precise article you are referring to. The index doesn't mention an Edmontonia sp.--MWAK (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, no, Carpenter 2004! For example: "It was apparently contemporaneous with the nodosaurid Edmontonia sp., which is more common in the costal, “lowland” facies" and "These large plates are readily differentiated from those of the contemporaneous nodosaurid Edmontonia sp.". FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I see :o). This, I believe, largely refers to fragmentary nodosaurid material such as teeth and osteoderms, which were assigned to Edmontonia sp. because the genus was assumed present but a real species determination of the various remains was impossible. The assumption was based on the more complete Denversaurus material. So it shouldn't be read as a claim that a second nodosaurid species occurs in the strata. If the name Denversaurus should be come widely accepted, people will start referring to the same material as cf Denversaurus. It all sounds a bit more cognisant than Nodosauridae indet.--MWAK (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah... In that case, since it is so fragmentary, wouldn't it be best to keep the wording Carpenter uses in the original source? For us to call it Denversaurus specifically seems a bit like an original conclusion... FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is that, because our knowledge had been improved somewhat, the words Carpenter uses, get a different meaning in a modern context. Your own reaction proves this. Carpenter in 2004 had no intention whatsoever of making a distinction with Denversaurus — he was at the time convinced this was an invalid taxon. But today we can meaningfully ask ourselves "Is this Edmontonia sp Denversaurus?". So we can no longer correctly cite Carpenter using his own words! We have to explain the changed empirical context, if only in a footnote.--MWAK (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

But are we sure the specimen in question is now considered Denversaurus specifically? Or is it just an indeterminate nodosaur? FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Saying "indeterminate nodosaur" and "Edmontonia sp." are the same thing. "Sp." here indicates indeterminate states, not a new species that has yet to be named. In Carpenter's nomenclature Edmontonia is a more inclusive clade, and the clade Denversaurus falls within it as a synonym. I would suggest calling this material nodosauridae indet. while the genus label for the only well supported species in the formation shakes itself out. This does not contradict Carpenter's meaning and does not introduce OR or imply that we can tell it's schelessmani rather than rugosidens or longiceps. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds right. Though does anyone know if the specimens in question are mentioned in any other paper? Couldn't hurt to cite that. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Does this change make sense?[4] FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Side-spikes a possibility after all?

It seems that some recent ankylosaurine fossils have shown that spikes were present on at least the sides of the tails, but they have also been depicted with spikes all the way up to the sides of the body.[5][6] So is our statement here from the old Glut book that "Likewise, large spines projecting sidewards from the body are present in many traditional depictions, but are actually only known in nodosaurids while being unknown in ankylosaurids" outdated now? Pinging Jens Lallensack, who added the text, and MWAK, as always... FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It all depends on your definition of "large". And on what phylogeny you use. Rows of more or less triangular side spikes had already been discovered in Pinacosaurus. Ziapelta has a 119 millimetres side spike. Sadly, unable to delay their gratification, the childish preparators started work on Zuul at the ends instead of the middle...--MWAK (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not that into ankylosaurs, but maybe just reformulate it more carefully? What about Likewise, large spines projecting sidewards from the body are present in many traditional depictions, but are actually unknown in Ankylosaurus. or something similar? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! I'll just make the wording more restricted, like Jens suggested, to say the spikes are not known in this genus. And let's hope the middle of Zuul is as well-preserved as the ends... FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ankylosaurus. 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/20100818013919/http://www.dinosauria.com/dml/names/dinoa.htm to http://www.dinosauria.com/dml/names/dinoa.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Ankylosaur chewing

@FunkMonk: You added this line; "A 2016 study found that dental occlusion (contact between the teeth) and the ability for backwards (palinal) jaw movement was not present in ankylosaurids, except for in Ankylosaurus and Euoplocephalus, and that these Late Cretaceous North American genera evolved this feature independently of nodosaurids" Did the study survey all or most ankylosaurs because I would think that those closely related to Ankylosaurus and Euoplocephalus would also have these abilities (see current cladogram). LittleJerry (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't actually remember adding that. With what edit? The paper can be read here:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, made some corrections. LittleJerry (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks better! I don't remember ever reading or writing the word "palinal" in my life, so I wonder whether someone else added it, or if I did it on total autopilot... FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Speaking of new papers, seems Ankylosaurus was just re-described yet again[8], so we have quite some work ahead of us in incorporating this new information into the article... The images are CC licensed, by the way... FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: weight

FunkMonk, FYI: an IP changed the existing 6 tonnes estimate to 3.65 tonnes on Aug. 21, and none of us ever took notice or reverted it. So Blazze is acting in good faith here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but in that case, we should just go back to the original version, or give a range between that and whatever has been put in now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree; Blazze has done that in the latest edit. I just thought that some clarification would be appropriate. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, it's hard to see what the heck's going on when no edit-summaries are left (referring to the initial edit)... FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

As it turns out, "Blazze" is a sockpuppeter and impersonator...... so much for that......... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that settles it then... But if he actually corrected the page, it seems his last edit was perfectly fine, ironically enough... FunkMonk (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hello, LittleJerry – As you can see, I have completed the copy-edit you requested. I hope you approve of my edits. Thank you, FunkMonk, for your edit summary in which you explain that "referred to" is, in these types of articles, jargon for "assigned to". I had not known that, so thanks for explaining. I do think "assigned to" is clearer for the average reader, though, and I see you changed it to "assigned to".

I'd like to work with you on this sentence, which, in spite of your changes, still does not read well:

• The requirements for nutrition could have been more effectively met if Ankylosaurus ate fruit, which its small, cusp-like teeth and the shape of its beak seem well adapted for, compared to for example Euoplocephalus.

There are two problematic areas:

1) the adjective clause "which its small, cusp-like teeth and the shape of its beak seem well adapted for".

It's a little informal to leave the preposition ("for") at the end of the clause. I know I left it there, but I'd like to move it to the front of the clause ("for which..."), but we can do that later; I think it's got to be "the handling of which". The two items following "which" (actually the grammatical subject) of the clause should, if possible, be parallel in structure. Right now they are not:

• its small, cusp-like teeth
• the shape of its beak

In this sentence you are pointing out specific characteristics that, it is thought, enabled Ankylosaurus to eat fruit. One is a particular type of teeth, and you name the specific characteristics of the teeth: "small" and "cusp-like". The other is a particularly shaped beak. However, you don't mention the specific characteristics of this beak, that is, the specific shape of the beak. It could be simply the fact of having a beak at all. If that is what you mean, then the phrase should be something like "and the possession of a beak" or "and the existence of a beak". If, however, you mean that the particular shape of the beak enabled it to eat fruit, then I think you should mention what that particular shape was: pointed, narrow, round, flat, etc. So then the phrase would be something like "its small, cusp-like teeth and narrow, pointed beak" (or whatever the significant shape was).

2) The other problematic part is the last part of the sentence:

• compared to for example Euoplocephalus.

It's not clear why you are comparing Anklyosaurus to Euoplocephalus here. You either need to mention specific anatomical differences ("compared to the broad, square teeth and round beak of Euoplocephalus") or add a clause at the end that explains that Euoplocephalus was unable to eat fruit, and possibly also why: ("compared to, for example, "Euoplocephalus", which would have been unable to eat fruit because of its square teeth and round beak") (I'm just making things up about Euoplocephalus because I don't know anything about it). Otherwise, the comparison to Euoplocephalus will not make any sense to the non-expert reader.

I would change "could have been" to "would have been". "Could have been" might suggest that it probably didn't eat fruit.

I would change "compared to" to "in contrast to".

So, in summary, I think the sentence should read something like this, and you would have to fill in the details:

• The requirements for nutrition would have been more effectively met if Ankylosaurus had eaten fruit, the handling of which its small, cusp-like teeth and [1-2 adjectives] beak seem well adapted, in contrast to, for example, Euoplocephalus, which would have been unable to eat fruit because... / in contrast to, for example, Euoplocephalus, whose flat, square teeth would have prevented it from eating fruit.

You might consider adding a short sentence before this sentence saying, "It is also possible that Ankylosaurus ate fruit."

 – Corinne (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Corinne, I'll give it a look tonight, probably by taking your wording. Here is how the cited paper states it, maybe it will make it clearer what is meant: "Of course, these nutritional requirements could have been attained more efficiently through the added consumption of energy-rich fruiting bodies, for which the miniscule, cusp-like teeth (Mallon and Anderson 2014b), and comparably selective beak shape of Ankylosaurus (particularly in relation to Euoplocephalus; Ősi et al. 2017) were apparently well adapted." FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the specific material from the source. I think your paraphrase, even with the changes I suggested, might be a little (a) too close to the source wording and (b) a little academic-sounding. I think the language should be a little simpler, more direct, and more accessible to the average reader, particularly these parts:

• these nutritional requirements could have been attained more efficiently

and

• comparably selective beak shape (which makes no sense to me)

 – Corinne (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The source does not really specify what is meant by "selective" beak shape, though it may be related to "selective browsing". The problem with us making this assumption is that an earlier paper specifically states Ankylosaurus was non-selective browser, so we can only reach this conclusion by our own interpretation. So I don't think we can do much than just be vague about what the shape of the beak means in this context. Maybe MWAK has something to add about this? FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

If one paper calls the feeding selective and the other is advocating for a more generalist feeding style, should we not just mention that there have been multiple interpretations and then go into it? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that the new paper doesn't say so outright in the context of "selective" that we are talking about here. "Selective" would not imply generalism. If we write what you suggest, it would be interpretation from our side, bordering on "original research". FunkMonk (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The second paper says Ankylosaurus had a more selective beak shape in comparison to Euoplocephalus while the first says it was more of a generalist and was compared to Edmontonia. I originally worded it the text noting this. LittleJerry (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to define what is meant by "selective beak-shape", and that's where the trouble is. The paper doesn't seem to do so, and it also seems to contradict Carpenter 2004. FunkMonk (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

They cite this article. Perhaps it will give us an answer. LittleJerry (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The only place that article uses the term "selective" is this passage: "It is likely that ankylosaur muzzle shape also reflects feeding habits. Based on the available fossil record, the most conspicuous change in muzzle shape was a progressive widening sometime in the middle Late Cretaceous (Figure 5). Jurassic and mid-Cretaceous forms with narrow and pointed muzzles (Figures 4(A)–(C) and 5) were presumably selective feeders, akin to mammalian browsers (Jarman 1974; Shipley 1999). Most of the Late Cretaceous (Santonian–Maastrictian) forms (Figures 4(E)–(G), (K), (L) and 5) were less selective or adapted to bulk feeding on less nutritious food (ferns have been suggested: Weishampel & Norman 1989; Weishampel & Jianu 2000; Sander et al. 2010; Mallon & Anderson 2014a, 2014b). The edentulous, wide-beaked forms of North America and Asia are notably missing from the European record, possibly reflecting a lack of open habitats on the islands of the European archipelago (Csiki-Sava et al. 2015)." FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

So my interpretation here is that the wide beak of Ankylosaurus was only "selective" compared to ankylosaurids with less selective beaks. Maybe Jens Lallensack also has something to say... FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. As I understood it: All of these sources see Ankylosaurus and other Late Cretaceous ankylosaurids as non-selective feeders. But still, muzzle shape is variable in these genera, and the muzzle of Ankylosaurus was not as wide, and the animal not as strongly committed to non-selective feeding than some other forms, especially Euoplocephalus (compare with Fig. 5 in the Ösi paper). Although Arbour and Mallon seem to compare Ankylosaurus with other Late Cretaceous ankylosaurids, they do not specify this. To be on the safe side, I would suggest to write something like "Its wide muzzle was adapted for non-selective low-browse cropping, although not to the extent seen in some related forms, especially Euoplocephalus." --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

There really is no need to be all that circumspect. The usual interpretation of "selective beak shape" would be that the beak is more narrow. This perfectly fits the point Arbour & Mallon make that it perhaps ate fruiting bodies. In Ösi (2016) it is shown that Ankylosaurus indeed has a narrower muzzle compared to Euoplocephalus. If they meant something else, they would have said it :o). What is more problematic is equating "fruiting bodies" with "fruit". Ankylosaurus did not eat apples or bananas. A fruiting body can also be a sporocarp, aril or false fruit.--MWAK (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. LittleJerry (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, writing that Ankylosaurus might had supplemented its diet with fruiting bodies is of course unproblematic. What I was trying to answer was the question of what "more selective" compares with. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ankylosaurus. 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/20150924062640/http://www.oucom.ohiou.edu/dbms-witmer/Downloads/2011_Miyashita_et_al._Euoplocephalus_head_anatomy.pdf to http://www.oucom.ohiou.edu/dbms-witmer/Downloads/2011_Miyashita_et_al._Euoplocephalus_head_anatomy.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

At the hip

Size of the largest known specimen (green), compared to a human

I understand 1.7m tall at the hip means that we locate the ankylo hip, draw a perpendicular line from there to the ground and then measure along that line from the ground to the highest point of the ankylo body. Just is there a better word than "at"? I mean someone could understand the measure were from the ground to the hip, which would have the same height as the belly of the pictured human Con Mèo Ú Tim (thảo luận) 20:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khủng Long (talk • contribs)

You could also say "a hip height of". FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

tks FunkMonk. Exactly what I need :D Khủng Long (thảo luận) 22:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Scapula length

Section "Description", paragraph 2: The scapula was 61.5 cm (24.2 inches) long. Are we referring to AMNH 5895 or AMNH 5214? Sadly I don't have access to the reference :( Khủng Long (thảo luận) 21:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder if whoever wrote that (don't remember if it was me) took the measurement from a figure in the paper? Because I can't find it stated outright. I can send you the article if you want. FunkMonk (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes plz I'd love to :)  Khủng Long (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 03:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

confirmed on page 978 that it was from AHNH 5895. Thank you FunkMonk for the article and your small "tip"  Khủng Long (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 11:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Section Description, third paragraph ...The ribs of the last four back vertebrae were fused to them,... what does this mean? Since when are ribs not fused to vertebrae?  Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 23:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Changed from "to them" to "together"  Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 00:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you should wait for answers here or at least check the source before making such changes. The source (Carpenter 2004) says: "The diapophyses are elongate, inverted tear-drop-shape byexpansion onto the ventral length of the transverse process,and by the fifth dorsal vertebra the diapophysis meets theparapophysis in an hourglass-shaped facet for the rib head, afeature also seen in Talarurus. This union eliminates thenormal gap between the diapophysis and parapophysis. In the last four dorsal vertebrae (d8–d11), their ribs are coossified to them indicating that these ribs were not involved in the bellows-like action of the more anterior ribs during respiration; fusion in Saichania begins with d6 (Maryanska 1977)." I am not entirely sure what the bolded "them" refers to, which would be the key to figuring this out. Maybe Jens Lallensack can help out? I assume it means the rest of the ribs were not co-ossified with the corresponding vertebrae. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

My reading is that the ribs are coossified to the diapophyses, which makes them rigid and immobile as far as respiration is concerned. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was a typo. I'm not sure what "them" here refers to either.  Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 04:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

In that case, it would have to be entirely rephrased. Or maybe just removed? FunkMonk (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Lythronax that "them" most likely refers to the diapophyses and parapophyses of the last four dorsals. Ribs generally aren't fused to vertebrae in dinosaurs (and many other animals), with this coossification being a rather distinctive trait in akylosaurs (I think). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

By "not fused" you mean they are connected by other means, like femurs and tibiae?  Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 14:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Sort of. They did articulate, although there definitely wasn't as much mobility between the ribs and the vertebrae as between the tibia and femur. Here's an example of a more typical dinosaur's (Gorgosaurus) rib-vertebra articulations. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. So it's safe to change back to "to them"? Perhaps with note explaining the above fact.  Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 15:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it needs to be rewritten or just removed if "them" refers to the diapophyses. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's also time to put the history section first, as has become customary... FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if Jens Lallensack got the ping? FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I did but thought this was resolved already. My reading is that "them" refers to both the diapophyses and parapophyses. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah ok, just wanted to be sure, because it seemed there was still doubt. I'll try to redo the text. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Ankylosaurus was an amphibious creature?

I know this may be a speculation, but I believe that Ankylosaurus and some other large ankylosaurids were probably amphibious animals. Reasons? Its small relative, Liaoningosaurus, was most likely amphibious, and some features like the barrel-shaped body, its flared out nostrils, and its eyes located near the top of its head, which are all in some ways similar to some large amphibious mammals alive today, such as hippopotamuses. That's why I reconstructed Ankylosaurus here as a type of amphibious herbivore, not swimming though, but drifting through the water (like hippos), with fat to help keep the animal from sinking and struggling underwater.

Note that on Deviantart, dylan613 is my username. Anyway, that is just an idea I had since no one else seem to have notice that Ankylosaurus may have not been fully terrestrial. DinosaursRoar (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, since it is known from sediments representing upland areas, as stated in the article, that's probably not true for this genus. Also, its eyes are located pretty much at mid depth of its head, not near the top, and what would sideways facing nostrils help during aquatic behaviours? The nostrils would have to be on top for that to make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, Liaoningosaurus is quite compact, whereas Ankylosaurus and its close kin are more elongated (particularly the neck) and don't appear to be very streamlined. Also, some large ankylosaurids, like Pinacosaurus, inhabited arid regions, without appearing radically different from ones inhabiting milder regions (i.e. Euoplocephalus). Also, didn't ankylosaurins also have pretty compact hands and feet? This wouldn't be very ideal for a creature walking on soft substrates. Ankylosaurus' external nares were located pretty far down on its skull, which would probably make it difficult for it to breathe. Additionally, in order for mentions of a possible amphibious lifestyle for this genus, something would have to be published in the peer-reviewed literature first to avoid WP:OR. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Ankylosaur name

This creature is called ankylosaur in Scientific American magazine (July 2022, page 13). Hanysek12 (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)