|
|
Post by foxilized on Jan 8, 2011 20:25:37 GMT
Since PAPO has made a new Ankylosaurus wich isn't really an Ankylosaurus but an Euoplocephalus, and it's so commonly difficult to identify wich animal is each one -let's be honest, ankylosaurids always were a sort of boring dinosaur to give a d**n how to distinct each one  - I wanted to writte this to also informate myself. ;D THE "JURASSIC PARK 3" ANKYLOSAURUS: The PAPO ankylosaurus, as we all have already realized, is actually NOT the "Jurassic Park III" Ankylosaurus... Well, that is one dinosaur we JP collectors will never get -unless we customize one, that is... I plan to do it repainting some cheap chinasaur Ankylo someday, in fact! ;D 2.bp.blogspot.com/_DAAcHJHDRPU/Sk7oaafEh9I/AAAAAAAAFGM/HIKo-v5eA0g/s320/Ankylosaurus+CD.jpgTHE TRUE LOOK OF THE ANKYLOSAURUS: But just to add some geekism to the topic, fact is the "JP3" ankylosaurus IS NOT A TRUE ANKYLOSAURS EITHER. Ok well, it was the current way the Ankylosaurus was thought to be in 2001. But a couple of years after JP3 (about 2003) it was published an article on the Ankylosaurus wich explained how the animal did really look like, and fact is it didn't have any spikes on it's back, but a sort of plates only. The new reconstruction has been transformed into toys by Carnegie and also by CollectA. www.dinotoyblog.com/2009/05/23/ankylosaurus-carnegie-collection-by-safari-ltd/So as you see, no spikes on the real Ankylosaurus. THE "RETRO" ANKYLOSAURUS: But before this current reconstruction, and FOR DECADES almost all the Ankylosaurus drawings were based off the first reconstruction of the fossils made on the very early 20th century, wich looked like this: www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BIOL/classes/bio302/Pages/ankylosaurus.jpgThat old version (and therefore also the JP3 one) was based off the Euoplocephalus, because the paleontologists didn't have enough Ankylo material so they took some of the Euoplo to finish the Ankylo. The only way to identify an Ankylosaurus and a Euoplocephalus was the Euoplo had TWO BIG SPIKES behind the neck, and the Ankylosaurus reconstructions didn't: EUOPLOCEPHALUS: maja.scheel.net/images/euoplocephalus.pngANKYLOSAURUS: fc00.deviantart.net/fs38/f/2008/355/e/a/Ankylosaurus_magniventris_by_BrokenMachine86.jpgThat was the only way. But sometimes, it was common that people labelled Euoplocephalus as Ankylosaurus and showed and Ankylo with the two big spikes of the Euoplo. It's the reason why many Ankylosaurus reconstructions look like the Euoplo, and was so commonly confused. But with the new look of the animal we have today (with plates instead of spikes) it's easy to see they both Ankylo and Euoplo were pretty different looking creatures. EUOPLOCEPHALUS TOYS: So, the PAPO ankylosaurus is not even the old reconstruction of the Ankylo, but it's TOTALLY AN EUOPLOCEPHALUS. It can be achieved under that perspetive without problems, and be added to other Euoplocephalus toys to create a herd. I imagine it would be roughly in 1:40 scale. Btw, just in case someone is interested on MAKING A EUOPLOCEPHALUS HERD, some other good Euoplocephalus to create a herd are those -they are all more or less in the same scale, around 1:40-: Carnegie Euoplocephalus: www.tauschticket.de/Euoplocephalus_Carnegie_Collection_1988_10721460/Battat Euoplocephalus: www.dinosaurstudio.com/images/msset3_europlo.jpgSchleich Saichania (again the toy-company got the name WRONG, it's an Euoplocephalus!!!): ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41KzpXSmL6L._SL500_AA300_.jpgSchleich Saichania (smaller one, makes a good young Euoplocephalus) (again the sculpt is really Euoplocephalus): www.outtoplay.co.nz/images/MSC14505_Saichania_Schleich.jpgHope this puts a little light in the topic.  |
|
|
|
Post by tanystropheus on Jan 8, 2011 23:45:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 9, 2011 1:02:27 GMT
No the Schleich Saichania is modeled after...a Saichania. Which from the looks of the skeletal mounts ive seen actually was covered in short spiky scutes of some form or another. Ankylosaurus had no spiky bits. Again look at the Carnegie toy. Thats it. Its easy to be mislead because SO MANY reconstructions of it are wrong. EDIT: Okay maybe Gregory Paul can help me out a little bit. ANKYLOSAURUS- note no spikes. Just relatively flattened scutes laid on the body.  EOPLOCEPHALUS  SAICHANIA (the close up head drawings are of a different dinosaur ignore those)  |
|
Tyrannosauron
Junior Member
Science cannot move forward without heaps!
Posts: 92
|
Post by Tyrannosauron on Jan 9, 2011 1:24:15 GMT
I'm just surprised that Paul doesn't list them all as different species of Euoplocephalus.
|
|
|
|
Post by ikessauro on Jan 9, 2011 4:24:50 GMT
So, to solve the question on the Papo figure I think Papo should change the name before it's released worldwide. Changing it to Euoplocephalus it wouldn't have nothing wrong. Does anyone agree with me?
|
|
|
|
Post by Megaraptor on Jan 9, 2011 5:34:28 GMT
I'm just surprised that Paul doesn't list them all as different species of Euoplocephalus. Well, it wouldn't be the first time he's done that. In that new book of his, pretty much all Centrosaurines are listed as Centrosaurus Or Albertoceratops species, all Ceratopsines are Triceratops or Chasmosaurus, most Corythosaurini (that is, all Lambeosaurines with vaguely rounded crests), actually all of them bar Olorotitan, now I think of it, are listed as species of Hypacrosaurus (thus making it Hypacrosaurinae and Hypacrosaurini in his twisted mind), all backwards-facing-crested Hadrosaurines are lumped into Parasaurolophus, all Saurolophines (that is, ones with half-crests (e.g. Saurolophus) or ridges (e.g. Maiasaura) are listed as Saurolophus, Kritosaurus or Maiasaura, and all Pachycephalosaurs that aren't Pachycephalosaurus or Stegoceras (and maybe Prenocephale) have been listed as juveniles of one of those 2-3 species. So, yeah, surprising he didn't do that. |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jan 9, 2011 5:58:27 GMT
So, to solve the question on the Papo figure I think Papo should change the name before it's released worldwide. Changing it to Euoplocephalus it wouldn't have nothing wrong. Does anyone agree with me? Which name is more likely familiar to people? Which one is easier to say? Which one would be stamped on the bottom of the figure's mold already?Seriously people, if Papo cared that much, they would have already done it that way. Do I need to bring out the 2010 'plesiosaur' to remind you of how important accuracy is to Papo? They make dino toys based on popular/commercial representations--they made this Ankylosaurus based on the still-most-common popular representation. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 9, 2011 15:55:46 GMT
"So, to solve the question on the Papo figure I think Papo should change the name before it's "released worldwide. Changing it to Euoplocephalus it wouldn't have nothing wrong. Does anyone agree with me?"
No it would still be wrong. It has a lot of features in common with eoplocephalus but its not a spot on representation of that either. Look at the pic I put up there. The papo toy has waaaay more and larger spikes all over. Its just a generalized representation of "ankylosaurus".
"Seriously people, if Papo cared that much, they would have already done it that way.
Do I need to bring out the 2010 'plesiosaur' to remind you of how important accuracy is to Papo? They make dino toys based on popular/commercial representations--they made this Ankylosaurus based on the still-most-common popular representation."
Truth!
Megaraptor....I can't tell if ur being sarcastic or not but u went on a pretty long rant. Keep in mind its just his opinion. And even so hes just lumping the genus not the species. So to put it into perspective modern lions, tigers and leopards are all in the same genus. Again remember its just his opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jan 9, 2011 17:17:47 GMT
I think Darren Naish recently brought up the monitor lizard genus Varanus when discussing taxonomy, as it is absurdly inclusive (over 70 species!). The black-headed gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus was until quite recently included in the genus Larus along with a truckload of other gulls. Paul could argue in favour of lumping as so many modern genera are very inclusive. I've been persuaded by the splitters' argument though - that being able to refer to Styracosaurus and Tarbosaurus is just more helpful.
As for the Papo ankylosaur, I consider it a bit of a chimera/non-specific ankylosaur. Whatever, it's in a cool pose, is really detailed and won't cost too much so...I'll be getting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Jan 9, 2011 22:28:55 GMT
Well, I feel the Papo is a pretty good representation of euop. Considered that way, I don't see much wrong. But as I said, I want to see other angles. This group had really wide hips and bodies. Most toys do not get this part right.
A question though. The ankylo armor's current configuration, is just one man's idea? Or is it widely accepted now? Is it possible for the scutes to have had a horny sheath? Or, is that an old idea that has been discredited.?
The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs has a really nice section on ankylos and nodosaurs. Now, nodosaurs, like Edmontonia and sauropelta definitely had spikes, but generally no tail clubs. The ankylos had tail clubs, but no so much with the spikey. Except when they did, like Euop, and saichania. The main defining characteristic of the two groups was the heads. The nodosaurs hade narrowing noses and mouths, (book calls them pear shaped), nd ankylos had wide noses and mouths (hourglass shaped).
I think it is a fun and interesting group. These things must have been amazing to see in life (all dinos were).
I have a question about Tarcia though. The ankylos were heavily armored up top, but not the bellies. Presumed defensive posture is crouched down, to protect the belly. But, Tarcia is so large, it's flanks and belly seem pretty exposed to me. Does that make any sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on Jan 9, 2011 23:51:31 GMT
As has been said, this figure appears inspired by various Ankylosaurid features. Its hard to tell without seeing other angles, but the head to me looks like the Tarchia skulls - ie the area ahead of the eyes does not appear to slope down as in Ankylosaurus, but looks more square, as you can see in the Tarchia skulls....  |
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Jan 10, 2011 1:49:38 GMT
The Jp 3 Ankylosaurus looks like Saichania to me. And most old restorations in general seamed to be billed as Ankylosaurus but look like Saichania . How closely related are these animals? Anky and Euoplocephalus are sister genera to each other. Where dose Saichania and Tarchia fit in? They are from Asia correct??
|
|
|
|
Post by EmperorDinobot on Jan 10, 2011 9:45:00 GMT
I'll go with 'Another inaccurate Papo Dinosaur'.
PS. The JP3 Ankylosaurus looks like Gargoyleosaurus.
|
|
Tyrannosauron
Junior Member
Science cannot move forward without heaps!
Posts: 92
|
Post by Tyrannosauron on Jan 10, 2011 11:58:08 GMT
I'm just surprised that Paul doesn't list them all as different species of Euoplocephalus. Well, it wouldn't be the first time he's done that. In that new book of his, pretty much all Centrosaurines are listed as Centrosaurus Or Albertoceratops species, all Ceratopsines are Triceratops or Chasmosaurus, most Corythosaurini (that is, all Lambeosaurines with vaguely rounded crests), actually all of them bar Olorotitan, now I think of it, are listed as species of Hypacrosaurus (thus making it Hypacrosaurinae and Hypacrosaurini in his twisted mind), all backwards-facing-crested Hadrosaurines are lumped into Parasaurolophus, all Saurolophines (that is, ones with half-crests (e.g. Saurolophus) or ridges (e.g. Maiasaura) are listed as Saurolophus, Kritosaurus or Maiasaura, and all Pachycephalosaurs that aren't Pachycephalosaurus or Stegoceras (and maybe Prenocephale) have been listed as juveniles of one of those 2-3 species. So, yeah, surprising he didn't do that. Yeah, I got that...probably should have put some kind of emoticon at the end of the sentence to indicate sarcasm. I did see the post on Tetrapod Zoology comparing Varanus to fossil genera (specifically, Stegosaurus...great post, and another reminder of how much I want that Carnegie Miragia). Naish has some good points, and they might be valid if we were dealing with an extant taxon, but I do think it's valid to treat fossil taxonomy as distinct from zoological taxonomy--with different genus and species category definitions, for example. As far as the Papo "Ankylosaurus" goes, once the tags come off a Papo figure doesn't have any identifying stamp or anything (at least, my T. rex doesn't), so who's to argue if you call it something else? |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 10, 2011 14:55:26 GMT
" I've been persuaded by the splitters' argument though - that being able to refer to Styracosaurus and Tarbosaurus is just more helpful."
I agree. I understand the lumping especially when I look at modern animals. But for the sake of not getting confused I prefer the splitting. Keep in mind modern animals have common names to help out with that.
"I have a question about Tarcia though. The ankylos were heavily armored up top, but not the bellies. Presumed defensive posture is crouched down, to protect the belly. But, Tarcia is so large, it's flanks and belly seem pretty exposed to me. Does that make any sense?"
Keep in mind that many animals, especially herbivores, use weaponry and armor just as much (if not more so) for combat and display within the species, not just defense against predators. Also Tarchia had to worry about predators like Tarbosaurus(?) I think since I don't have a reference in front of me. So a predator that big would be towering down on it anyway regardless of how big the ankylosaur may seem. My gut instinct is that few other(smaller) predators would bother an ankylosaur.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Jan 10, 2011 16:11:27 GMT
The Jp 3 Ankylosaurus looks like Saichania to me. And most old restorations in general seamed to be billed as Ankylosaurus but look like Saichania. Truth! But I don't think they based it off a Saichania, but in the classic Ankylosaurus reconstruction instead. Consider Saichania is -in very general look of course- almost an Euoplocephalus without major spikes, and that's exactly how the paleontologists initially conceived Ankylosaurus in the old times. (Retro Ankylosaurus = Euoplocephalus without major spikes) Besides, the first Ankylosaurus reconstruction was made in the early 1900's therefore it's actually way older than the discovery of Saichania (the 70's). PS. The JP3 Ankylosaurus looks like Gargoyleosaurus. Also truth! Still I'll add the same comment as above. The "retro" Ankylosaurus reconstruction is older than Saichania and Gargoylesaurus. |
|
|
|
Post by Megaraptor on Jan 12, 2011 8:07:34 GMT
Well, it wouldn't be the first time he's done that. In that new book of his, pretty much all Centrosaurines are listed as Centrosaurus Or Albertoceratops species, all Ceratopsines are Triceratops or Chasmosaurus, most Corythosaurini (that is, all Lambeosaurines with vaguely rounded crests), actually all of them bar Olorotitan, now I think of it, are listed as species of Hypacrosaurus (thus making it Hypacrosaurinae and Hypacrosaurini in his twisted mind), all backwards-facing-crested Hadrosaurines are lumped into Parasaurolophus, all Saurolophines (that is, ones with half-crests (e.g. Saurolophus) or ridges (e.g. Maiasaura) are listed as Saurolophus, Kritosaurus or Maiasaura, and all Pachycephalosaurs that aren't Pachycephalosaurus or Stegoceras (and maybe Prenocephale) have been listed as juveniles of one of those 2-3 species. So, yeah, surprising he didn't do that. Yeah, I got that...probably should have put some kind of emoticon at the end of the sentence to indicate sarcasm. I did see the post on Tetrapod Zoology comparing Varanus to fossil genera (specifically, Stegosaurus...great post, and another reminder of how much I want that Carnegie Miragia). Naish has some good points, and they might be valid if we were dealing with an extant taxon, but I do think it's valid to treat fossil taxonomy as distinct from zoological taxonomy--with different genus and species category definitions, for example. As far as the Papo "Ankylosaurus" goes, once the tags come off a Papo figure doesn't have any identifying stamp or anything (at least, my T. rex doesn't), so who's to argue if you call it something else? Why indicate sarcasm when there's no sarcasm to indicate? |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Jan 13, 2011 3:29:10 GMT
The thing people don't realize is how fragmentary most ankylosaur specimens are. The reason you see every imaginable combination of plates and spikes is because only a few of them would be preserved with any one skeleton, and people had to guess how they were arranged on the body, and fill in from relatives. Ankylosaurus is particularly fragmentary, plus classifications have changed so some specimens once called Ankylo are now considered Euoplo etc. The new Anky is based on the best research done so far but still, no complete skeleton exists so it does include some guesswork. Right now "Euoplocephalus" includes at least FOUR distinct genera that will be broken up in the near future. Since modern reconstruction are based on a mesh of all hose, expect it's image to possibly change dramatically soon. The Papo figure might be an inaccurate Ankylo and an accurate Euopolo right now, but come next year it will probably be just as accurate as this Stegosaurus: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stegosaur.jpg(or, possibly, it will just be an accurate Scolosaurus or something). |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 13, 2011 18:09:06 GMT
Yeah, I got that...probably should have put some kind of emoticon at the end of the sentence to indicate sarcasm. I did see the post on Tetrapod Zoology comparing Varanus to fossil genera (specifically, Stegosaurus...great post, and another reminder of how much I want that Carnegie Miragia). Naish has some good points, and they might be valid if we were dealing with an extant taxon, but I do think it's valid to treat fossil taxonomy as distinct from zoological taxonomy--with different genus and species category definitions, for example. As far as the Papo "Ankylosaurus" goes, once the tags come off a Papo figure doesn't have any identifying stamp or anything (at least, my T. rex doesn't), so who's to argue if you call it something else? Why indicate sarcasm when there's no sarcasm to indicate? Cuz you went on a gigantic long rant listing all the dinosaurs he did lump when that topic has been discussed a crazy amount of times already on these threads and its been established an equal amount of times that everyone pretty much has the same opinion about it. Furthermore, addressing what you said anyway, these three ankylosaurs were not coexisting with each other, being separated geographically and/or by millions of years so its less logical to say they are the same genus. At least all the lumped ceratopsids and hadrosaurs coexisted with each other. I'm starting to get a little tired of every other dinosaur thread somehow turning into "lets complain about greg paul's lumping". Its one guy's opinion. We have a thread about his book already. It would be cool if we could keep it there unless it really adds to the discussion at hand. |
|
|
|
Post by gfxtwin on Jan 15, 2011 3:07:18 GMT
Sometimes I have to LOL at how much you guys cream over current scientific accuracy. Labeling the carnegie version as the TRUE representation of ankly, as if the current depictions of the dino won't be outdated in five or ten years.
|
|
- I wanted to writte this to also informate myself. ;D
