Dinosaurzzzz [2018-01-15 17:06:51 +0000 UTC]
Great! Minor nitpick, but I don't think ankylosaurs, or any dinosaur, had claws on the fourth (and fifth) digit on the front limbs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
IllustratedMenagerie In reply to Dinosaurzzzz [2018-01-15 17:59:08 +0000 UTC]
These two skeletons www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs… and archosaurmusings.files.wordpre… look to me to have a claw core on the fourth digit, although I don't know for sure as I've not examined the originals myself. These are both early to mid-cretaceous genera (Animantrax and Gastonia respectively) like Borealopelta, so it's possible that later Nodosauridae lost the fourth-digit claw? The Edmontonia at the NYC museum upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia… *appears* to not have a claw on the fourth digit, but again, that's just my observation of a skeleton at a bit of a distance. If so, it could suggest that at least later nodasaurs didn't have a claw on digit 4. Since Borealopelta is closer in time to Gastonia (which was my reference for Borealopelta's legs), *if* early Nodosauridae had the forth-digit claw, Borealopelta likely would too. This is all conjecture off the top of my head, so take it with a mine of salt.
Tyranttr has rendered their Ankylosaurus without claws on digits 4 and 5, and I trust their process: Ankylosaurus magniventris - Saurian . Most good reconstructions I can find of Ankylosauridae only have nails or claws on the first three digits. Seems to agree with the limbs I see on Euoplocephalus.
Again, this is all based on what I can see in skeleton pictures from 5+ feet away. I wouldn't be surprised to find that what I'm seeing as a claw core is an un-keratinized nub. That was my process leading up to reconstructing the legs, but it's obviously inferior to being able to work with the specimens myself. I wouldn't be surprised if you are correct.
Thank you for the critique! Cheers,
-Keenan
👍: 0 ⏩: 0