Talk:Euoplocephalus

Early discussions

The silhouette of Euoplocephalus compared to the human is off. The mounted adult skeleton at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology is about 1.25 m tall. Like most ankylosaurs, it is considerably longer than tall. Anky-man 02:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Anky-man

Anky-man, I have good hopes that at last your admonition will be heeded.--MWAK (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading that Euoplocephalus had something really weird going on with its nasal passages. What could the purpose of this have been? To give it a better smell? Just part of a trend of weird nasal passages shared with other late Cretaceous dinosaurs (lambeosaurs, chasmosaurs, etc.)? Something else? I'm surprised this isn't even mentioned in the article. 97.104.210.67 (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It actually is, in the Paleobiology section. ArthurWeasley (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Size

The article says it is exceeded in size by only Ankylosaurus and another ankylosaur (cant remember the name) It lists euplocephalus at 6m long but Saichania is listed at 7m but is not the one that is said to be bigger than euplocephalus. Something is ammis here.Spinodontosaurus (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Saichania was in 2010 by Gregory S. Paul estimated to be 5.2 metres long.--MWAK (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Tail image

That's a tail bone? It looks like a human-made tool. Please replace it with a real euoplocephalus tail!

Thanks, Collin237

Hi Collin, that is indeed a Euoplocephalus tail and not a human tool, so there is no need to replace the image.--Kevmin (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically that's the type specimen of Scolosaurus cutleri, if I'm not mistaken, so if Scolosaurus was ever removed from Euoplocephalus it would indeed need to be replaced here, but not because it's artificial. J. Spencer (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It has a different specimen number[1], and is not attached to the Scolosaurus, so it it probably Euoplocephalus after all. FunkMonk (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The specimen number only applies to that cast apparently, the actual fossil (AMNH 5245) has been reassigned to Anodontosaurus. No complete tail clubs are known for Euoplocephalus now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "No complete tail clubs are known from Euoplocephalus," Arbour and Currie (2013) list the specimen AMNH 5405 as including "skull, right mandible including predentary, handle vertebrae, humerus, ulna, osteoderms, first cervical half ring, tail club knob." Unfortunately, that specimen's club is not illustrated in the paper, but there is a figure showing several tail clubs from the various formations in question. Perhaps one of those clubs could be used for the illustration?

Whch figure? FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Figure 14 in the paper, where clubs A-E are from the Horseshoe Canyon (and thus would represent Anodontosaurus), N-P are Dyoplosaurus, and M is Scolosaurus. The rest (from the Dinosaur Park) are most likely Euoplocephalus, but may potentially belong to Scolosaurus since the clubs of both are similar and there is some overlap between the two in the Dinosaur Park Formation. Of course, given Scolosaurus is much rarer in the Dinosaur Park with only one specimen known (the rest are all from the Two Medicine), it's probably safe to use one of them to illustrate a Euoplocephalus club.

Hmm, but I think it would be "original research" for us to determine what any of those belong to, since they are regarded undetermined in recent papers? FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

I am concerned that the recent additions are too closely paraphrased from their sources. J. Spencer (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. J. Spencer (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Scolosaurus

As expected based on the conclusions of the earlier paper on Dyoplosaurus, Scolosaurus has been split from Euoplocephalus.[2] This will be a little more problematic since Scolosaurus is known from several good specimens. It may be a big project to try and untangle it from this article and determine which mounts and life restorations can be attributed to which animal (many if not most are probably now chimeras of the two). MMartyniuk (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

We do have one image that could unquestionably go in a new article, this one of the holotype.[3] The paper itself might shed more light on which parts go where? Does it even mention specimens other than the holotype? This image may be a guide for tail clubs at least:[4] The article has now been split in any case: Scolosaurus One thing that seems to be inconsistent across mounts and restorations is the two longer spikes over the shoulders. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems Anodontosaurus should perhaps be split as well? FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should split Anodontosaurus too. According to an abstract in the 70th Anniversary SVP Meeting, by Victoria Arbour, Anodontosaurus is valid and it is the only known ankylosaurid from the Horseshoe Canyon Formation (she also suggested that Scolosaurus and another unnamed ankylosaurid are not referable to Euoplocephalus as well). However it's only an abstract and not everyone will approve the separation on its basis...Rnnsh (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, then it might be too early. Should probably wait until we have something more tangible to cite. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What shell we do now? Paul Penkalski referred all diagnosable ankylosaurid specimens from the upper Two Medicine Formation to Oohkotokia horneri. According to previous studies, as he mentioned, the Judith River Formation and the Dinosaur Park Formation represent lowland, near-shore environments, whereas the Two Medicine Formation represents a more upland environment. It suggests that the Judith River Formation specimens probably don't represent Oohkotokia (possibly represent Euoplocephalus, Dyoplosaurus or Scolosaurus). Furthermore, the holotypes of Dyoplosaurus and Scolosaurus and specimens possibly referred to one of them (see his phylogeny) are from the bottom 10 m of the Dinosaur Park and possibly even from the underlying Oldman Formation. Euoplocephalus is restricted to its holotype and UALVP 31, TMP 1991.127.1, and AMNH 5406, all from the lower 40 m of the Dinosaur Park (the stratigraphic range of the holotype is uncertain). He agrees with Arbour (2010), about the validity of Anodontosaurus, and suggest that other Horseshoe Canyon specimens are distinct from Euoplocephalus stratigraphically. From Arbour (2010), "...examination of more than 60 specimens, including 13 skulls, shows that these variations are stratigraphically segregated. Ankylosaurids from the Horseshoe Canyon Formation are found to be distinct from Euoplocephalus, which is restricted to the Dinosaur Park Formation." His small phylogenetic analysis finds Anodontosaurus (only holotype) and Euoplocephalus (holotype + 2 referred) in polytomy with NHMUK R4947 (from Dinosaur Park) and Oohkotokia that is basal to a clade that includes Dyoplosaurus holotype + many other specimens that are thought to represent either Dyoplosaurus or Scolosaurus (whose holotype was not included). Rnnsh (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, we have a published suggestion for Anodontosaurus being valid, so I think it could be split. As things are going, I doubt anyone will disagree with the split in the immediate future. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Note that Penkalski uses "Anodontosaurus" in scare quotes, apparently only because a "formal" argument for validity is still in press, though this doesn't really have any taxonomic significance in any code (resurrecting an invalid species doesn't necessarily require a revised diagnosis etc. as far as I know, and Penkalski basically provides one anyway). MMartyniuk (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur, we should split Anodontosaurus, but should we call it valid or junior synonym (the only options)? And I also think we should correct the formation articles. I think that the Two Medicine page should include only Oohkotokia, Horseshoe Canyon only "Anodontosaurus" (with a note), Dinosaur Park should include all three taxa (with a note about Oldman) and the rest of the Dinosaur Park and Judith River specimens should be considered Ankylosaurinae indet. or something like that... Is it OK? Rnnsh (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems like it is valid, no? FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• On this note, I have an image[5] which I'm not sure what is. These are casts of a skull roof and tail of "Euoplocephalus" from the Royal Tyrrell Museum (on display in Denmark), but perhaps they are now classified as something else? FunkMonk (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems the tail was TMP 1983.36.120, which has been deemed indeterminable. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Specimens reshuffled

This new free paper makes a good job of sorting out the specimens: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0062421 Luckily, it seems most images we have are still Euoplocephalus, and most skulls of mounted specimens are based on ROM 1930. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Now even more former Euoplocephalus specimens have been spun off to other genera[6], so it seems this article needs a major overhaul, both text and image-wise. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

"hoplo-/ὁπλο"

Greek: eu-/ευ- meaning 'well', hoplo-/ὁπλο- meaning 'armed' and kephale/κεφαλη meaning 'head')

i added the rough breathing diacritic to the original "oπλο" (oπλο --> ὁπλο) based on my very limited understanding of ancient greek, being that,

o = o, and ὁ = ho.

i also checked the article for Hoplite, which has this to say:

The word "hoplite" (Greek: ὁπλίτης hoplitēs; pl. ὁπλίται hoplitai) derives from "hoplon" (ὅπλον, plural hopla ὅπλα), the type of the shield used by the soldiers, although, as a word, "hopla" could also denote the weapons held or even full armament.

although, i don't understand the difference between hoplite and hoplon when transliterated (or transcripted?) into ὁπλίτης and ὅπλον, respectively. i don't understand the difference between ὁ and ὅ. so please change it if i am incorrect. ≈Sensorsweep (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The difference is merely that a sign is added indicating the stress. You were of course quite right that we shouldn't have "dropped the h" ;o). BTW, the article is wrong: to hoplon simply meant "equipment" and a hoplitès was a "man-at-arms". That his shield became to be known as a hoplon is a later development.--MWAK (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Euplocephalus height

Can anyone add some realiable information on how tall euoplocephalus is estimated to be into the article? I have seen figures of 1.8m, 2m, and even 2.5m on the internet but I have no idea which is correct if any.

None of these are correct. The body is about four feet tall, as stated by the article. Higher estimates are based on old misconceptions about the build of the animal.--MWAK (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Armor sections

I just noticed this article has two sections on armor. Surely one is redundant? FunkMonk (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)