Skip to main content

Centrosaurus

I've broken my routine and drew a Centrosaurus instead of a theropod. I couldn't decide what theropod I wanted to draw but I was getting a bit bored of theropods.

Anyway, I guess this would be Centrosaurus apertus Lambe, 1904 because of the cranial ornamentation. C. apertus and C. brinkmani Ryan et Russell, 2005 differ in their cranial ornamentations with C. apertus having larger parietal ornamentations. C. brinkmani is also restricted to the Oldman Formation of southern Alberta.

I don't really know enough about ceratopsians to write anything interesting (I just think they look great!) but I might as well comment on the forelimb posture...for the longest time, there has been a debate regarding the forelimb posture of ceratopsians. Some argued for an erect parasaggital posture while others argued for a sprawling posture with the humerus averted laterally. Anatomically, the sprawling posture seems to make sense. However, this left a discrepancy with ceratopsian trace fossils that had shoulder-width manual trackways. The manual impressions are also directed laterally unlike sprawling reptile manual impressions that are directed medially.

As Paul and Christiansen (2000, Paleobiology 26: 450-465) pointed out, this bipolar reconstruction of erect versus sprawling posture is misleading, as "fully erect" is suggestive of columnar elephantine limbs, while most large mammals don't even have this posture. "The issue of forelimb posture in ceratopsians is primarily a question of whether the humerus operated in a largely parasagittal fashion or employed significant mediolateral rotation during locomotion" (Paul and Christiansen 2000, p.451). Manual trackways would enforce the hands to be directly beneath the shoulder - the humerus likely operated in a largely parasagittal fashion but with the elbows slightly averted, instead of a "sprawling" manner. The elbows were probably flexed, so that takes care of the anatomy.

The problem, as I've heard from a friend who's worked on ceratopsian forelimb posture, is as mentioned above that the manual impressions are directed outward but most reconstructions force the hands to face forwards. Now, anatomically, that would rotate the whole forelimb laterally hence the sideways averted humerus and sprawling posture. But if the hands were to face sideways, as the trackways suggest, then the whole forelimb rotates so that it is pretty much underneath the body in an "erect" posture but with the elbows flexed, not the elephantine columnar fully erect posture.

So to summarise, I believe ceratopsians held their forelimbs pretty much underneath their shoulders with their elbows flexed and hands facing slightly outwards.

Comments

Zach said…
Makes sense to me. I imagine they adopted such a strange forelimb posture to hold up those giant heads. I like your picture, too, although there's just something off about the area between the head and the pelvis...

But I can't really complain. Ceratopsians are viciously hard to get "right." Besides ankylosaurs, I find them the most difficult dinosaurs to restore.
DinoFactors said…
Hi! If you want to know about dinosaurs(I'm not specific with species)visit my only blog!

Popular posts from this blog

R for beginners and intermediate users 3: plotting with colours

For my third post on my R tutorials for beginners and intermediate users, I shall finally touch on the subject matter that prompted me to start these tutorials - plotting with group structures in colour.

If you are familiar with R, then you may have noticed that assigning group structure is not all that straightforward. You can have a dataset that may have a column specifically for group structure such as this:

B0 B1 B2 Family
Acrocanthosaurus 0.308 -0.00329 3.28E-05 Allosauroidea
Allosaurus 0.302 -0.00285 2.04E-05 Allosauroidea
Archaeopteryx 0.142 -0.000871 2.98E-06 Aves
Bambiraptor 0.182 -0.00161 1.10E-05 Dromaeosauridae
Baryonychid 0.189 -0.00238 2.20E-05 Basal_Tetanurae
Carcharodontosaurus 0.369 -0.00502 5.82E-05 Allosauroidea
Carnotaurus 0.312 -0.00324 2.94E-05 Neoceratosauria
Ceratosaurus 0.377 -0.00522 6.07E-05 Neoceratosauria
Citipati 0.278 -0.00119 5.08E-06 Oviraptorosauria
Coelophysi…

The difference between Lion and Tiger skulls

A quick divergence from my usual dinosaurs, and I shall talk about big cats today. This is because to my greatest delight, I had discovered today a wonderful book. It is called The Felidæ of Rancho La Brea (Merriam and Stock 1932, Carnegie Institution of Washington publication, no. 422). As the title suggests it goes into details of felids from the Rancho La Brea, in particular Smilodon californicus (probably synonymous with S. fatalis), but also the American Cave Lion, Panthera atrox. The book is full of detailed descriptions, numerous measurements and beautiful figures. However, what really got me excited was, in their description and comparative anatomy of P. atrox, Merriam and Stock (1932) provide identification criteria for the Lion and Tiger, a translation of the one devised by the French palaeontologist Marcelin Boule in 1906. I have forever been looking for a set of rules for identifying lions and tigers and ultimately had to come up with a set of my own with a lot of help fro…

Top 10 scientifically important theropod dinosaurs of all time (off the top of my head)

I thought I'd do a fun post for once. And since list based articles are the norm for fun on the internet, I thought I'd do one on dinosaurs, but given that I know most about theropods, I've decided to restrict my list to theropods (...maybe in a future post, I'll do other clades).

My ranking is based mostly on scientific importance so it may not reflect awesomeness, and it is obviously subjective as to how I rank importance to science. For instance, interesting discoveries or unique palaeobiology are ranked relatively low compared to wealth of information and data or completely revolutionising our understanding of the evolution of theropods.

So here are my top 10 scientifically important theropod dinosaurs of all time (off the top of my head)

10. Megalosaurus

Being the first dinosaur to be named, Megalosaurus automatically deserves a spot on this list, but given the fragmentary nature of known fossil specimens, and being mostly useless as a meaningful source for biologi…