ANKYLOSAUR TAXA

["D.W.Naish" <dwn194@soton.ac.uk>]

Thanks for all your help, Tom, it's great to get such comprehensive answers.
When I said that Sauropelta could be one of the polacanthids, note that I put
'?Sauropelta'. I knew that there was another proposed member for the group and
Sauropelta was the only one that sounded right. Obviously it's (Sauropelta)
part of the Panoplosaurus - Edmontonia clade, and not close to the
polacanthid complex. Right?

The generic distinction of Polacanthus seems a subject extremely dear to UK
dinosaurologists. Bill Blows, the expert here, has some controversial views and
I'm not sure what I can share. For a time the idea that Polacanthus was
congeneric with an American animal was rejected, but is now agreed upon.
Iguanodon and ?other contemporaries are known in both Europe and N. America
aren't they? Also, it remains controversial whether Polacanthus is a synonym of
Hylaeosaurus. Does anyone know which name has priority? I think (I THINK,
meaning that I could be wrong...) that Hylaeosaurus and Polacanthus have 
totally different shoulder spine orientations, and at least some 
reconstructions of Hylaeosaurus give it the big, lateral caudal spikes I said
were unique to 'polacanthids'. Last year the famous Isle of Wight fossil
collector Martin Simpson said that Polacanthus (and presumably the other
'polacanthids' too) comes in two morphs - one with bigger lateral caudal spikes
than the other, and that those with the bigger spikes were female. Everyone I
have asked about this says that not enough is known to make such a conclusion.
Well he must have go the idea from somewhere.. can anybody shed any light?

"..that armour's too strong for blasters, use your harpoons and tow-cables.."
(like any good dinosaur restoration, I aim for approx. 80 % accuracy).
(well, 65 % then.. make that 50 %)

"Aye aye aye , the excitement's just too intense!"
 - - Alpha 5 off this morning's thrilling episode of Power Rangers.

DARREN NAISH
dwn194@soton.ac.uk