Re: PANOPLOSAURID ANKYLOSAURS

["Tim Williams" <T.Williams@cclru.randwick.unsw.edu.au>]

Darren Naish wrote:
 
> I read a recent suggestion that _Edmontonia_ and relatives warrant
> familial status, with the name Edmontoniidae being put up. I think
> Tom Holtz pointed out that Panoplosauridae would have priority (it's
> actually used in Piveateau's 'Traites de Paleontologie' of 1954, so
> has been proposed long ago.. don't have the info on me). Is there
> any backing for this suggestion? Does anyone *really* think it's a
> good idea? Does anyone have any ideas as to the status of the
> Acanthopholidae right now? Help!

I write:

I think that was Bakker's idea - a new nodosaur family including 
_Edmontonia_, _Panoplosaurus_, and his own _Denversaurus_, and 
defined by features like loss of premaxillary teeth, etc.  I didn't 
think it was such a bad idea, but it was panned by a lot of others.

The family Acanthopholidae is probably toast - the genus 
_Acanthopholis_ is itself a bit of a worry.  The chapter in _The 
Dinosauria_ on the Ankylosauria lists it as a potential _nomen 
dubium_.

The classification of the Ankylosauria usually divides it into three 
families: Nodosauridae, Polacanthidae, and Ankylosauridae.  I would 
add a fourth family for _Minmi_, the oddball thyreophoran from 
Australia.