Swimming Ceratopsian

[Takama]

Ok,  I read that Koreaceratops was thought to have been aquatic

Agree, Disagree? I would like to know if its relly possible or if this could be another one of those misunderstandings, like the thought that Segnosaurus had webbed feet.

[SBell]

Ok,  I read that Koreaceratops was thought to have been aquatic

Agree, Disagree? I would like to know if its relly possible or if this could be another one of those misunderstandings, like the thought that Segnosaurus had webbed feet.

I don't think it's just Koreaceratops--other basal ceratopsians have been hypothesized as aquatic (functional, not obligatory) as well. I recall a somewhat recent article in Prehistoric Times magazine summarizing some of this, as well as other published articles.

It apparently has mostly to do with explaining the tall neural spines of the tail. Of course, other speculation is that the tall spines gave a space for fat storage. I haven't seen much corroborating evidence recently, but i haven't really been looking either.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I did post over in the psittacosaurus thread, regarding this. I had found a blog online where the author went on to dissect the facts as they related to accquatic Koreaceratops. I believe the link to the blog is posted if you wished to hunt it up in the thread. Another of the facts given as support for the acquatic link is the design of the skull of such animals with the eyes and nostril the highest part of the skull, to prevent them from being submerged when swimming. They even went so far as to suggest the gastroliths or gizzard stones found inside rib cages for various ceratopsians were for ballast rather than digestion. The conclusions of the blog writer were the entire concept is ridiculous and I somewhat agree.

[Gryphoceratops]

I heard murmurs of this a while back but I never saw go anywhere.  Sounds like something that should go into the All Yesterdays book!

[Dikiyoba]

Based on some of the papers in New Perspectives on Horned Dinosaurs, most basal ceratopsians lived in wet environments. So it makes sense that Koreaceratops could swim well and spent time in water. But I'm skeptical of the idea that Koreaceratops was primarily aquatic or that the deep tail is an adaptation for swimming without a lot more evidence, especially since Protoceratops apparently had a deep tail as well but lived in an arid environment.

[Brontozaurus]

The 'deep tail' argument used to be used as evidence that hadrosaurs were partially aquatic. But in reality their tails were stiffened and not flexible enough to be used for swimming. I think a more detailed analysis of ceratopsian tails is needed before we can claim it as a swimming aid.

[wings]

... I'm skeptical of the idea that Koreaceratops was primarily aquatic or that the deep tail is an adaptation for swimming without a lot more evidence, especially since Protoceratops apparently had a deep tail as well but lived in an arid environment.

I don't see a strong correlation between a "deep" tail and swimming ability, if we take the crocodilians for example (http://tellmewhereonearth.com/Web%20Pages/Gators/Gators%20Photos/Nile_croc_skeleton_lateral1.jpg, http://www.flickr.com/photos/piwo/3186171640/sizes/l/ or http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Gavial_Skeleton_.jpg); They are strong swimmers and they mainly use their tails to propel themselves in the water but their tails don't look particularly deep when compare to other "less water loving" animals (http://www.boneclones.com/images/sc-027-a-lg.jpg)...

[Derek Sohoza]

I agree with wings. Even if it waded in water, the overall structure of the dinosaur doesn't look like it's made to swim. If you think of hippos, they live in and around water, but do not necessarily "swim," and are still terrestrial animals. I see the tail being used more as a display structure, or perhaps a means of defense if it was flexible enough and had adequate muscle.