Amargasaurus had a sail on its neck after all...

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

So, it looks like Amargasaurus may have had a sail on its neck after all, the original version may have been closer to the truth:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joa.13659

The same can be assumed for Bajadasaurus and probably Pilmatueia as well.

[SidB]

Even with the sprinkling  of Amargasaurus figures over the last few years, I wonder when this latest hypothesis will be reflected in the next set of releases. Bet it's a CollectA one.

[Carnoking]

Spiky or not, I still love 'em.

[leidy]

Still have my Battat Amargasaurus.  Not sure why the sail fell out of favour, but I've always found it more believable than the alternatives.

[Strepsodus]

Does this mean Carnegie Amargasaurus is wrong?

[TheCambrianCrusader]

Does this mean Carnegie Amargasaurus is wrong?

Well the Carnegie one was depicted with a sort of half sail so I guess its lil closer to this paper than the newer safari version.

[Halichoeres]

So far I haven't been able to defeat this paywall. Anybody have the pdf?

[andrewsaurus rex]

if this paper is correct it makes more sense to me as well.  I never quite bought into the spikey look.  However, it now requires a major rework of my nice big Safari Amargasaurus...time to get out the tissue paper and glue. 

[stargatedalek]

I don't buy it at face value. Why would an animal want its movement limited like that, especially of its neck?

Is this actually evidence in favour of a sail or just that it wouldn't have had keratinous horns, and the authors are extrapolating that to say it should have a sail? Because those are not the same thing.

[EarthboundEiniosaurus]

So far I haven't been able to defeat this paywall. Anybody have the pdf?

Here you go: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kcWVrXdBmNEbuSF3aDYRcayxcDHB9P9e/view?usp=sharing

[BlueKrono]

I don't buy it at face value. Why would an animal want its movement limited like that, especially of its neck?

Is this actually evidence in favour of a sail or just that it wouldn't have had keratinous horns, and the authors are extrapolating that to say it should have a sail? Because those are not the same thing.

As I understand it, it is positing the existence of a ligamentous covering over the entirety of the cervical spines; that is to say, a sail. I can think of a couple good reasons for it. The spines are thin and spindly, and having skin covering it would give the entire structure more strength and make it harder to chip or break these otherwise delicate neck bones. And of course the long-touted display... I imagine it would have been quite colorful.

[Gwangi]

I don't buy it at face value. Why would an animal want its movement limited like that, especially of its neck?

Is this actually evidence in favour of a sail or just that it wouldn't have had keratinous horns, and the authors are extrapolating that to say it should have a sail? Because those are not the same thing.

Animals don't evolve things they want. Life for a peacock would be easier without that tail.

[bmathison1972]

I don't buy it at face value. Why would an animal want its movement limited like that, especially of its neck?

Is this actually evidence in favour of a sail or just that it wouldn't have had keratinous horns, and the authors are extrapolating that to say it should have a sail? Because those are not the same thing.

Animals don't evolve things they want. Life for a peacock would be easier without that tail.

ha!

I think a sail, even a partial one makes very good sense, probably for territorial or sexual display. And a short sail that ends with the terminal section of the spines exposed could be used defensively. Multi-purpose adornments

[stargatedalek]

I don't buy it at face value. Why would an animal want its movement limited like that, especially of its neck?

Is this actually evidence in favour of a sail or just that it wouldn't have had keratinous horns, and the authors are extrapolating that to say it should have a sail? Because those are not the same thing.

Animals don't evolve things they want. Life for a peacock would be easier without that tail.

Poor phrasing on my part aside, peacock tails don't prevent them from craning their necks and make feeding more difficult. A feature that theoretically harms survival is still very different from a feature that actively impedes an animals mobility. It seems more likely to me that the spines would just be covered by skin without a sail.

[Dusty Wren]

@EarthboundEiniosaurus, you're my hero. Been wanting to read this paper since I heard about it.

[Gwangi]

I don't buy it at face value. Why would an animal want its movement limited like that, especially of its neck?

Is this actually evidence in favour of a sail or just that it wouldn't have had keratinous horns, and the authors are extrapolating that to say it should have a sail? Because those are not the same thing.

Animals don't evolve things they want. Life for a peacock would be easier without that tail.

Poor phrasing on my part aside, peacock tails don't prevent them from craning their necks and make feeding more difficult. A feature that theoretically harms survival is still very different from a feature that actively impedes an animals mobility. It seems more likely to me that the spines would just be covered by skin without a sail.

We don't know anything about said sail and its elasticity, so it seems moot to suspect that it would impede the animal's everyday functions, even if it were still a burden. Narwhal tusks, elephant seal snouts, or gigantic antlers could all in theory make feeding difficult, but they exist and the animals function all-the-same. My pet turkey is constantly struggling to feed with his snood hanging in the way, even accidently grabbing it in his beak, it looks frustrating but he gets by. The babirusa has tusks that grow through its head. Strap-toothed whales grow tusks that can grow and wrap around the snout, limiting how far it can open. Sexual selection can be cruel.

[andrewsaurus rex]

all good points, Gwangi.  Moose antlers can weigh 70 pounds and be so wide they impede movement in all but the most open spaces, yet male Moose still grow them each year cause the girls dig them..

And nothing is to say that a sail would be any more impeding than the long spines themselves...the material making the sail could be loose, or very elastic/stretchy and have little effect on mobility...I think it would be the spines themselves that would be impeding..

Even if the sail was a further impediment to mobility, it would only be in cranking the head upward.  Amargasaurus could have specialized in browsing low vegetation.

[Halichoeres]

So far I haven't been able to defeat this paywall. Anybody have the pdf?

Here you go: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kcWVrXdBmNEbuSF3aDYRcayxcDHB9P9e/view?usp=sharing

Thank you!

[Concavenator]

Is the Battat Amargasaurus the most accurate one now? (No, I won't even mention the Papo)

[Shane]

Is the Battat Amargasaurus the most accurate one now? (No, I won't even mention the Papo)

I think "most accurate" is a stretch of a term to use with news like this. The paper says it's "likely" there may have been a sail or similar structure.

But the rush to suddenly proclaim each new bit of info like this as gospel truth, when up until a day or so ago it was gospel truth that Amargasaurus DIDN'T have a sail, is always amusing to me.

The mad dash to find the most accurate figural representation of a thing in a field like paleontology where what is "known" is ever evolving and changing and frequently (as is the case here) seems to go back and forth is really something.

There's this frantic demand to know what is fundamentally not really knowable, at least not to the degree folks seem to want.