Blade-of-the-Moon's Art

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Here are some images of animals that is closely related to Ankylosaurus (see below):





Perhaps do the estimate of the "beak" through these images;

The reason I've pointed out the nostrils on Witmer's instead of your sculpture is because I can't really tell whether you are getting where everything were and that is why your animal has different proportions to the actual skull.

In terms of using jargon or not; I'm not complaining. I'm only stating this because there are members that get confused due to this reason and hoping that someone can offer a better resolution to this (if possible).

Hmm..so close to the area I marked on the sculpt above ? Maybe a little less on the " beak " itself.

Ah, well I hand drew the image from the references to the best of my ability that adds some degree of error, then when trying to assemble the pieces I cut out there is another degree and so one so it does happen. I do mark the location of the eyes, nostrils and such so they should at least be in the same place on each side.

No worries, whatever works to get the point across is good by me.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Just an obligatory qustion. Are you going to make this ankylosaur wide like the favorite model? (i think your visitors need to know that it was that big)

It will be wide..but perhaps not like you are thinking. The Favorite model is actually Euplocephalus with and Ankylosaurus head stuck on there. See here : http://www.dinotoyblog.com/2011/06/20/ankylosaurus-soft-model-by-favorite-co-ltd/

I'm looking at the Carnegie/Safari replica for a three dimensional model..it looks to match up to Carpenter's paper as well.  So it will be wide but not to the more extreme that Euoplocephalus was.

[Takama]

I was also looking at this Proper Ankylosaur made by a fellow member

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I'd have to ask him, but many seem to use Euplocephalus to reconstruct Ankylosaurus.  The width seems to be more like this :



Our own Admin reviewed the Safari/Carnegie Ankylosaurus here : http://www.dinotoyblog.com/2009/05/23/ankylosaurus-carnegie-collection-by-safari-ltd/ 

Which received quite high marks.

[wings]

Hmm..so close to the area I marked on the sculpt above ? Maybe a little less on the " beak " itself...

The right hand side was used because it has a slightly more complete "beak" than the left. The dotted line was added by following the trend of the partially preserved beak (compare the line drawing and the photo above; and you'll see what I mean). The actual "beak" would be covered with keratin so the extent of the beak would come down slightly further still.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I'm looking it over right now while working on the Sucho head..just have to wrap my head around it, think of the steps and position and all that " fun " stuff..then I'll give it a go.

[Gryphoceratops]

I was also looking at this Proper Ankylosaur made by a fellow member

Ankylosaurus is only known from fragmentary remains.  The hips are amongst parts that have never been found.  Its likely it had a wide body like its relatives. 

[wings]

Ankylosaurus is only known from fragmentary remains.  The hips are amongst parts that have never been found.  Its likely it had a wide body like its relatives.

While the hips were never recovered but we still have enough to work out a tentative width of the animal. Are the hips that much wider than the widest part of the ribcage? The answer is... not really. What we have are some of the ribs in the mid section of the animal; which is "almost" the widest part of the animal (see figure 12 and 19 in Brown's 1908 paper http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/handle/2246/1435/v2/dspace/ingest/pdfSource/bul/B024a12.pdf?sequence=1); Can these ribs be misidentified so that they don't belong to the mid section of the animal? It seems unlikely. Because this can also be seen in Paul's field guide and Carpenter's Ankylosaurus redescription paper, as there are more than one incidence in stating these are ribs from the middle of the ribcage; I highly doubt that Brown's original identification is that far off; these ribs are very likely from the mid section (probably "almost" the widest part of the animal).  I don't know how much more wider could the hips make even if we have them and for this reason Blade's diagram should be close enough.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

 Finished moving and painting the mama Para today..she had to weigh about 300 pounds plus !

I'll have pics tomorrow !

I will also take a few of the Ankylosaurus frame work.

P.S. if you know anyone interested we're still looking for donations and sponsors to make this park bigger and better !

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Ankylosaurus framework progress :



The new occupants at " Hadrosaur Hill " :

[Jetoar]

Amazing parasaurolophus and stigymoloch  .

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Thanks Jetoar !

Here are some pics showing the beak work on the Anky :






To be honest it kinda looks like the older Iguanodons from Disney's Dinosaur, but if it's right we're all good.  I'm going to add a bit more and increase the curvature of it in the front before sealing the foam.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Here's a few pics I took of the framework with the head stuck on :

[Takama]

I will be honest.    The oval shaped body dosent seem right to me.    But its your interpretation so do what you think is right

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I will be honest.    The oval shaped body doesn't seem right to me.    But its your interpretation so do what you think is right

I usually follow the skeleton as close as I can..problem is this guy doesn't have much of one to go by. I guess that's why you usually see it in figure form as Euoplocephalus or just a head with an Euo's body.  I'm getting the feeling I should have just gone with Euoplocephalus myself. :/

Here's outline I did in paint in case it was hard to see :



Armor will probably make him look a little bigger.  The head is just massively wide though...just crazy.

[wings]

I will be honest.    The oval shaped body dosent seem right to me.    But its your interpretation so do what you think is right

If the body doesn't seem right to you then what do you think the body shape should be and what would your interpretation based on? I'm just interested to know why would everyone seems to have the idea that this animal (Ankylosaurus) is wider than the current interpretation? Are you telling me that having the hips would make a drastic different in the width of the girth even though that we have the ribs (mind you that these ribs are not too deformed and fairly complete) for the lower half (the waist or close to the waist) of the animal? Also the body doesn't seem to show trend of getting wider (see Brown's paper from the earlier post or the diagram below) as these ribs are approaching the hips (not found). From the diagram below you can see that different species just have different proportions (The body of Ankylosaurus seems to be slightly more than 2 times the width of the skull whereas on Euoplocephalus; the body is roughly more than 3 times of its head). It is hard to see how the head is related to the body on Blade's photos; I suppose if the body is slightly more than two times the head width should be ok.  And if you have evidence that would outweigh this interpretation then I'm sure that people from the forum would like to hear it (myself included).

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Are you sure that works out right ?

If say Carpenter's above view Anky's head was 24" then the widest part of the body works out to be more like 38" ?  Not at all double the width of the head.. :?

Not as nice as those above but like this ?


Not counting the osteoderms / armor really.

Mine will probably end up looking closer to this sculpture by Mr. Tokugawa :

[wings]

Are you sure that works out right ?

If say Carpenter's above view Anky's head was 24" then the widest part of the body works out to be more like 38" ?  Not at all double the width of the head.. :?

Not as nice as those above but like this ?...Mine will probably end up looking closer to this sculpture by Mr. Tokugawa...

You have to know that what I did is very rough and as you can see that the middle set of skeleton from Brown's paper on my post is just the unaltered materials. If you are looking at Carpenter's; his animal is fleshed out. Which means the "horn cores" on the head would be covered by keratin and by doing so the head would become wider (see how Carpenter's animal have its head horns tapered off); maybe like the one that you see in Paul's (the top set of figures). How far does these keratin horns suppose to grow? I have no idea. Maybe the thickness added to the horn core is greater than the amount of muscle mass added on the body. Could this be contributed to some of these discrepancies? Perhaps. Judging from the skeleton it seems to be wider than Carpenter's but I would say the skeleton probably takes priority over the fleshed out version (I have not resized the skeletal elements from Brown's diagram and assuming Brown illustrated these correctly and you can measure his diagram to be sure). I have not seen a top view of Tokugawa's animal so I have no idea whether your animal is the same as his or not.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I made the horns on my fleshed out version a little bit larger, from my understanding horns are usually restored as such. So mine is 27" wide from horn tip to horn tip.  The body on mine is 36" wide at the widest point. Minus the armor that's about right.

The outlines image above pretty much matches Mr. Tokugawa's sculpt as does Krentz's. The only difference is mine is more like Carpenter's in the chest/shoulder area a bit smaller.

[wings]

I made the horns on my fleshed out version a little bit larger, from my understanding horns are usually restored as such. So mine is 27" wide from horn tip to horn tip.  The body on mine is 36" wide at the widest point. Minus the armor that's about right.

The outlines image above pretty much matches Mr. Tokugawa's sculpt as does Krentz's. The only difference is mine is more like Carpenter's in the chest/shoulder area a bit smaller.

Keratin sheath on horn cores are tricky since they varies between different animals. Here is an example (please see below):



*semi-transparent flesh in blue, bone in red

If you would like to read about these specimens then see this page (http://digimorph.org/specimens/moloch_horridus/whole/). These two animals bears "horns" on the outside while one has cores and the other doesn't. Does Ankylosaurus's horns behave like the thorny devils (keratin thick enough to become horns) or the horned lizard from North America (just slight build up on a core)? I have no idea how much should the horns on Ankylosaurus be extended in life since I don't think we have the impression for these yet. I have no idea what everyone takes as the "norm" since there is none...

Not sure what to say about the width of the girth on your animal since on Carparter's is about a one and a half head width and on your becomes one and a third (from your measurements) which is also different from Brown's (about two and a third)...