How did Panoplosaurus REALLY look like?

[goodlife18]

If you do a quick google image search on Panoplosaurus, you will probably see a creature looking exactly like Edmontonia. This is also the case in many popular dinosaur books, where the dinosaur is named Panoplosaurus but you see an illustration looking no different from Edmontonia.

In reality there were anatomical differences but I still wonder how do you tell the difference between the 2.  Or do any real illustrations of Panoplosaurus exist in the first place? Or were they all simply pictures of Edmontonia being mislabelled as Panoplosaurus?

[stargatedalek]

With some quick digging the only 100% certain meant to be Panoplosaurus I could find is a Dinosaur King Card (can't speak for its accuracy, some of the DK designs were pretty good in that regard and others not so much at all):


We only know it from its forelimbs forward, so some speculation can be taken with it which is probably why so many of them blend into ankylosaurs.

[goodlife18]

So to put it simply, Panoplosaurus was Edmontonia minus away the shoulder spikes and with spikes along its flanks? A bit like palaeoscincus?

[stargatedalek]

So to put it simply, Panoplosaurus was Edmontonia minus away the shoulder spikes and with spikes along its flanks? A bit like palaeoscincus?

I wouldn't deduce anything from a Dinosaur King rendition, its designs are more accurate than a lot of kids (and not kids) shows but it is what it is.

Wikipedia however had this to say, which seems to support Dinosaur King reconstruction aside from the shape of the plates on the neck and forelimbs:

It was heavily armoured, even by the standards of other nodosaurs, probably with traverse bands of studded plates covering its back and tail, although the tail likely lacked the club found in ankylosaurids. Larger paired ovals of bony armour covered the neck, shoulders and front limbs. These ovals were keeled, possessing a prominent curved ridge on the outer surface. Spikes on the shoulder, that some other nodosaurids featured, were absent. The armour on the head was fused into a compact helmet-like shield; these plates had a lumpy surface. Also bony cheek scutes were present.

[Dinoguy2]

Panoplosaurus, Edmontonia, and Palaeoscincus have all been mixed up in the past, which is why a lot of artwork make them look like each other.

Palaeoscincus was one of the first dinosaurs found in North America. It's represented only by teeth. We have no clue what it looked like. So any picture of it is wrong and/or based on specimens that were once thought to be the same species. Edmontonia fossils were once classified as Palaeoscincus, so in a way they used to be considered synonyms, but now they're not.

Some specimens of Edmontonia were also once referred to Panoplosaurus, but this was in error. Because of that error, many Panoplosaurus pictures actually show Edmontonia. Same as Citipati/Oviraptor.

Panoplosaurus, the REAL Panoplosaurus, is shown on this page as we understand it today: http://www.paleofile.com/Dinosaurs/Armor/Panoplosaurus.asp



As you can see, the DK version is fairly close but way too spiky and old-school Ankylosaurus like. It also lacks the broad shoulder plates. It's head also isn't armored enough. Panoplosaurus is famous for having a totally armored head, including armor plates on the eyelids and cheeks.



Hence the name "Panoplosaurus", meaning "all-shielded lizard".