New data on Edmontosaurus anatomy, and the sinking of Ugrunaaluk

[Halichoeres]

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0175253

Description of the head of Edmontosaurus regalis, and a proposal that because most specimens of Ugrunaaluk are juvenile, the name be dropped and the specimens referred to Edmontosaurus sp.

[stargatedalek]

About time it got sunk honestly, either sink it or revise Anatosaurus.

[Sim]

I've read that the hands of Edmontosaurus had the weight-bearing fingers united within skin and lacking claws.  But the reconstruction of Edmontosaurus regalis in this paper appears to show the opposite:

[Neosodon]

I've never seen Edomontosaurus depicted with a crest before.

[MLMjp]

I've never seen Edomontosaurus depicted with a crest before.

Then you come really late to the party, this crested reconstruction came out in 2013. Also keep in mind that for now the crest has only been confirmed on E. regalis. It is unknown if E. annectens had one.

[BlueKrono]

I've never seen Edmontosaurus depicted with a crest before.

Me neither. It would be cool if they made a figure of it. Edmontosaurus always seemed like such a plain ornithopod to me.

[Neosodon]

I've never seen Edmontosaurus depicted with a crest before.

Me neither. It would be cool if they made a figure of it. Edmontosaurus always seemed like such a plain ornithopod to me.

I think I'd rather have it plain than that thing. It looks like a tumor or some sort of parasitic disease the way its shaped. I'd prefer it looking more like this.

[BlueKrono]

I'm just a sucker for intricate crests, at least anything moreso than the standard Corythosaurus crescent. I love the old style Lambeosaurus, Tsintaosaurus and Olorotitan. New revisions seem to be making these more Cory-like though, so it would be interesting to see a version of an ornithopod that bucks that trend.

[Sim]

I don't know of any new revisions to the crest of Lambeosaurus.  Are you perhaps thinking of Lambeosaurus lambei as an "old style" and Lambeosaurus magnicristatus as a "new revision"?  These are two different species of Lambeosaurus.  Lambeosaurus lambei is known from lots of skulls with the crest very different from Corythosaurus's, only being similar to Corytho's when juvenile.  Lambeosaurus magnicristatus however has a more Corythosaurus-like crest.  Drawings of the skulls can be seen here: http://www.paleofile.com/Dinosaurs/Ornithopods/Lambeosaurus.asp

[BlueKrono]

I don't know of any new revisions to the crest of Lambeosaurus.  Are you perhaps thinking of Lambeosaurus lambei as an "old style" and Lambeosaurus magnicristatus as a "new revision"?  These are two different species of Lambeosaurus.  Lambeosaurus lambei is known from lots of skulls with the crest very different from Corythosaurus's, only being similar to Corytho's when juvenile.  Lambeosaurus magnicristatus however has a more Corythosaurus-like crest.  Drawings of the skulls can be seen here: http://www.paleofile.com/Dinosaurs/Ornithopods/Lambeosaurus.asp

Yes, it seems so. I guess my familiarity with Lambeosaurus comes mostly from figures, and most older (20th century) figures depicted lambei. I'd never seen a magnicristatus until a few years ago. I think the actual revisions I'm referring to are in Olorotitan and Tsintaosaurus, both of whose crests seem to be filling out into a crescent more and more rather than the axe blade and uh, stick.

[ZoPteryx]

I've read that the hands of Edmontosaurus had the weight-bearing fingers united within skin and lacking claws.  But the reconstruction of Edmontosaurus regalis in this paper appears to show the opposite:

Yeah, I'd say that's probably in error.  Although I don't see any claws, I think those are just the distal phalanges.

[Sim]

I've read that the hands of Edmontosaurus had the weight-bearing fingers united within skin and lacking claws.  But the reconstruction of Edmontosaurus regalis in this paper appears to show the opposite:

Yeah, I'd say that's probably in error.  Although I don't see any claws, I think those are just the distal phalanges.

If the image is viewed at its largest size, it can be seen the covering over the tips of the weight-bearing fingers changes in colour and texture from the rest of the hand to be the same as the covering over the tips of the toes.

[ZoPteryx]

I've read that the hands of Edmontosaurus had the weight-bearing fingers united within skin and lacking claws.  But the reconstruction of Edmontosaurus regalis in this paper appears to show the opposite:

Yeah, I'd say that's probably in error.  Although I don't see any claws, I think those are just the distal phalanges.

If the image is viewed at its largest size, it can be seen the covering over the tips of the weight-bearing fingers changes in colour and texture from the rest of the hand to be the same as the covering over the tips of the toes.

You're totally right, I should've zoomed in.

[Halichoeres]

Another paper, from different authors, suggesting Ugrunaaluk is a synonym of Edmontosaurus, best referred to as Edmontosaurus sp. for now.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232410

[suspsy]

Pity. I rather like that name.

[HD-man]

Whose life reconstruction is this?:

[Halichoeres]

Pity. I rather like that name.

Yeah, actually, so did I.

Whose life reconstruction is this?

Great question. The paper's Acknowledgments section says: "We are very grateful to ... an anonymous artist for restoration of Edmontosaurus regalis"
I hope the artist got paid well if they're not going to be credited.

[Faelrin]

I liked the name as well, but these things do happen for better or worse, like with Troodon, once more material is found, etc. At least we now have another paper additionally backing what the former paper suggested.

[austrosaurus]

Another paper, from different authors, suggesting Ugrunaaluk is a synonym of Edmontosaurus, best referred to as Edmontosaurus sp. for now.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232410

If I'm remembering correctly, once a fossil has received a taxonomic name it has to either be referred to with that name or be sunk into a pre-existing genus, no? So even if Ugrunaaluk is a junior synonym of Edmontosaurus, which I'm leaning towards, then it has to be either U. or E. kuukpikensis rather than E. sp.

[Halichoeres]

Another paper, from different authors, suggesting Ugrunaaluk is a synonym of Edmontosaurus, best referred to as Edmontosaurus sp. for now.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232410

If I'm remembering correctly, once a fossil has received a taxonomic name it has to either be referred to with that name or be sunk into a pre-existing genus, no? So even if Ugrunaaluk is a junior synonym of Edmontosaurus, which I'm leaning towards, then it has to be either U. or E. kuukpikensis rather than E. sp.

If it's strictly a 'lumping' exercise, that's true. If _. kuukpikensis is a diagnosable, distinct taxon, but not so different to warrant its own genus, it would be combined with existing Edmontosaurus species as E. kuukpikensis. But I think the argument being advanced is that it's not only very similar to existing Edmontosaurus species, but also that it doesn't share enough ontogenetically overlapping material with those species to make a defensible hypothesis about its distinctness. It's basically like saying it's Edmontosaurus incertae sedis.