HOME | DD

Published: 2008-01-29 19:09:01 +0000 UTC; Views: 38991; Favourites: 470; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Stegosaurus, one of the most popular non-theropod dinosaurs.2016 update: As strange as it must seem given how often Stegosaurus has been portrayed and how many specimens are known (for well over a century!), but we actually knew surprisingly little about the basic proportions of Stegosaurus until very recently. That's because previous specimens were either not prepared out all the way (to preserve taphonomic data) or were mounted as composite specimens.
That all changed last year when Maidment, Brassey, & Barrett published the Sophie specimen: journals.plos.org/plosone/arti…
Among other things it turns out that Stegosaurus has more cervicals and fewer dorsals had been previously been thought. This results in a less tall-bodied and longer-necked animal. In retrospect perhaps this isn't shocking - Kentrosaurus appears to also have had a longer neck than some early reconstructions suggested, and of course Miragaia took this one extra step in its neck-elongation.
Another odd feature is that the tail has a distinct down-curve in the posterior portion. I've gone over the distal caudals several times and the downcurve does not seem like a preservational artifact, so I'm including it in the reconstruction. One interesting side-effect of this is that the thagomizer is now oriented at a more useful angle for swinging at an attacker (I do not consider the laterally-facing spike suggestion to be likely), and notably other stegosaurs also seem to have their distal tail spikes end up facing closer to horizontal as well, either through tail articulation or by changing the angle of the spikes.
So now Stegosaurus does not stand out quite as drastically from its close relatives. It still looks pretty cool though, if you ask me.
Related content
Comments: 149
AntonellisofbBender In reply to DrScottHartman [2016-11-02 01:11:30 +0000 UTC]
if that is true than can i use this image to make an accurate stegosaurus 3d model on blender and animate it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
thedinorocker In reply to ??? [2016-11-01 10:38:54 +0000 UTC]
This is a fantastic update!
"Sophie" is a stunning specimen
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DrScottHartman In reply to thedinorocker [2016-11-01 13:45:56 +0000 UTC]
Agreed, Sophie is pretty great.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thedinorocker In reply to DrScottHartman [2016-11-01 14:50:37 +0000 UTC]
In the description paper the authors lists the specimen sa S.stepos, so actully the Stegosaurus genus is monospecific With Mjosi and Longispinus in their own genus?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DrScottHartman In reply to thedinorocker [2016-11-01 15:08:33 +0000 UTC]
I believe Susie Maidment has found S. longispinus to be a nomen dubium, and sunk all other Stegosaurus species except mjosi into S. stenops. I'm less sure about what is going on with S. mjosi in their book. The Morrison Formation taxa are particularly challenging taxonomically because it's 9 million years long (give or take) so some of the "species" variation we see are probably just anagenetic changes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thedinorocker In reply to DrScottHartman [2016-11-01 15:27:50 +0000 UTC]
Thank You...
yes 9 milions years is infinite long time, and anagetics changes are something se see in Triceratops in a relative short time
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
FancyPancakes In reply to ??? [2016-11-01 01:23:35 +0000 UTC]
Beautiful reconstruction!
This sparks a memory of when was given the opportunity to look at a stegosaurus fossil behind the curtains last year (at a fossil/mineral shop called Red Gallery in Hamburg, Germany). What was curious about this specimen though is that it seemed to have an additional row of tail spikes? My memory is a bit foggy unfortunately, but I clearly remember the guide talking about it as if it was a recent discovery. It also had a bite mark from an Allosaurus on one of its back plates that had healed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DrScottHartman In reply to FancyPancakes [2016-11-01 13:45:38 +0000 UTC]
Huh, sounds cool. I can't really comment usefully until I either see the specimen or it gets published, but I'd certainly look forward to it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FancyPancakes In reply to DrScottHartman [2016-11-01 21:53:43 +0000 UTC]
Yep, I've been waiting for it to get published ever since, too. I hope it wasn't sold to a private collection before it could be studied though, I believe it was on sale after all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Midiaou [2016-11-01 01:15:33 +0000 UTC]
Pretty cool, Scott. I'll have to delve into the paper myself. So what sort of motion would you think the tail made? How would it be used?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DrScottHartman In reply to Midiaou [2016-11-01 06:19:19 +0000 UTC]
Victoria Arbor refers to them as a flail-like device (as opposed to a club), but whether the flail model or the fencing model is correct depends on a better understanding of what the vertebrae allow, as well as what impediment the plates played in potentially restricting tail movement.
I guess that's just a long-winded way of saying I don't know.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Midiaou In reply to DrScottHartman [2016-11-01 19:09:23 +0000 UTC]
This animal just keeps getting more and more interesting...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
malevouvenator In reply to ??? [2016-10-31 23:56:44 +0000 UTC]
Wow his necks look longer.Also its my idea or Ark Stegosaurus predicted the longer neck one year ago? Also Scott what happened to that bones found in the neck?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DrScottHartman In reply to malevouvenator [2016-11-01 06:16:53 +0000 UTC]
What happened to which bones in the neck?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
malevouvenator In reply to DrScottHartman [2016-11-01 23:24:23 +0000 UTC]
the gular osteoderms
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DrScottHartman In reply to malevouvenator [2016-11-02 01:16:08 +0000 UTC]
Ah, they aren't preserved in the Sophie specimen.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Spinosaurus14 In reply to ??? [2016-10-31 22:52:30 +0000 UTC]
The palaeo king himself, our lord and savior, Scott Hartman, rised from the ash in which he slept thausends of years...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DrScottHartman In reply to Spinosaurus14 [2016-11-01 06:16:00 +0000 UTC]
It's only been a couple of months!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
PLASTOSPLEEN In reply to ??? [2016-10-31 22:38:35 +0000 UTC]
Man I've been wanting to talk about this skeletal for a while, glad to finally have it published
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
DrawingDinosaurs [2016-10-31 22:21:37 +0000 UTC]
I see you've done some re-shingling, very cool. Got to ask though, how does the longer neck effect the placement of my favourite seldom acknowledged feature of Stegosaurus, the throat armour?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DrScottHartman In reply to DrawingDinosaurs [2016-11-01 06:15:44 +0000 UTC]
We don't know, because Sophie didn't preserve any. I doubt it would change things too much - it's clearly associated with the neck one way or another in other specimens. The lack of it in Sophie could be due to ontogeny, or maybe even some sort of dimorphism. Or just bad luck, I suppose.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Osmatar [2016-10-31 21:30:05 +0000 UTC]
This is very interesting, and I would argue even cooler than the old reconstruction. I looked at photos of Sophie when I was doing my speculative Stegosaur portrait and definitely noticed the neck. It's fascinating how we keep learning new things about old iconic taxa.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
TheDilophoraptor In reply to ??? [2016-10-31 21:22:34 +0000 UTC]
I just finished a Stegosaurus model and this comes out the DAY
FML
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
PLASTOSPLEEN In reply to TheDilophoraptor [2016-10-31 22:17:26 +0000 UTC]
At least it was credible at the time you made it
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
DrScottHartman In reply to TheDilophoraptor [2016-10-31 21:38:47 +0000 UTC]
Sorry about that
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
DanneArt In reply to ??? [2016-10-31 20:55:27 +0000 UTC]
Great to see some updates concerning the classics
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
FredtheDinosaurman [2016-10-31 20:42:55 +0000 UTC]
Awesome! Does this reconstruction of Stegosaurus go for all specimens/species in terms of proportions, like say your 2015 skeletal is now obsolete? Or is this specifically the Sophie specimen?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DrScottHartman In reply to FredtheDinosaurman [2016-11-01 06:13:21 +0000 UTC]
Until further notice I would say this replaces my previous skeletal (and all others). If that turns out not to be true then there must be some major taxonomic revisions necessary for Stegosaurus, but at this point there isn't enough evidence to warrant it. For example, my previous skeletal was based on a composite mount made from at least two partial individuals, and the vertebral count of the neck and back were therefore influenced by previous (wrong) assumptions when they cobbled it together.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FredtheDinosaurman In reply to DrScottHartman [2016-11-05 10:45:43 +0000 UTC]
Interesting. Thanks for the clarification!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
RickCharlesOfficial [2016-10-31 20:20:36 +0000 UTC]
Pretty cool? More like WOW! Stegosaurus just got even cooler.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Dontknowwhattodraw94 In reply to ??? [2016-10-31 20:06:26 +0000 UTC]
Interesting update.
A question about the plates on the neck: are those just four of them alternately placed on the left and right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
DrScottHartman In reply to Dontknowwhattodraw94 [2016-11-01 06:08:50 +0000 UTC]
They would presumably be alternately left and right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Megasupream In reply to Dontknowwhattodraw94 [2016-10-31 22:16:01 +0000 UTC]
I was wondering the same thing
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ForestTinker In reply to ??? [2016-10-31 19:00:25 +0000 UTC]
Is this a new "Sophie" reconstuction?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Knazgle In reply to ??? [2016-10-31 18:57:48 +0000 UTC]
This almost makes it feel very slightly more like its super old, squat, droopy-tailed reconstructions.
Also, someone told me the other day that "thagomizer" isn't the official term that scientists use; is that true or were they bullshitting me? I think it's too cool of a word not to use, despite its silly origin.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DrScottHartman In reply to Knazgle [2016-11-01 06:07:49 +0000 UTC]
"Thagomizer" was made into an official bit of anatomical nomenclature by Carpenter and colleagues back in 2001. It's totally an "official" word (though obviously inspired by the relevant Far Side cartoon).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Kana-hebi In reply to ??? [2016-10-31 18:49:04 +0000 UTC]
This is very interesting. It is really a quite different look from previous reconstructions. I am working in a poster with reconstructions of all Stegosauria taxa (with enough material to at least have an educated guess of what they would have looked like) and it looks like I'm going to scratch the Stegosaurus taxa I already reconstructed and start all over again, but that is actually awesome! Great skeletals as always.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PLASTOSPLEEN In reply to Kana-hebi [2016-10-31 22:18:35 +0000 UTC]
Goddamit that was my next choice for a poster after dromaeosaurids XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Kana-hebi In reply to PLASTOSPLEEN [2016-11-01 00:25:41 +0000 UTC]
Lol that was one of the next posters I was doing LOL... another one will come out first... I was aiming for Stegosauria to come out after the Dromaeosaurids, but I will have to re-do a lot of them LOL
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PLASTOSPLEEN In reply to Kana-hebi [2016-11-01 07:03:41 +0000 UTC]
Hah, stegosaurs a pretty tricky
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Sekley [2016-03-07 19:00:17 +0000 UTC]
How much of a difference would there be between this specimen and a full size adult?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
thedinorocker In reply to ??? [2015-11-02 14:35:20 +0000 UTC]
Hi Mr Scott, Now that the new specimen "Sophie" is described (in a really detailed paper with a lot of good fossils Photos) and assigned to the genus S.stenops Will you update your skeletal?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DrScottHartman In reply to thedinorocker [2015-11-02 15:05:33 +0000 UTC]
It won't necessarily change this skeletal (which is based on a pretty nice pair of specimens as well) but I do hope to do a skeletal based on Sophie at some point, yes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>