Talk:Gastonia (dinosaur)

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Details on display?

"... the first Polacanthine dinosaur to have been mounted for display." Details? -- Writtenonsand 11:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems odd; I went to the DMNH in 2002, and they had Gargoyleosaurus but not Gastonia. J. Spencer 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gastonia has never been mounted for display at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. Carpenter, Kenneth (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dorsal spikes

There are some skeletals and restorations of Gastonia from the past few years that lack dorsal spikes (Gregory Paul's Feld Guide, Scott Hartman, Ken Carpenter's restoration in The Complete Dinosaur II, etc.). Is there anything in print about this change? J. Spencer (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in: Loewen, Mark A.; Kirkland, James I. Kirkland & You Hailu, 2014, "Armored dinosaur evolution during the Mid-Mesozoic" In: Jim Kirkland, John Foster, ReBecca Hunt-Foster, Gregory A. Liggett, and Kelli Trujillo (eds), Mid-Mesozoic: the Age of Dinosaurs in Transition, April 30 – May 5, 2014 Fruita, Colorado & Green River, Utah p. 67-68, Kirkland (e.a?) still referred to "grooved shoulder spines and upright thoracic spines" as typical for the Polacanthidae, in which group he included Gastonia. Of course the presumed vertical spines were in 1998 not reported as articulated and their flatness and strong curvature might be seen as indications that they actually were lateral structures.--MWAK (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On this note, I'm going to modify this old restoration that was removed due to the beak being inaccurate:[1] Anything else you see that could be fixed, MWAK? I at least think I'll have to shorten the tail, modify the limbs, and the spikes could maybe also need some work... FunkMonk (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Carpenter in 2016 stated: "The body armor includes laterally projecting tetrahedron osteoderms that are grooved along the posterior sides, dorsoventrally compressed triangular plates along the sides of the body, and coossified pelvic shield of large, raised osteoderms surrounded by rosettes of smaller osteoderms". He acknowledges the existence of "spineous osteoderms", i.e. osteoderms consisting of a broad flat plate that projects into a very long pointed keel but finds it equally plausible to have them situated on the sides.

Apart from this issue the image has a number of other issues:

The back is not flat enough.
Hands and feet are way too large.
The skull should not show a supraorbital rim. It's not a derived ankylosaurid, after all.
The skull should be flatter.
The eye should be set lower.
The upper profile of the skull should show a continuous convex curve.
The tail should indeed be shorter, given the perspective.
The back should be largely covered by large flat oval plates, not by long spines.
Whatever their location, the spines are much too massive. They should be thinner and pointier, clearly off-set from a surrounding flat base.

So, that's a lot of problems...--MWAK (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah, that sure is a lot... I'll give it a try, anyway, fixing these images is kind of an interesting challenge... Even though it would probably take less effort to just make new ones... FunkMonk (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You think this Greg Paul skeletal[2] would be a sufficient reference, MWAK? Also, doesn't this leave all our skeletal mount photos wrong? Or they're perhaps just alternate interpretations which are equally as likely? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the general shape and proportions of the animal, it's a good reference. The experts are in disagreement over the presence of large dorsal spines, so pictorially all alternatives are open! Museum mounts naturally tend to choose the more sensational option.--MWAK (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to force the proportions into something more accurate[3], haven't worked on the spikes yet, and of course I have to "connect the dots" between severed body-parts, but any thoughts about the current direction, MWAK? FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The torso shape is much better now and the skull looks like the real one. A lifted shorter tail also gives a more realistic impression. Nice work!--MWAK (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We got a nice new photo of a mount in the taxobox, and I modeled the rest of the drawing partially on that[4], but it isn't 100% like any previous reconstruction. Any thoughts, MWAK? FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep high spikes on the shoulders, you might want to give the top of the torso a clear division in three parts: spikes in front, oval plates behind them and a pelvic shield on the rear half.--MWAK (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of an image that shows how this could look? FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should be familiar to you :o):

Just reduce the midline spike series to two front elements. Or perhaps one.--MWAK (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that's a blast from the past! I even just pasted Nocsa's original drawing of the hip armour onto it... So you mean the spikes between the dorsal and lateral spikes should be flat, or also the dorsal spikes after the two first dorsal rows? FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. Most of the body must have been covered by oval plates. There is a plausible reason for having front spikes: to protect the neck, the animal could have bent it below the front torso between the shoulder spikes, lowering the front limbs. A Utahraptor-type attacker might have tried to use its sickle claw as a can-opener between the cervical halfrings but would have been forced to bring its own torso above that of the ankylosaurian to bring it into play. The predator would then himself become very vulnerable to a sudden jutting up movement from the herbivore, driving elongated spikes into its breast, neck or head. That might be the reason that the spikes were so drawn-out and pointy. Not just looking cool to the ladies :o).--MWAK (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MWAK, I've now tried to flatten most of the spikes other than the front two middle dorsal rows[5], I've shortened the two behind rather than flattened them completely, though, to give it a more gradual decrease towards the flatter osteoderms. Isn't too far from that old Polacanthus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for answering so late: for some reason the pinging failed. It definitely looks better now. What remains to be done, is a reduction of width of the dorsal spikes. Now they look like some gigantic teeth. They must show a distinction between the broad plate base and a slender point that clearly must be apparent as an edged keel. Presently, they are still too much caricature.--MWAK (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, as long as we're slowly getting somewere, step by step! I'll try to rework them soon. Seems they should also be somewhat laterally flattened ? FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: it's not the absolute size that's a problem but the relative transverse width of the keel part.--MWAK (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some reworked osteoderms[6], shape based on the taxobox mount, is it closer, MWAK?

Pinging MWAK again, seems like the earlier one didn't work because I forgot to sign the comment? FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pinging failed again... But I doubt your forgetting to sign is the problem. Anyway, the dorsal spikes are now a lot more realistic. Obviously, the horn sheath that probably covered them, can be variably interpreted so there is considerable artistic freedom.--MWAK (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should I upload the image, or is there one last tweak you can think of? FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here's a ping, MWAK, just in case... FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This time I was just tardy :o). For all works of art, there is a moment to decide they are finished and stop tweaking.--MWAK (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The deed is done! FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

south Utah Green River Gastonia sp. ?

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2006/06/04/giant-armored-dinosaur-discove/

I know the fossil remains were sparse, but did anything come from this, yet?50.111.57.100 (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The specimen is from one of the Falcarius sites. There was not much collected, but it is very large based on the vertebrae. Carpenter, Kenneth (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]