Although the dinosaur halls of the AMNH are perhaps the most popular of all the exhibitions in the museum, the Hall of Ornithischian Dinosaurs usually doesn't get as much attention as the Hall of Dinosaur Superstars Saurischian Dinosaurs. A few stop and look, but most pass right on through. "Triceratops? Great. Stegosaurus? Wow. Hadrosaurs? You've seen one, you've seen 'em all." This is a shame, especially because tucked away on the left hand side of the hall is a growth series of Protoceratops this is simply amazing, and right across from it is the famous diorama of a male and female Protoceratops watching over their nest. This reconstruction was famously (if erroneously) founded upon the notion that most of the eggs brought back by Roy Chapman Andrews and the Central Asiatic Expeditions of the 1920's were those of Protoceratops, some them them later turning out to contain the embryos of an oviraptorid theropod (but that's such a familiar story I need not recount it in full here).
- Log in to post comments
Poor Protoceratops, forever so underrated, and featured only so that it can be shown fighting Velociraptor (before promptly getting buried by a collapsing sand dune).
I just find it odd that extinct taxa like Protoceratops are often considered to be a nuisance because they are so well-represented at some fossil site. To me such an large number of animals allows us a rare opportunity to investigate individual variation in the skeleton and should be taken advantage of rather than ignored. Indeed, variation and sexual dimorphism in the fossil record has been on my mind a lot lately, although it's been hard to find resources (I'm especially anxious to see what the new volume on Tyrannosaurus due out next year will have to say on this subject given that it's been 15 years since Ken Carpenter discussion Tyrannosaurus variation and possible dimorphism in Dinosaur Systematics).
What "new volume," Brian? Do you mean a new symposium book, like "The Sauropods" and "Carnivorous Dinosaurs?" Is it going to be all about T.rex?
Protoceratops is awesome, even without its feathered attacker in the picture. But I do have to say that hadrosaurs (and especially hadrosaurines) are perhaps the most boring dinosaurs ever. Well, of course, aside from "hypsilophodonts" (which is a paraphyletic group). ;-)
I remember reading in one National Geographic that several _Protoceratops_ skeletons had been left at the dig site because they're so common. What a shame.
My living room would gladly welcome one ;D
I love protoceratops. I've always wanted one for a pet.
Also, there are no boring dinosaurs.
Speaking from experience prospecting in Late Cretaceous beds Hadrosaurs are annouying. Not because we lots of whole ones, but because you find LOTS of incomplete ones.
Though I guess I shouldn't complain. Due to my finding nothing but Edmontosaurs for 3 years straight I actually recognized and realized when I found a Ornithimimid femur! Sad part was it too was incomplete, and just the one bone... inside a bonebed of otherwise... you guessed it Edmontosaurus...
My friend rewrote the song Mr. Cellephane from Chicago into Edmontosaur... was funny...
"Edmontosaur. I'm such a bore. Edmontosaur. You can walk right by me. Look right at me. You don't even care i'm there"
As for hypsilophodonts I'd personally agree with them being less exciting than other dinos, but one of my friend's is making a killing specializing in them for his masters. No body else wants to do them, so he might just be set academically.
Traumador, I will shove your face down Orctodromeus' burrow if you say mean things to basal ornithopods again.
I kid, I kid.
Sorry for my late reply (yesterday was a busy day).
Zach; I sent an e-mail to Ken Carpenter about individual variation in Tyrannosaurus and he said to be on the look out for a new technical book next year on it (I assume by multiple authors).
As for hypsilophodonts, they might be plain but I think they're pretty neat all the same, especially since no one seems to want them. Again, I think there could be a lot of interesting research done among common skeletal remains otherwise deemed unexciting, especially if geographical variants or trends show up. As has been mentioned on previous threads, though, this would not only require a good knowledge of morphology but also a very fine understanding of the geological setting being that what might seem to be sexual dimorphism might really represent two species (although I would then look at those separate species to look for variations at a finer level).
Yeah there is some crazy stuff my friend is finding with the hypsilophodonts. For example it turns out Alberta has at least 1, and possibly up to 3 unrecognized genus (he thinks 1 his advisor thinks more). He's finding that hypsilophodonts still haven't been properly updated and that their still a waste bin group so to speak. So he's pretty primed about his new hypsilophodont, and is thinking about pursuing revisions on the whole family...
I'll send him an email and see where he's at with that. I haven't talked to him about it since I left Canada a year ago.
Not sure what kind of dimorphism research has been done, but stratigraphic work is shedding light on Alberta's hypsilophodonts in that we have three genus to cover 7 time intervolts covering 14 million years...