Jump to content

Talk:Patagopelta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How is this a nodosaur instead of a parankylosaur?

[edit]

How is it that nodosaurs came to South America when parankylosaurs were already present, yet ceratopsids did not come to South America despite nothing similar to ceratopsids already being present in South America? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason why kritosaurin hadrosaurs arrived despite the presence of similarly-sized titanosaurs: biotic interchange and/or niche partitioning. Also, there may have been environmental or dietary differences that prevented ceratopsids from going south. Atlantis536 (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Atlantis has stated, that is one plausible factor regarding the absence of ceratopsids. They both were specialized to different herbivorous diets, and as such hadrosaurs were present in SA in lieu of ceratopsids. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 17:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Smoking Evidence?

[edit]
Talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Where is the actual smoking gun that proves that this was a nodosaur from North America instead of a parankylosaur? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The several osteological features that its describers identified as being shared with nodosaurids instead of parankylosaurs. Ever since the remains were discovered in 1996, phylogenetic analyses agreed that it was a nodosaurid. The describers' analysis even includes both parankylosaurs and nodosaurids and found Patagopelta to clade with the latter. If that's not a "smoking gun" for you then what is? 49.144.202.0 (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]