Journal cover Journal topic
Fossil Record A palaeontological open-access journal of the Museum für Naturkunde
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 0.783 IF 0.783
  • IF 5-year value: 1.000 IF 5-year 1.000
  • CiteScore value: 0.86 CiteScore 0.86
  • SNIP value: 0.543 SNIP 0.543
  • SJR value: 0.382 SJR 0.382
  • IPP value: 0.72 IPP 0.72
  • Scimago H index value: 12 Scimago H index 12
Volume 17, issue 1
Foss. Rec., 17, 33-39, 2014
https://doi.org/10.5194/fr-17-33-2014
© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Foss. Rec., 17, 33-39, 2014
https://doi.org/10.5194/fr-17-33-2014
© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Research article 07 Mar 2014

Research article | 07 Mar 2014

Osteoderm distribution has low impact on the centre of mass of stegosaurs

H. Mallison H. Mallison
  • Museum für Naturkunde – Leibniz-Institut für Evolutions- und Biodiversitätsforschung an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Abstract. It has been hypothesized that the pronounced differences of stegosaur humeral shapes, with large forms having more slender and small forms having more robust humeri, may be explained by a difference in relative centre of mass (COM) placement caused by differing distributions of osteoderms. To test this hypothesis, digital 3-D models of the bones and osteoderms of the Tanzanian stegosaur Kentrosaurus aethiopicus and of the North American stegosaur Stegosaurus armatus were used to create a 3-D computer-aided design life reconstruction. On these models osteoderm placement was varied drastically, recreating both existing and hypothetical forms. These models show that COM position varies somewhat with realistic osteoderm distributions, but insufficiently to explain major differences in humeral shape. The uniform weight distribution between forelimbs and hindlimbs found between the two taxa also casts doubt on the hypothesis that differences in relative COM position caused by other factors than osteoderm distribution can explain differences in humeral robustness.

Publications Copernicus
Download
Citation
Share