Re: Euoplo

[Matthew Donald Celeskey <mc7b+@andrew.cmu.edu>]

On the issue of the questionability of the genus _Ankylosaurus_, Rob
Meyerson sez ->
>I remember reading in one of my childhood books on dinosaurs (one of the=
> more informative ones, at that), that some scientists put Ankylo and Euplo=
> in the same genus.  For some reason, the author suggested that Euplo was=
> the dominant name.  I am beginning to suspect drug use by the author.

I've come across at least three popular dinosaur books from the early to
mid 80's where _Ankylosaurus_ is considered to be a junior synonym of
_Euoplocephalus_.  I'd be interested to know if this showed up as a
serious suggestion in the technical literature anywhere.

And in Barnum Brown's paper (1908? (don't have it handy)) where he
describes/names _Ankylosaurus_ and the Ankylosauridae, he mentions
_Stereocephalus_ as both a probable member of the Ankylosauridae, as
well as the fact that the genus name also belongs to an insect
(prompting its change to _Euoplocephalus_).  I'm assuming that
_Stereocephalus_ was named (perhaps not formally) before _Ankylosaurus_,
which may account for at least half of the authors' confusion (that
Euoplo would be the correct name in an Ankylo-Euoplo merger).  

Matt.