Differing Interpretations

Two main features of the skeleton of Concavenator have stood out to researchers. The first has been covered in many conversations. The hump above the pelvis is fairly well understood and interpreted in both manners in which it has been interpreted. Unfortunately there are no known illustrations of the hump as an anatomical signalling feature. The other structure, the quill knobs, have been questioned as well. Darren Naish has questioned these in the past, stating that they might be either tendon attachment points or they may indeed be quill knobs but extremely primitive versions of quill knobs. Skepticism in science is a good thing, and there is nothing wrong with putting different ideas out there as well. To my knowledge the knobs have not been investigated by themselves to date, so the describing authors and Naish's different views are all potentially valid argument points. Someone will some day pick up the ulna of Concavenator and publish a decision, but even that might take some intense testing to stand up against scrutiny. Time will tell, and some future student somewhere has a project waiting for them.