Discussing the Skulls of Ankylosaurs

There are a number of articles and citations for Tarchia. There are a lot more citations than full articles online, but there are still articles that discuss the dinosaur, so those that learn by reading are not at any kind of disadvantage this week (i.e. there is plenty of material to read and learn from about Tarchia). The most important and useful articles that exist online as full articles are possibly the most important articles in the current body of literature for Tarchia outside the initial description by Maryanska. The first is the description of the junior synonym Minotaurasaurus ramachandrani which describes what the authors (Miles and Miles) interpreted as a unique and novel cranial structure unknown before the discovery of these remains. The second article linked here today is the Arbour, Currie, and Badamgarav, 2014 that re-describes both Tarchia and Minotaurasaurus (as well as many other ankylosaurs of Mongolia) crania interpreting similarities, differences, and variations within the genus. It is worth noting that these authors mentioned that Minotaurasaurus is a fossil lacking provenance and was purchased at a mineral and gem show but has been hypothesized to have been recovered from Mongolia by Dalton 2009. The authors consolidated Minotaurasaurus as the same species as T. kielanae, but they did interpret the remains of another animal, Dyoplosaurus giganteus, as similar enough to belong to the same genus and redesignated the animal as T. gigantea; I have not looked up how this species was erased from the taxonomy so cannot offer more as to why it is no longer included in the Tarchia family tree.