55 Facts About Protoceratops

The genus Protoceratops includes two species: P andrewsi and the larger P hellenikorhinus.

Protoceratops were hunted by Velociraptor, and one particularly famous specimen preserves a pair of them locked in combat.

Protoceratops used to be characterized as nocturnal because of the large sclerotic ring around the eye, but they are now thought to have been cathemeral .

Thanks to the large collection of skulls found in the expeditions, they concluded that Protoceratops represented a ceratopsian more primitive than ceratopsids and not an ankylosaur-ceratopsian ancestor.

Since Protoceratops fossils are only found in the Gobi Desert of Mongolia and this specimen was likely discovered during the Central Asiatic Expeditions, the team concluded that this skull was probably acquired by the Delft University between 1940 and 1972 as part of a collection transfer.

Related searches

Nevertheless, in 2011 an authentic nest of Protoceratops was reported and described by David E Fastovsky and colleagues.

Also from the context of the Polish-Mongolian paleontological expeditions, in 1965 an articulated subadult Protoceratops skeleton was collected from the Bayn Dzak locality of the Djadokhta Formation.

Skull of Protoceratops was relatively large compared to its body and robustly built.

Unlike the much derived ceratopsids, the frontal and postorbital bones of Protoceratops were flat and lacked horn cores or supraorbital horns.

Protoceratops had leaf-shaped dentary and maxillary teeth that bore several denticles on their respective edges.

Vertebral column of Protoceratops had 9 cervical, 12 dorsal, 8 sacral and over 40 caudal vertebrae.

All vertebrae of Protoceratops had ribs attached on the lateral sides, except for the series of caudals.

The third to the sixth dorsal ribs were the longest ribs in the skeleton of Protoceratops, the following ribs became smaller in size as they progressed toward the end of the vertebral column.

The clavicle of Protoceratops was an U to slightly V-shaped element that joined to the upper border of the scapulocoracoid.

The hindlimbs of Protoceratops were rather long, with a slighter longer tibia than femur .

Protoceratops itself was considered by the authors to be somehow related to ankylosaurians based on skull traits, with a more intensified degree to Triceratops and relatives.

In 1951 Edwin H Colbert considered Protoceratops to represent a key ancestor for the ceratopsid lineage, suggesting that it ultimately led to the evolution of large-bodied ceratopsians such as Styracosaurus and Triceratops.

Protoceratops regarded Protoceratops as one of the first "frilled" ceratopsians to appear in the fossil record.

Longrich and team in 2010 indicated that highly derived morphology of P hellenikorhinus—when compared to P andrewsi—indicates that this species may represent a lineage of Protoceratops that had a longer evolutionary history compared to P andrewsi, or simply a direct descendant of P andrewsi.

The difference in morphologies between Protoceratops suggests that the nearby Bayan Mandahu Formation is slightly younger than the Djadokhta Formation.

The specimen hails from the Udyn Sayr locality, where Protoceratops remains are dominant, and given the lack of more conclusive anatomical traits, Czepinski assigned the specimen as Bagaceratops sp.

Protoceratops suggested that the large neck frill was likely an attachment site for masticatory muscles.

Protoceratops pointed out that their prominent parrot-like beaks and shearing teeth along with powerful muscles on the jaws suggest an omnivore diet instead, much like pigs, hogs, boars and entelodonts.

You Hailu and Peter Dodson in 2004 suggested that the premaxillary teeth of Protoceratops may have been useful for selective cropping and feeding.

Brown and Schlaikjer in 1940 upon their large description and revision of Protoceratops remarked that the orbits, frontals, and lacrimals suffered a shrinkage in relative size as the animal aged; the top border of the nostrils became more vertical; the nasal bones progressively became elongated and narrowed; and the neck frill as a whole increases in size with age.

Related searches

David Hone and colleagues in 2016 upon their analysis of P andrewsi neck frills, found that the frill of Protoceratops was disproportionally smaller in juveniles, grew at a rapid rate than the rest of the animal during its ontogeny, and reached a considerable size only in large adult individuals.

The main gait of Protoceratops was probably trot-like mostly using its hindlimbs and it is unlikely to have used an asymmetric gait.

The absence of these traits in mature individuals indicates that young Protoceratops were capable of facultative bipedal locomotion and adults had an obligate quadrupedal stance.

Gregory and Mook in 1925 suggested that Protoceratops was partially aquatic because of its large feet—being larger than the hands—and the very long neural spines found in the caudal vertebrae.

Barsbold in his brief 1974 description of the Fighting Dinosaurs specimen accepted this hypothesis and suggested that Protoceratops was amphibious and had well-developed swimming capacities based on its side to side flattened tail with very high neural spines.

Protoceratops considered a swimming adaptation unlikely given the arid settings of the Djadokhta Formation.

Longrich in 2010 argued that the high tail and frill of Protoceratops may have helped it to shed excess heat during the day—acting as large-surface structures—when the animal was active in order to survive in the relatively arid environments of the Djadokhta Formation without highly developed cooling mechanisms.

Tereschhenko in 2013 examined the structure of the caudal vertebrae spines of Protoceratops, concluding that it had adaptations for terrestrial and aquatic habits.

Protoceratops indicated that the anterior caudals were devoid of high neural spines and had increased mobility—a mobility that stars to decrease towards the high neural spines—, which suggest that the tail could be largely raised from its base.

Protoceratops agreed with Brown and Schlaikjer in that a high, well-developed nasal horn represents a male trait and the opposite indicates females.

However, such strategies are most effective when the taxon is rare in the overall environment, opposed to Protoceratops which appears to be an extremely abundant and medium-sized dinosaur.

Protoceratops largely considered elongatoolithid eggs to belong to Protoceratops because adult skeletons were found in close proximity to nests, interpreting this as an evidence for parental care.

The nest of Protoceratops would have been excavated with the hindlimbs and was built in a mound-like, crater-shaped center structure with the eggs arranged in semicircular fashion.

Protoceratops identified types A and B, both of them sharing the elongated shape.

Protoceratops concluded that nests were built in a shallow mound with the eggs laid radially, contrary to popular restorations of crater-like Protoceratops nests.

For instance, the Protoceratops has a semi-erect stance and its skull is nearly horizontal, which could have not been possible if the animal was already dead.

Protoceratops suggested another scenario where the multiple wounds delivered by the Velociraptor on the Protoceratops throat had the latter animal bleeding to death.

Protoceratops concluded that the prominent displacement of pectoral elements and right forelimb was caused by an external force that tried to tear them out.

Since this event likely occurred after the death of both animals or during a point where movement was not possible, and the Protoceratops is missing other body elements, Barsbold suggested that scavengers were the most likely authors.

The jaw morphology of Protoceratops—more suitable for processing plant material—and its extreme abundance indicate it was not a predator, so if it was a diurnal animal, then it would have been expected to have a much smaller sclerotic ring size.

Related searches

However, a subsequent study in 2021 found that Protoceratops had a greater capability of nocturnal vision than did Velociraptor.

Protoceratops is known from most localities of the Djadokhta Formation in Mongolia, which dates back to the Late Cretaceous about 71 million to 75 million years ago, being deposited during a rapid sequence of polaritychanges in the late part of the Campanian stage.

Protoceratops is largely known from both members, having P andrewsi as a dominant and representative species in the overall formation.

In 1993 Jerzykiewiczz suggested that many articulated Protoceratops specimens died in the process of trying to free themselves from massive sand bodies that trapped them during sandstorms events and were not transported by environmental factors.

Protoceratops cited the distinctive posture of some Protoceratops involving the body and head arched upwards with forelimbs tucked in at their sides—a condition known as "standing" in particular cases—the absence of sedimentary structures in sediments preserving the individuals, and the Fighting Dinosaurs taphonomic history itself as evidence for this catastrophic preservation.

Protoceratops considered it unlikely that these Protoceratops individuals died after burying themselves in the sand given that these specimens are only found in structureless sandstones; an arched posture would pose hard breathing conditions; and burrowers are known to excavate headfirst and sub horizontally.

Protoceratops agreed in that the preservation of Protoceratops specimens indicate that they underwent a catastrophic event such as desert storms, and carcasses were not relocated by scavengers or environmental factors.

The co-workers noted that the Fox Site Protoceratops preserves associated traces in the encasing sediment, indicative of necrophagous activity after the animal was buried.

The region of Mongolia and China, where many Protoceratops fossils are found, is rich in gold runoff from the neighboring mountains, lending some credence to the theory that these fossils were the basis of griffin myths.

Protoceratops's cited myths such as cyclopes, giants, griffins and minotaurs.