Blogs

  • News
  • |
  • Art
  • |
  • History
  • |
  • Food and Travel
  • |
  • Science
Dinosaur Tracking

Where paleontology meets pop culture

Hominid Hunting

Meet the members of the tangled human family tree

Innovations

How human ingenuity is changing the way we live

Surprising Science

Ideas, news and discoveries from the world of science


June 14, 2012

Shovel-Beaked, Not Duck-Billed

A reconstruction of the Edmontosaurus skull LACM 23502, with a beak based on a natural mold. From Morris, 1970.

I’ve never liked the term “duck-billed dinosaur.” I know it’s part of the accepted dinosaur lexicon, just like “raptor” is, but every time I hear the phrase I think of a sluggish, swamp-bound Edmontosaurus dabbling in the water for soft water plants and algae. Paleontologists tossed out this imagery decades ago—hadrosaurs were terrestrial creatures with jaws specially adapted to grinding down tough vegetation.

I admit that the skull of Edmontosaurus looks superficially duck-like. Much like a mallard’s, the Late Cretaceous hadrosaur’s mouth is long, low and generally bill-shaped. The resemblance between these very, very distant relatives helped inspire images of wading hadrosaurs. But most Edmontosaurus skulls you see in museums present only the bony framework of the skull. The tough keratinous beak that tipped the skull typically decayed during the fossilization process, but in 1970, paleontologist William Morris described a rare Edmontosaurus skull with a beak trace.

You can see the specimen on display at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles today. Designated LACM 23502, this Edmontosaurus skull was collected by Harley Garbani near Montana’s Ft. Peck Reservoir. Other Edmontosaurus have been found here, but this fossil included a natural mold of the dinosaur’s beak. (While the beak itself was not preserved, the mold showed what the internal surface looked like. In life, the actual beak sat on top of the fossilized mold.) The structure was not shaped just like a duck’s bill. On the bottom jaw, the beak surface curved slightly upward, and the upper half of the beak created a vertical, fluted surface that hung over the tip of the lower jaw. Maybe the term isn’t the most apt—and I’m open to suggestions—but Edmontosaurus seemed to be a shovel-beaked dinosaur rather than a duck-billed one.

At the time Morris described the skull, though, hadrosaurs were still thought to be semi-aquatic dinosaurs. Morris believed that the bill traces he described supported this idea and imagined that ridges on the interior part of the mold helped the dinosaurs strain plants and small invertebrates from the water. “A filtering device would be very important in assuring that these large animals could ingest large amounts of concentrated food relatively free of water in a manner similar to that of the dabbler ducks,” Morris wrote, which made the term “duck-bill” seem all the more apt for these dinosaurs.

Despite Morris’ insistence that hadrosaurs nourished themselves by slurping plant-heavy Cretaceous soup, though, we now know that Edmontosaurus and kin were terrestrial animals capable of breaking down tougher plant materials. Exactly how the beak of Edmontosaurus contributed to feeding is not entirely clear—perhaps the beak cropped vegetation that was broken down by the rows of small teeth lining the jaws. One thing is for sure, though. The duck-bills weren’t really so duck-like after all.

Reference:

Morris, William J. (1970). “Hadrosaurian dinosaur bills — morphology and function“. Contributions in Science (Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History) 193: 1–14.



***

Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.

2 Comments »

  1. BJ Nicholls says:

    The problem with “shovel beaked” is that it conjures up visions of hadrosaurs digging with their rostra. It’s easier for me to envision hadrosaurs using their bill/beak/rostrum as a grasping tool than as an excavator. I can’t think of a shape metaphor that doesn’t come with unwanted functional baggage.

  2. Craig Dylke says:

    While I agree the image of Hadrosaur diets needs major revision, it is important to acknowledge that many genera of them are found in very wet environments and show clear signs of spending time in the water.

    Every major study of taphonomy done on Dinosaur Provincal Park from Charlie Sternberg up until the present has found evidence to suggest that the Hadrosaurs of this prehistoric ecosystem lived in or right by the water. Not swimming around like the old picture books of our childhood granted, and definately not eating Morris’ Cretaceous soup (love that name for it by the by), but they were dealing fine being up to their armpits in water (in DPP it would have been hard not to be in water at least some of the time)

    Just wanted to get that out there. I still love this article, and will try to catch myself saying Duck Bill (but it’s way more entrenched in me than Raptor)

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free

Advertisement



Follow Us

Travel with Smithsonian






Advertisement