Talk:Apatosaurus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Heads-up!

Just as a heads-up for you dino enthusiasts out here in Wikipedia, there's been a lot of hubbub going on surrounding Apatosaurus over the past couple of months. There's the distinct possibility now that Supersaurus is more closely related to A. ajax and A. lousae than it is to A. excelsus, which would mean that A. ajax and A. louisae are part of a seperate genus than A. excelsus; if this is the case, then "Brontosaurus" would have to be brought back as a valid genus under ICZN regulations. I'm not sure if anything will actually come of this, but if something does, you'll need to spring into action and create a separate article pretty quickly.--Grand Moff Brian 16:26 EST, 1 May 2009

Merger proposal

Brontosaurus is a name no longer officially recognized as it is well known that it is the same specie as the Apatosaurus. I don't see any reason why we need a separate page for the mistaken naming.--Konstable 03:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose. "Apatosaurus" and "Brontosaurus" are distinct entities with different cultural histories. The fact that they happen to be different names for the same thing is irrelevant. (Should we also merge Jehovah and Allah?) — JEREMY 03:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify what "different cultural histories" you're talking about here. As far as I've seen from other (non-wiki) sources these are just two different names for the same animal, due to the mistake of their original discoverer.--Konstable 07:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that "Apatosaurus" has no meaning to the general public, and so by wikipedia tradition the article would be called "Brontosaurus" — except that scientific names are an exception to this guideline, and thus we'd be back to just "Apatosaurus", and the ludicrous situation where one of the most famous dinosaurs of all had no wikipedia entry. Instead we have the current situation (in which the animal is discussed in "Apatosaurus" and the cultural phenomenon in "Brontosaurus"): a workable compromise. — JEREMY 07:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You bring up a good point about the popularity of Brontosaurus. Yet I still don't need to see the need for a separate article. All the issues of differences and the cultural phenomenon factor of the animal could be emphasised, but in a section within a united article - in the end it is still the same animal. I think that having them as separate articles generates unnecessary confusion, especially since the image in Brontosaurus may seem to be quite a different animal than the animal depicted in the picture on the Apatosaurus page, (in fact I was myself confused for a couple of minutes after I stumbled upon the pair). So instead, how about merging these two articles together into one new article something like: Brontosaurus (Apatosaurus), of course redirects to it from Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus --Konstable 10:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this is a crucial point: the animal depicted in Brontosaurus is not an Apatosaurus, but an imaginary creature with the body of an Apatosaur and the head of something else entirely. Thus there really should be two separate articles as there really are two separate creatures: one real, the other a scientific chimaera. — JEREMY 11:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok. You've convinced me. I withdraw my proposal. Sorry to have wated your time.--Konstable 10:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strong support. They refer to largely the same species, so are not distinct entities, and the cultural history could be said to apply to just one animal. --KJ 04:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Apatosaurus is verifiable science (inherently encyclopedic) and Brontosaurus is a cultural phenomenon (also encyclopedic, just like the Beatles). CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 10:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - same species. Lets merge them and make one GREAT article! -Gr0ff (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I tend to agree here. Brontosaurus ultimately is one fascinating chapter of the Apatosaurus story. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Funkynusayri (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The strongest argument against this is Jeremy's comment from Feb 2006 above, which is actually a common misconception. The whole 'wrong head' issue has nothing whatsoever to with with the issue of the name. It is not a scientific chimera any more than early reconstructions of Tyrannosaurus that portrayed three finger.s It's common practice to fill in skeletal mounts with parts based on relatives, and camarasaurids (the skull actually probably belonged to Brachiosaurus) were thought to be close relative at the time. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Support. The synonymy between the two genera was recognised over 100 years ago. Apart from Bob Bakker, no-one (in the literature) refers to Brontosaurus as anything other than Apatosaurus.
  • Oppose Strongly. Brontosaurus is not a mistaken name it is a hoax (or very risky error) and a popular one. "Marsh, the man who found the bones in Wyoming way back in 1879, purposely assembled the heads incorrectly. The fact is, the body he found was headless. So he used the head of the closest dinosaur he could find. (Which was miles away not only in a different quarry, but in a different layer of strata)."[1] There is nothing on Wikipedia that shows this error/hoax. More knowledge is what this is all about right? Furthermore the fact that schools, museums, movies, and stamps have propagated the false creature is no reason to believe that it is synonymous with Apatosaurus. JoeliusCeasar 20:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Can you provide references other than a blog? This blog does not meet requirements for references for an encyclopedia. Try to find information from a book or a technical journal for example. --Kleopatra (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
A hoax implies several things. It fails at the very first because of the chronology. Marsh named Brontosaurus in 1879. Skulls did not enter the picture (literally) until 1891, when he published a skeletal restoration (Glut for some reason thinks it was 1879, but checking the publications shows something got mixed up). Marsh couldn't have been hoaxing anyone about Brontosaurus being a beast with the body of an Apatosaurus and the skull of a Camarasaurus when he named it, because the skull thing wouldn't come about for 12 years. Marsh simply thought that Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus were two distinct genera.
On the issue of the skull, a hoax would imply 1) that Marsh knew that his Brontosaurus did not have the head he presented it as having, and 2) that he proceeded anyway with the intention to deceive. This fails at the first point because Marsh simply had no way of knowing what was the correct head. A true Apatosaurus skull would not be found until 1909, by Carnegie Museum workers in the future Dinosaur National Monument. The skull Marsh chose for his restoration was an educated guess (it was actually a Brachiosaurus skull, which incidentally came from a quarry that also yielded Apatosaurus bones, the Marsh-Felch #1 in Garden Park, CO; also, it was collected in 1883, 4 years after he named Brontosaurus, again showing that a hoax from the very first is not feasible).
Additionally, you and your reference are apparently under the mistaken impression that Marsh produced a skeletal mount of Brontosaurus, when all he ever did was produce a skeletal restoration (included below). Note that the skull is not a Camarasaurus skull (click, it gets bigger).

It is also of interest that Yale University, which mounted the holotype after his death, did not include a Camarasaurus skull (at least at first); there is a photo reproduced on p. 152 of Glut's Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia of the mount with a clearly artificial skull vaguely modeled on Marsh's reconstruction of the Brachiosaurus skull. The "skull=Camarasaurus" thing came about because of Henry Fairfield Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History. It was like a game of Telephone: robust skull became camarasaur-like skull became Camarasaurus skull (probably because museums didn't want fake-looking heads).
In conclusion, you and your reference are confusing "Brontosaurus is a synonym of Apatosaurus" with "Brontosaurus was mounted with the wrong head", and are turning the two statements into "Brontosaurus was always a chimera of an Apatosaurus body and Camarasaurus head", when the situation is really "Brontosaurus is a misnamed Apatosaurus that was given wrong skulls in restorations and mounts because of misinterpretations, honest errors, and the legacies of a couple of paleontologists overawing others in the absence of research." The hoax aspect you seek to introduce is incorrect based on the chronology and what Marsh knew and, significantly for Wikipedia, an example of original research and synthesis because it is not supported by your reference, which doesn't include the word "hoax" anywhere. J. Spencer (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually what is "Brontosaurus" as an indepedent fictional entity or cultural phaenomeno? An Apatosaurus with a Camarasaurus skull or the symbolic total of all dinosaur misconceptions of the public and outdated fossil reconstructions that proved to be more popular (swan necks, aquatic habits, etc...)? I think we are reaching a philosophical level of this conflict.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly understand the arguments for merger and agree with them, I feel the name Brontosaurus has an extraordinary significance in its own right. It has had a huge cultural impact and is hugely significant in the history of palaeontology. Perhaps a new article ought to be created: Brontosaurus.--Gazzster (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Late reply, but another point, we would only make things even more confusing for the public if we had separate articles, as it is now, we make it very clear that the two are the same animal by having Bronto redirect. Anything else would be misleading, and many people would come out thinking the two were different animals. Yes, Apatosaurus is commonly known as Brontosaurus, but that does not make Brontosaurus a separate entity, it is just another name for Apatosaurus. And as Dinoguy mentioned, the different skull issue is not connected to the name issue. The two weren't synonymised because of the skull. FunkMonk (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Given that Brontosaurus was made to redirect to this article, shouldn't this article attempt to clarify the history of the term "Brontosaurus" in relation to the Apatosaurus? --V2Blast (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It's already discussed twice in the article, once under Classification and once under History. Do you have a suggestion for how we can make it more clear? MMartyniuk (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
simple, make a section specifically about the name "Brontosaurus" about it's history and why it is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.58.85 (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Robert Bakker's Lips Theory

For those looking for a citation, I just saw an episode of PaleoWorld where Bakker discussed this theory. Sadly, I deleted the episode off my TiVo before I had the chance to get the information down. It's the episode entitled "Secrets of the Brontosaurus." Anybody else got citation information from it? -- JCaesar 11:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Physiology

Regarding the line "Beginning with the assumption that Apatosaurus, like crocodilians, did not have a diaphragm, the dead-space volume (the amount of unused air remaining in the mouth, trachea and air tubes after each breath) has been estimated at about 184 liters for a 30kg specimen," does the author mean a 30 ton specimen? It's very unlikely that there would be a 30kg apatosaur, one capable of holding 184 liters of air.

but apatosaurus is still warm-blooded and more linked to avian and mammalian species right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslan10000 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't know. Actually most studies that have come out recently seem to argue against the idea that sauropod were "fully" warm blooded like mammals and birds, and its possible that their partial warm-bloodedness was due to gigantothermy. I don't have refs handy, but weren't they found to have growth patterns (if not rates) consistent with extant reptiles? Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Monophyly of Apatosaurus

A cladistic analysis of Apatosaurus reveals A. excelsus to be more similar to A. ajax and A. than to A. louisae (Upchurch et. al., 2004). In this case, Brontosaurus and Elosaurus may turn out to be distinct Apatosaurus-related genera, and A. louisae should be placed in a new genus, which I informally name "Parabrontosaurus". As with other polyspecific dinosaur genera, Apatosaurus may need to be restricted to the type species. Will you omit Brontosaurus and Elosaurus from the Taxobox once this cladistic analysis is accepted?

P. Upchurch, P. M. Barrett, and P. Dodson. 2004. Sauropoda. In D. B. Weishampel, H. Osmólska, and P. Dodson (eds.), The Dinosauria (2nd edition). University of California Press, Berkeley 259-322. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Your genericometer is set to "Maximum Split" today, isn't it? J. Spencer 18:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I doubt one cladistic analysis is sufficiant for wide acceptance, especially seeing as there are a lot of people who would probably be happy to sink all of Apatosurinae into Apatosaurus... It really is a lump vs. split thing, and even if future analysis support this result, it will be years before any kind of consesnus can be determined. If we used the latest published word on things as the basis for articles, rather than trying to reflect consensus, the coelurosaur classification would change with literally every new paper that comes out. Bad idea. Dinoguy2 21:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to announce or propose new names. Wikipedia policy expressly forbids Original Research. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is also not a valid publication under the ICZN, so even if this situation does become accepted, unless you manage to convince Olshevsky to include Wikipedia in his criteria for nomina nuda, nobody will be putting "Parabrontosaurus" (Unsigned, 2007) on any genera lists... And, in fact, even if you were seriously planning to publish this name, coining it here may seriously jeaopardize its future eligibility. Dinoguy2 00:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Another species?

I have a personal record of another species, A. grandis. Can anyone else verify this? Ninjatacoshell 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A. grandisMarsh, 1877 has been renamed Camarasaurus grandis by Gilmore in 1925. ArthurWeasley 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Should mention be made of that in the article? Ninjatacoshell 21:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, you could model the article on Iguanodon where the "Species" section lists valid species, reassigned species and nomina dubia. A. grandis would then fall in the "reassigned species" subsection. ArthurWeasley 23:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

State Fossil of Guam

I removed the reference of Guam having Apatosaurus as its state fossil, given as how Guam isn't a state, and I smell a prank of some sort.--Mr Fink 17:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We've removed this "information" before. The only reference I can find for it cites Wikipedia as its source, and the chances of a viable population of large sauropods living on such a small island aren't good. Finally, the official Guam website doesn't make any mention of a "state" (or territorial) dinosaur. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm... You don't suppose we could set up a virtual beartrap for the boob who keeps slipping that fake fact in, then?--Mr Fink 18:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nostrils

  • Seems like every image has the nostrils placed incorrectly... And would Apato maybe have had spikes on its back? Funkynusayri (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

how long is the apatausuars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.68.28 (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Around 22-24 meters (75-80ft) long. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The vertebrae did have spikes on them, as seen in walking with dinosaurs but it is usually thought that they were covered with muscle. 122.105.218.20 (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No actually, the spines of Diplodocus were on the skin and made of soft tissue, not bone. However according to Tracy Ford, they covered a large portion of the back and sides, not just an iguana-like ridge. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the skull even known at all, apart from just assuming it to be Diplodocus like? Isn't clear from the article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, there is indeed a skull (don't have the specimen numbers offhand, but one had been found back in the day and left to languish because Marsh was sure it had a Camarasaurus-like skull; Marsh's substitute turned out to be a Brachiosaurus skull). J. Spencer (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The restoration on the right here is still inaccurate apparently, what could be done to fix it? FunkMonk (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Decrease the nostril size a bit, add spikes? Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 16:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I had tried to modify it somewhat by adding bifurcation etc., but the proportions are still all wrong (most notably the tail) and there was nothing more I could do in photoshop to salvage it. If anybody else wants to take a crack at it feel free, but it's certainly not accurate right now. There are good skeletals here:[1] but unfortunately none showing an anterior view. The bifurcated verts in the neck should appear farther apart, and the neck should be broader than even what's shown for Supersaurus. The really defining character of Apatosaurus. IMO, comes from its massive, broad neck and small, thin tail, neither of which are depicted in this restoration. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if I can do anything, and about back spines, does it even need some? Just because one relative has it doesn't mean Apatosaurus would have it, eh? FunkMonk (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Optional, I guess :) Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 00:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Heh, then I'll choose no spikes, adding dozens of spikes individually to an existing drawing will take too long to be worth it... But if I was to make one from scratch, sure, I'd give it spikes. Ok, so I've shaven the tail (it isn't integrated with the background or anything yet), and I've rounded the side of the neck a bit, both based on A. louisae (there's a dorsal view of a skeleton in the GSP Field Guide).[2] But looking at the Bogdanov image, it looks like you wouldn't actually see that much of the bifurcation thing on the neck, as it is mostly seen from the side (original image [3]). So I'm not sure if it really needs to be broadened, but the part farthest away should maybe be shaven a bit? FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hm. Where exactly is the revised image? The file description still harks back to the 2009 version as the most recent. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 13:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it's the link that says "2", should had placed it more appropriately... FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, OK, got it now. Looks pretty good so far. Try shaving it and see how it looks. I'm no Mike Taylor, but there are a few PDFs I'm looking at that probably can give us some extra details. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 13:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get it up to snuff in time for the GA. The article is pretty well illustrated as is, but really needs a modern restoration. FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, the width of the neck and tail has been changed significantly, is it enough? http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/8489/22801631.jpg The warp tool can be your friend. FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yaouw? FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a good effort, but the tail just looks narrower, not shorter. The neck is still compressed-looking too. I still vote for a new recon from scratch if anybody's up for being one of the first to get Apatosaurus right... MMartyniuk (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Definitely, I just have a feeling it won't happen in the near (or distant?) future, so salvaging what can be from this one until then wouldn't hurt I think. Making the tail shorter is an incredibly easy fix, just needed some pointers for where to go from here, first pass mostly made it narrower and lowered it, and I'll take a look at the neck. FunkMonk (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
If you can, I'd change the little white underside of the neck or remove it, and shade it a lot or add some diagonal hatching to give it obvious depth. The neck should look like a giant, fat Tobelerone bar ;) The base is wide and flat, so the little wattle of whitish skin there is very unlikely. [4] MMartyniuk (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hah, I can see that, I'll try to stretch the skin above that part down over it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Here are some changes, what needs to be done from there? http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8489/22801631.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice! If there's some way to make the bifurcation look a little farther apart (that was my crappy copy/paste attempt to create it in the first place) that would be great, but technically I think it's good to go. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
How bout this? http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/8489/22801631.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This version looks fine to me. Nicely done. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Jim Robin's Apatosaurus

We've had a bit of unsolicited independent peer review on the image currently in the Apatosaurus taxobox by Jim Robins (this one [5]. From Ask A Biologist: [6]

  • It "has a rather odd interpretation where the neural spines project above the surface of the torso: that's unlikely, and in any case the shoulder region of this one is completely wrong since at that point of the vertebral column, the neural spines are widely bifurcated."

I have to agree that it's very difficult to make out any bifurcation at all in the image, except for a bit of shading that almost looks like an afterthought. The neural spines also look a bit too... well spinosaurian-sail-like. Also the nostrils are probably wrong, given Witmer's work on this. So it qualifies under points 1 and 3 of the criteria sufficient to remove an image. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

FIne by me. I am no expert and will happily take your take on it DG2. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of changing the nostrils in the current taxobox image so they aren't on the top of the head, anyone know what I could use as reference? Funkynusayri (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

200 dB whip-like sound

Um... the loudest sound possible under 1atm of pressure is 194dB, which is many orders of magnitude louder than a cannon. So that's not right, in spite of what the source says.--Louiedog (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If humans can create a 200dB sound, why is 194dB the loudest sound possible? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The amplitude of the sound being (proportional to) the difference in pressure between the high pressure and low pressure parts of the wave is limited to 2atm for any sound emitted for one cycle or more: low pressure part, complete vacuum; high pressure part 2atm. You could make a "sound" louder than that but it would be less than a half cycle so calling it a sound would really be pushing it, considering the longest it could sustain would be 1/2000 of a second.
Their stats on the bullwhip are also highly dubious. The sonic boom created by an aircraft is 133 dB. 2000 times more energy than this would be 10*log 2000 = 33 dB louder, or 166 dB, NOT 200dB.--Louiedog (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking an interest in this article, Loodog. I don't really understand what you've said above. Can you possibly provide a link to a site which can verify what you've said above? Something which clearly states that a sound above 194dB under 1atm isn't possible? At this point, the Discover article verifies the claim in our article. The tag you've added links to Wikipedia:Disputed statement, which states:
  • It contains unlikely information, without providing references.
  • It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
  • It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.
A reference has been provided, it's not difficult to verify the statement, and it wasn't written by an editor known for inaccuracies. I think we could jettison the disputed material if we could agree that the content truly isn't correct, despite its verifiability. I just need some sort of plain-English link that says "this isn't possible". Firsfron of Ronchester 06:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The first thing I found on a google search: [7]. There are also various forums which give similar discussion. I'll see if I can provide a textbook that says this.--Louiedog (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I concur that 194 dB is the loudest full cycle sound possible in normal atmospheric conditions. As stated above, at 194 dB, the change in pressure (up and down) is equal to one standard atmosphere. That means during the low pressure portion of the sound cycle, the absolute air pressure drops to 0. Since it is not possible to have a negative absolute pressure, 194 dB is the loudest sound possible under normal atmospheric conditions. But there is a problem with that analysis. The atmosphere has changed substantially over the last few hundred million years. During the time of the Apatosaurus, I have no idea what the atmospheric conditions were like. If the atmospheric pressure were higher at that time, then perhaps 200 dB was possible. Of course, if that were the basis of such a claim, then I would expect the 200 dB claim to state why it was possible then but not now... 68.97.15.249 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe 194 was the value they calculated for the intensity of the whip-crack and whoever reported it just rounded? Abyssal (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Did the original source consider the atmospheric conditions at the time, or base its findings on the modern atmosphere? In addition, what kind of damage could this do to the tail of the apatosaurus? 65.200.157.177 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

This article seems to have been written (or most recently updated) by somebody un-versed in the use of SI units of measure. "Liter" is not a word. This has been adjusted. 59.154.17.6 (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have also adjusted "meter" to "metre" where appropriate. 59.154.17.6 (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

See Reference 2 on Litre: "Liter" is the accepted U.S. spelling, as defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. As Apatosaurus is a U.S. genus, I thought it made sense to use the U.S. spelling. Note that the article had used "liter" for the long term until changed a couple of days ago. J. Spencer (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Common name Brontosaurus

Could the whole Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus thing be compared to the Platypus/Ornithorhynchus and Mastodon/Mammut cases, where a Greek name which, was formerly a scientific name, becomes a comon name? FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Posture

  • "... appear to hold their necks at the maximum possible vertical extension when in a normal, alert posture": Often, alert is not not normal. Animals tend to go into alert position when a danger warning is heard; else its head is down feeding. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
True, it should simply read normal posture, as per the source. The paper makes clear that the posture often changes when walking, etc., so if any clarification is needed it should be "normal standing posture." Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Gertie the Dinosaur

Gertie the Dinosaur, one of the earliest and most famous animated films, was based on the Brontosaurus at the American Museum. Is that notable enough for the pop culture section? FunkMonk (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

height

the article gives the animal's length and weight but not its height. Also, how big were baby apatosaurus? How big were there eggs?-70.103.88.82 (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally, height is ill-defined with dinosaurs. For example, height of what part of the body? Hip height? Hip height is easier to manage on sauropods, since their hind limbs were more or less straight, but not easy on most dinosaurs, which would never have fully straightened their legs in life. Head height? If the latter, is it some average height (arrived at by how the neck bones articulate), or maximum head height of an Apatosaurus standing on all-fours (which differs widely between sources based on what the authors think of the animal's flexibility), or even the height of a hypothetical full-on rearing Apatosaurus doing its best to get on its tiptoes? In the case of the latter, is that number even of much value, since it's based on something that's at the very extremes of anatomy and behavior? J. Spencer (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
In some dinosaurs, even hip height can be problematic. Is it height to the actual ilium, or the sacral neural spines? In high-spined sauropods like Apatosaurus this can be a significant difference, not to mention say, Spinosaurus where the difference is over 2 meters! The best thing for the article would probably be just to provide a size diagram to give a visual sense of scale. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Creature With Two Brains?

I have a memory of the "Brontosaurus" having a second brain, located in the spine, near the apex of the tail (I think?), which was thought to control the back end of the beast. Does anyone else know anything about this? I practically grew up in the Peabody Museum, and I am pretty sure this was a theory. Also, there is nothing at all about brain size in this article--if someone can add something, it might be useful.--TEHodson 23:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Glycogen body. Abyssal (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/365/did-dinosaurs-have-a-separate-brain-in-their-behinds Apparently, I could use a second brain myself.--TEHodson 23:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Lousiae was the one with the Camarasaurus head?

Found this page, and it appears that Apatosaurus Louisae was the one that was originally mounted with an actual Camarasaurus skull, not excelsus. See bottom picture: http://www.dinohunters.com/History/Apatosaurus.htm FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the Carnegie mount is A. louisae (same specimen that's currently in the taxobox!). But all museums followed suit, including the famous AMNH A. excelsus. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see you mean it was an actual Camara head. As far as I know AMNH used a reconstruction based on Camara, not an actual C. skull. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I've often seen it claimed that the Brontosaurus mount had a Camarasaurus head, when it seems that this is a misconception maybe created by louisae having an actual Camara skull, but excelsus having a Camara-like skull (was that skull a total invention?). Kind of confusing, and don't know if there are any reliable sources that explain it, but it sees to be so from that picture and the description. FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Appropriately enough, there's a blog today talking about this very mount! [8]. Doesn't mention the AMNH mount though, but gives some extra back story about the Carnegie one. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Woah!? And with the picture from this very article on top of that heheh, that's a pretty odd coincidence. FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Apatosaurus image

Isn't it likely that the image of an Apatosaurus bone from Spain is actually Lourinhasaurus or similar, which went under the name Apatosaurus alenquerensis until recently? Only speculation of course, but seems odd that they would have such a scrappy bone from America on display in a Spanish museum, when they have plenty of their own. FunkMonk (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Apatosaurus (3 votes) collaboration for feb 11

Nominated 5 December, 2010;

Support:

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  2. J. Spencer (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  3. Crimsonraptor (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Inasmuch it would be nice to properly lay out and fix a page with a nice section on "Brontosaurus" to address the minor dustups over whether to have a separate page on them or not. High profile page too (and also as opening alternative to above to give folks a choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like a good choice to me. I'd love to see ol' "Bronto" be featured, and it really needs it too. Crimsonraptor (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Giving it just a lookover, I'm surprised how much there already is. The species section should be broken out; in fact, this is one of the rare cases among dinosaurs where the species are going to have an impact. There'll be some more history too, and a paleoeco section (fortunately we've got experience in Morrison paleoecology after Allosaurus and Brachiosaurus). J. Spencer (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's had bits and pieces of improvement over the years...just needs a real heave-ho to reach some audited status. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Select 1990 and older refs, "mainly free":

"Mainly free?" Mainly free as in "don't have to pay to view?" I'm edgey about those sort of things. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 13:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Some of us with university access can fetch other articles, or email the authors (well, not Marsh anyway...) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
"Mainly free" - every ref except the last three is freely available at the provided links, McIntosh (1990) can be read mostly on Google Books (except four pages), and the other two are important historic refs. I have a pdf of Berman and McIntosh (1978), but like I said, it's 31 mb, so a bit unwieldy for most inboxes. J. Spencer (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to work on this, but it's not going to happen in any meaningful way in the last week of February. J. Spencer (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we say we just renominate it again? Or maybe a collaboration should last until it reaches a specific goal, instead of just until a month passes? FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
That's an idea. I'll talk about the idea to Casliber and see what he thinks. (Sorry I haven't been doing much this month, by the way---first I've been made admin on another wiki, then I had to work on ootaxa, then I got sick...) Crimsonraptor • (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 12:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. I feel that GA and FA are important 'goals' in that they are the best thing we have as 'stable versions/reference points' that we can refer back to in the future if articles degrade or whatever. Hence I think we can maybe, instead of a date, choose the next highest voted nomination once the collaboration achieves GA status (at which point editors can choose to push on to FA or start working on a new one). This then allows us to 'lodge' articles at a 'save point' as it were. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Works for me! Crimsonraptor • (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 13:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, and more focused. FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think getting a "flagship" genus like Apatosaurus up to FA is a pretty good thing to shoot for. Unfortunately my access to the lit on this one is not so great :( MMartyniuk (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay all, it's a goer and will be the collab until it's GA. We can always ask some knowledgeable paleontologists nicely :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the Flintstones in the popular culture section?

Indeed, nor any mention of [Miss] Ann Elk's Theory About the Brontosaurus from "Monty Python's Flying Circus."  :)Brmerrick (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, why is there no mention of The Flintstones in the article on rocks? Clearly, rocks played a much larger role in The Flintstones than Apatosaurus. That article doesn't even have a pop culture section, yet I've seen rocks in nearly every movie ever made. Something must be done. You also may want to take a look at the article Human, which also doesn't mention the Flintstones, though they make up most of the main characters. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
And how is your dismissive attempt at sarcasm meant to be helpful for the discussion and article here? Clearly, the section is meant to be about references in popular culture. The Flintstones was a wildly popular show across the world, ingrained in popular memory, containing many references to the misnomer (e.g. "Brontoburgers.") Screen shot The omission of The Flintstones from a pop-culture references heading raises a legitimate question. If you're going to edit here, please try not to be a snotty jerk. o0drogue0o 09:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs)
So how exactly was "Brontosaurus" used in the Flintstones? Can you explain why it is necessary, and provide reputable sources that support your explanations why it is necessary to mention the show when the show merely used the prefix "Bronto" as a sometimes mentioned flavor-word?--Mr Fink (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"And how is your dismissive attempt at sarcasm meant to be helpful for the discussion and article here? Clearly, the section is meant to be about references in popular culture." Wrong, it's meant to be about the ways in which popular culture has shaped the public perception of this particular animal. What articles discuss the cultural impact of the Flintstones on this particular type of dinosaur? If such articles exist, please add them. Contrary to most Wikipedia junk articles, "In popular culture" doesn't mean "context-free list of useless trivia". This is Wikipedia, not TV Tropes. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The use of a brontosaurus in The Flintstones is probably the best-known representation of humans living with dinosaurs, a trope popular with 6000-yr creationists. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any reputable sources that discuss the use of brontosaurus in The Flintstones? That's the primary reason why that cartoon isn't mentioned in the "In Popular Culture" section. That, and can you explain in detail why it's necessary to mention this particular cartoon and how said cartoon shapes the public's image of Apatosaurus? Or why it's necessary to mention Young Earth Creationists and or the trope of humans coexisting with dinosaurs without turning it into TVTropes.org?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Apart from reference to "Bronto-Burgers", I'm not sure how much the animal itself is actually featured in the series... FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"This article is about the sauropod dinosaur formerly called Apatosaurus."

What is the meaning of the disambig "This article is about the sauropod dinosaur formerly called Apatosaurus. For for other uses, see Brontosaurus (disambiguation)"?

I'm guessing it is an error, and should say something like "This article is about the sauropod dinosaur sometimes called Brontosaurus. For for other uses, see Brontosaurus (disambiguation)." Wardog (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not an error. Brontosaurus is a name seen as invalid by the scientific community, and is only used today as a popular term. --Dinolover45 (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It may be a bit late to be responding, but it was an error. The original wording implied the reverse: that Apatosaurus was an obsolete name for Brontosaurus. (Either the original editor was confused, or it was a typo for "formally"). In any case, the text was changed shortly after I raised the point. Iapetus (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Brontosaurus

Based on this article, it seems that many of the references to brontosaurus in this page need to be updated, and a separate page for brontosaurus added:

The Guardian: The Thunder Lizard Returns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.118.72 (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Although this name has been forgotten by science, it remains an important part of the public's perception of the dinosaur world. As such, I think it should have its own article. There's an article for the European dragon, an obviously fictional beast, so why would Brontosaurus be any different? It still roams the prehistoric plains of the human imagination in great herds, I for one think Brontosaurus would make a good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

False analogy. Brontosaurus still exists, it just has a new name, which is Apatosaurus. What's the point of having two articles on the same subject under different names? You may as well argue for separate articles for Germany and Deutchland. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

True, only "Deutchland" hasn't captivated the human imagination the way Brontosaurus has. As said in the pop culture section of the article "Brontosaurus has and continues to maintain an independent existence in the human imagination". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What could possibly be included in a Brontosaurus article which isn't here already? More pop-culture references? FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, there is no need for a brontosaurus page. searching for it redirects to this page and the first sentence in the lead mentions its old name.Beefcake6412 (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
And more to the point, when was it actually forgotten by science? The article leaves the impression that it was in 1903, which is unlikely; Brontosaurus and brontosaur became the long-standard English terms because scientists used them. This graph suggests that the revival of Apatosaurus was about 1980; "Brontosaur"&tbs=bks:1,cdr:1,cd_min:1995,cd_max:2008&lr=lang_en#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&lr=lang_en&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A1995%2Ccd_max%3A2008%2Clr%3Alang_1en&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=%22apatosaur%22&pbx=1&oq=%22brontosaur%22&aq=f&aqi=g-l1g-lm2&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=63613l67026l1l67926l9l8l0l0l0l3l1001l2570l0.2.4.1.7-1l8l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=b0439e63af395d80&biw=672&bih=391 apatosaur is still rarer than "Brontosaur"&tbs=bks:1,cdr:1,cd_min:1995,cd_max:2008&lr=lang_en#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&lr=lang_en&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A1995%2Ccd_max%3A2008%2Clr%3Alang_1en&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=%22brontosaur%22&pbx=1&oq=%22brontosaur%22&aq=f&aqi=g-l1g-lm2&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=63613l67026l1l67926l9l8l0l0l0l3l1001l2570l0.2.4.1.7-1l8l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=b0439e63af395d80&biw=672&bih=391 bronstosaur? Subnumine (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Is that graph taking into account all content in Google books? If so, this will include mostly popular works. you'd need to run a similar study of Google Scholar to find out about scientific usage (and then publish your results, and then maybe we could include it in the article). To illustrate, here's the same search using Dryptosaurus and Laelaps http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Dryptosaurus%2CLaelaps&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3 The latter is consistently in higher usage despite being clearly recognized as the junior synonym since the late 1800s by 100% of scientists. Obviously this did not take hold in popular works, as happened for the better known Brontosaurus. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
But this has been discussed often enough that I shouldn't have to do it myself. And your graph is misleading; Laelaps (being from Greek mythology) has been used for several genera, and most of the hits for it are like this article, on rat mites for one of the others. I don't think the hits for Brontosaurus are false positives. Subnumine (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
For mine, the relationship between the two terms (Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus) is complex enough that the story is best told by a single article. The whole story can be covered as a cohesive whole rather than two interlocking segments on separate article pages. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I think Brontosaurus is a culturally significant name, and yes, deserves its own article. Its impact on the popular perception of dinosaurs has been enormous. Granted, younger people nowdays tend to know only Apatosaurus. But only 30 years ago its importance in popular culture was enormous. Such an article would deal principally with the cultrural and historical significance of the name.Gazzster (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this like saying Mark Twain is a culturally significant name and deserves an article separate from Samuel Clemens? There's nothing you can say about one that can't be said about the other because they are synonyms. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
OK then, let's merge together the articles on Spock and Leonard Nimoy, since they are clearly the same person. --WikiDonn (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow, seems like both Brontosaurus, Eobrontosaurus, and Elosaurus will be resurrected at some point, according to a talk at the 2013 SVP meeting. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Really? You're not pulling our vestigial tails, are you?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Heheh, no, but according to DML comments, it seems like it is so arbitrary that it doesn't matter, the clade is monophyletic, so it is probably a matter of taste. FunkMonk (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, cladistics generally is a matter of lumping vs. spliting, but apparently the reason for Brontosaurus becoming valid again is that "Supersaurus "splits up the Apatosaurus band", as Matt put it. So A.excelsus may end up a seperate genus to A.ajax, meaning Apatosaurus excelsus becomes Brontosaurus excelsus. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • In his "My Beloved Brontosaurus" Brian Switek states "According to fossil gossip, two special skulls show that A. excelcus was markedly distinct from the two other Apatosaurus species. If this is true, and is confirmed by future studies, paleontologists could make the case that Brontosaurus excelsus should be revived.". Anyone knows what he's referring to? FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    • This is a really late response, but I assume Brian was saying, if the skull of A.excelsus is markedly different to those of A.louisae and A.parvus, that A.excelsus may actually end up re-becoming B.excelsus (as B.excelsus would take priority over any other generic name made). Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)--
      • Yeah, but what skulls is he talking about? Anyone know of a new discovery? FunkMonk (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Currnt skeleton in AMNH

I was in the AMNH few weeks ago, and the skeleton appearing in the picture of the wiki page, labeled "Current A. excelsus skeletal mount at the American Museum of Natural History" is labeled "Barosaurus" at the museum itself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.45.253 (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you must have been looking at the wrong label, this is certainly incorrect (I was just at the AMNH a few months ago and did not notice any such error). Are you sure you weren't looking at the label of the old-fashioned model next to the skeleton? MMartyniuk (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the error is Wikipedia's, and we shouldn't take a possible temporary mislabeling at AMNH too seriously. In the Museum's published link, Barosaurus is rearing up on two legs. The text decribes it as "one of only two Barosaurus specimens on view anywhere in the world (the other is in Canada)". In other words, it's their only full specimen. Compare with the same Museum's Apatosaurus, which has all four limbs grounded; a good postural and anatomical match for the Wikipedia image. Haploidavey (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
You can even see a small model of the old mount below the skeleton itself on the photo. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Caption

The image caption uses the term "restoration" in a manner unfamiliar to me. Is this a scientific usage (I'm no scientist) or just an error? I'd expect "illustration" or possibly even "reconstruction" or some other word, but "restoration" jars. If it's a scientific usage, it should have a wikilink, or link to wiktionary or some offwiki source that explains the unusual usage. --Dweller (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It is very commonly used interchangeably with reconstruction. See for example[9]. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
It is? By whom? Is it USEng or ScientificEnglish? (It's definitely incorrect usage in regular BrEng)--Dweller (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
By artists and palaeontologists. See for example the captions of this paper (p. 755 and below).[10] I can give you many other examples, that's just the latest paper I downloaded. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
We usually wikilink or explain technical terms. --Dweller (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The closest I can think of is paleoart, which is paleontological illustration/restoration/reconstruction. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
That'd do :-) I learned something - hope some other readers do, too. --Dweller (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone feel like kicking this into full gear?

By "this", I refer to the Collaboration, of course. It'd be really nice to finally get Apatosaurus to GA status, at least. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Too busy at the moment, sadly! FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There seem to be some interest in getting it to FA (LittleJerry and IJReid?). A possible problem as I see it, is that the classification, species, and history sections seem to overlap in some details, with several redundancies as result. We also need to cover more than a century of publications... FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I will help. I have already talked around at SVPOW, and Mike gave me a list of important publications for Apatosaurus: Marsh 1879, Marsh 1883, Marsh 1891, Riggs 1903, Gilmore 1936, Berman & McIntosh 1978. These should be the main backbone for the description, as many (including both of Gilmore's) are monographic. The best internal phylogeny is that of Upchurch et alii 2005, which is already cited multiple times in the article. Many good images are around, with those of specific bones easy to find, and many free ones on SVPOW itself. A. louisae seems to take up a majority of our images, which makes sense because it is the most distinct, but we should try to eve out numbers. IJReid discuss 00:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I would be willing to work part-time, particularly on the paleobiology section. LittleJerry (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Though to me, it seems A. excelsus is mainly represented in the images (most famous species after all), not louisae, but even then, many of the available images are not identified to species. And Reid, there may be copyright issues with the Apatosaurus sculpture uploaded to Commons, as it is a commercially available "toy" of sorts, may have to see what they say over there. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I hope to work on paleo-biology this weekend or next. LittleJerry (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. By the way, some interesting articles (with references) about various specimens, the Brontosaurus head myth[11], and the headless specimen we have a photo of.[12] FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Just for ease, the papers recommended by Mike.

I am attempting to find the remaining articles. Does anyone know which species Dmitry illustrated, because I think it is best that all images should be labelled as a specific species. To FunkMonk, I might have found a great image that could be of some use, https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/omnh-baby-apatosaurus.jpg the page is http://svpow.com/2013/09/09/self-study-the-atlas-axis-complex-in-sauropods/. This amazing image shows a juvenile apatosaurus, from which the amount of material is stated on the post, and even shows the baby beside the leg of an adult which we already possess an image of, showing the humungous size difference. Is this image free to upload, as the unknown material is sculpted free hand, and the specimens is on display in the OMNH. IJReid discuss 00:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's ok, you could argue that sculpted parts are sort of like "connect the dots", so there isn't much original artistic input, but others might differ... Better to just not bring it up, hehe! And here's a different free reconstruction of a juvenile:[13] As for Dmitry's image, you could try to email him, he has answered my mails before. FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
And by the way, the skull Marsh drew is now thought to belong to Brachiosaurus, not Camarasaurus.[14] And info about the skull would probably fit better chronologically within the rest of the "history" text, rather than as a detached subsection. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
But the new photo of the entirely sculpted skull would be quite iffy, especially because it is the main focus, and therefore cannot be excused with "de minimis"... It probably needs to be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, the sculpt was made before 1931 by an unknown author, so the sculpt itself should be in the public domain. The photograph is freely licensed, and although now it does not fall under FoP, the sculpt seems to have been created before FoP itself was established. IJReid discuss 15:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
If that's the case, make sure to note this on the description page... FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the paleo-biology section now, the fourth leading paragraph seems to overlap paleoecology. I would move it but I don't know how to merge the two seamlessly. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been thinking about physiology. Should we rely on much on Paladino and crew or should we try to summarize more scientific papers. I have found others, but they mostly discuss sauropods in general and not Apatosaurus specifically. One even singles out Diplodocus actually. LittleJerry (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I would go with Paladino for info that is not discussed elsewhere, and the others for info that isn't in Paladino and can be narrowed down to diplodocidae, while summarizing more. I believe I have fixed the issue of overlapping info. IJReid discuss 01:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I removed some more overlapping info. As for sources, it wouldprobably be best to find as wide array of soruces as possible, if Paladino cites someone, try to cite those he uses instead of him. By the way, it's hard to find info on the most complete Apatosaurus specimen known, "Einstein" (because the brain cavity is preserved), I can't even determine what species it is. Here's a book:[15] I guess it is in private hands? FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
OMG This is the specimen that the "Amphicoelias" brontodiplodocus paper was based on: http://dinosauriainternational.com/downloads/Brontodiplo_2011.pdf IJReid discuss 16:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you're right! So seems they gave up on the new name then? But what the heck is the Dubai Mall dinosaur then? I thought that was "brontodiplodocus"[16]? Are they the same specimen, just remounted in another pose? That one seems to be referred to Diplodocus nowadays? Very weird... Or well, now I look at the link, there seems to be five specimens, so some are maybe Diplodocus while others are Apatosaurus? I think they claimed they were male (robust Apatosaurus) and female (gracile Diplodocus) of the same species or some such? FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Page 26 includes the info about Einstein, so as long as we don't go into their classification, we should be able to cite the paper. Einstein is even in a photograph practically just reversed from the one we have here. IJReid discuss 17:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Since it is not a scientific paper, and due to its controversy, I don't think we should cite it at all. Better to cite articles published before and after they made up the new name, which there are actually plenty of... Including that book I linked above. Or we could actually mention the controversy, and that no one accepted the new name... But I think some would be against this, so we may want to ask at the dino project what the consensus is. Kind of sad these specimens are sold off to all corners of the world. A real dinosaur skeleton doesn't belong in a mall! FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe that the best reference for the skull is Balanoff et al 2010: Balanofff, A. M., Bever, G. S., and Ikejiri, T. 2010. The Braincase of Apatosaurus (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) Based on Computed Tomography of a New Specimen with Comments on Variation and Evolution in Sauropod Neuroanatomy. AMNH Novitates Number 3677, 29 pp., 10 figures, 1 table. It is cited in the "A. brontodiplo" paper. IJReid discuss 17:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, good. We also have a photo of Einstein's real skull, I guess the one on the mount is a cast, as usual for sauropod mounts (due to fragility). It shows the wide snout well, could be used in a diet section (which is now missing). Some other notes for FAC; nothing outside the intro should be written in bold. And the sentence "the Field (Museum) specimen was reassigned to A. sp." is incorrect, sp. is not a species, so nothing can be assigned to it, in this case it simply means it is considered indeterminate. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
What should we do with the images. We have a majority of A. excelsus photos, but all seem to be of casts of the same skeleton. The few A. ajax photos we have are not ass included, the skull image might make a nice addition to the article. I found a whole quackload of free Field museum photos, including one showing the mount when only the vertebrae were mounted and the scaffolding was up. I couldn't identify the Tellus apatosaurus, but it is a different mount from ones we already have. We have too many good photos to fit in the article right now, and I myself can't decide which we should use. IJReid discuss 18:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • YPM 1860 excelsus
    YPM 1860 excelsus
  • YPM 1860 excelsus
    YPM 1860 excelsus
  • UWGM 155656 parvus
    UWGM 155656 parvus
  • FMNH P25112 sp
    FMNH P25112 sp
  • FMNH P25112 sp
    FMNH P25112 sp
  • FMNH P25112 sp
    FMNH P25112 sp
  • unidentified
    unidentified
  • unidentified
    unidentified
  • OMNH
    OMNH
  • unidentified
    unidentified
  • BYU 17096
    BYU 17096
  • CMNH 3018 louisae
    CMNH 3018 louisae
  • NSMT-PV 20375 ajax
    NSMT-PV 20375 ajax
  • BYU 17096
    BYU 17096
We only have two images of the same A. excelsus mount, the AMNH specimen (before and after renovation, which is part of the point, perhaps they should be juxtaposed), not sure why the Yale specimen, the holotype of A. excelsus, was removed, it is the most notable specimen. In fact, the only image that doesn't show a real specimen seems to be the juvenile and perhaps the Oklahoma one. By the way, if that white bg cast is parvus, we should have it in. What's your source for that? That and Einstein's skull should probably go in, most of the rest in the gallery are already shown, perhaps it should only show unillustrated specimens. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem may be that some of the specimens have been reassigned. The famous AMNH one (AMNH 460) seems to be ajax now? That would make the Yale mount (YPM 1860), which I just redded, the only known specimen of excelsus, and thus "Brontosaurus"... Could be good to have specimen numbers on the Commons pages to avoid confusion. FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll work more on physiology either tomorrow or next weekend. Does anyone think the growth subsection in this article ( as well as in Diplodocus) should be expanded. Its short compared to Plateosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and Allosaurus.
Hmm, there is more info in Curry 1999 that can be added, I could email it to you if you want, I would just need you to email me first. IJReid discuss 03:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'll be able to expand it. That type of information seems to technical. LittleJerry (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead, Reid, I guess in the end, we can all proof read it. As for images, I think most of the good stuff available is in the article now. And all species are shown. The Japanese specimen could maybe be added some time after further expansion, but the image isn't too good. FunkMonk (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I also think maybe the lede and description section should also be expanded. After that I think its ready for GA be you guys might have a different opinion. Anyway, I'm taking a break for now. LittleJerry (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the sections, though we should probably wait until the article body is finished before we do the lead (it should have three paragraphs due to the article's length). But I'm sure there are more sections that could need some improvement and papers we could gather info from before GA/FAC, Google Scholar should give us a hint at what's missing. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead definitely needs to be expanded. But before we complete that, there are a few more things to sort out. The most problematic of which is the large section of the first history paragraph lacking references. I cannot find the etymology in any of Marsh's papers, (even though I found some interesting stuff on other genera). The description could still use a little more stuff from other papers, not much else can be gleaned from Gilmore. Riggs gave a good description, which could be added. The only other things that could go in history would be from Marsh's papers, but there isn't much. The classification seems to have been relatively stable for the most part, although "Atlantosauridae" should be mentioned as the original family the genus was placed in. Paleobiology looks good, but could use a copyedit. Nothing more can really be added to the paleoecology or popular culture. The placement of images should be finally sorted out, as some are mentioned in the text but don't fit, or aren't mentioned but fit. IJReid discuss 15:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Looked at Google scholar?[17] FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Definitely, that is where I got most of the skull sources from. I will add some info from Upchurch et al 2005, and Riggs. IJReid discuss 00:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Nice. As for images, can't see many good, unused ones left... Could maybe be nice with a recent photo of the Field Museum mount, but the only photos I could find are pretty bad.[18] I think this could be quite close to GA now at least. Maybe a peer review could also be in order. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
FWIW (cue unsolicited words of encouragement) I think it's not looking too bad - prose and construction are nice and tight. Within striking distance of GA anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Glancing a bit, I think there could be some improvements structure wise. For example, discussion of A. excelsus versus B. excelsus, and naming of species in general, may be more relevant under history/discovery than classification, which would rather be about the genus as a whole. See for example Triceratops, Diplodocus, or Stegosaurus. As it is now, you have discussion of Brontosaurus stopping in one section, and continuing in another, when it would make more sense to have it as a continuous "story". Also, there doesn't seem to be much on what makes the different species distinct, just that they have been declared species. And I'm not sure the Argentinosaurus video is relevant here, the genus is not closely related, and if it's just to show a general sauropod walk, the video could in theory be added to all saropod articles... Even just a photo of an Apatosaurus leg or foot would have more relevance there, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm very busy this week. I personal think that all we need before GA is a citation for the first paragraph of discovery and a lede expansion. But that's just my opinion. LittleJerry (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If we want this copyedited, it should be listed fast, can take months before it hits the top of the list in my experience... FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll have a bit of a read-through and prose massage later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • So the FAC was archived, after starting off pretty good, but Iguess the split kind of scared people off. I think now that the article is shorter, more detail could be added about the species left in the genus. What their anatomical differences are, their discovery and classification histories, etc. Could also discuss some scepticism towards the genus split: http://www.skeptic.com/insight/is-brontosaurus-back-not-so-fast/ By the way, having read a lot about extinct proboscideans lately, I don't entirely buy the argument that more than one large animal cannot share the same space; gomphotheres, mastodons and mammoths are all known from the same formations, and different mammoth species also lived together in several areas, and apparently even interbred. But well, my opinion is pretty worthless... FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The scepticism is well overworked. All the 100s of individuals are from the region, time and place, meaning there were enough resources for them all, why not more? I also reworded the lead on classification, because it was a little outdated. IJReid discuss 13:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
He also seems to be conflating several different "Carnegie Quarries" with his claim that eight sauropods were contemporary at the famous DNM locality. I count four contemporary sauropod species there, plus Haplocanthosaurus, the presence of which is based on a scrap and seems highly dubious given that all other specimens are lowermost Morrison. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A. minimus

There is no mention of Apatosaurus minimus, mentioned in the "Dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation" article, and getting many results on Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=Apatosaurus+minimus&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=). I'm not sure if it's still a valid species, or if it's now in another genus, but the Morrison article doesn't give this impression, and either way the species section should mention the subject. Also, if it is invalid or moved, then the Morrison article needs updating.142.176.114.76 (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears whoever added "Apatosaurus" minimus to the article has made a grammatical error; "A."minimus is an undescribed genus of sauropod tentatively placed as a species of this genus. A described name is Apatosaurus louisae, a tentatively-placed name that is undescribed is "Apatosaurus" louisae, for an example pertaining to this specific genus. I'll go ahead and change the mention in the Morrison article to be accurate. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I've seen it mentioned at SV-POW a few times that they're redescribing it, thought I've not heard anything about this in awhile.Capra walie (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"Never existed"

I was disappointed to find the sentence "By the late 20th century it was discovered that the Brontosaurus was actually not a real dinosaur as it had the bones of different dinosaurs." in the introduction to this article as it is a very common misunderstanding and oversimplification of the reality. Brontosaurus existed, that its earlier reconstruction included material from Camarasaurus is irrelevant. Such substitutions were not uncommon in cases where a part was missing from fossils of one species but was known from a similar species. The source for this statement is given as http://www.npr.org/2012/12/09/166665795/forget-extinct-the-brontosaurus-never-even-existed, which is hardly a valid scientific source. --Khajidha (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed this sentence, but the same source is used for the derivation of the names later in the page. Can someone who is better at sourcing please replace this? --Khajidha (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The article is a misinterpretation of how the type specimen of Brontosaurus was "completed" for display by sticking a skull of Camarosaurs. That the skeleton of what everyone thought was Brontosaurus had been made into a chimera can not change the fact that it was originally described as a separate genus. But, such is the tragedy of living in a world where science journalists strive for sound bites instead of presenting facts accurately.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, by this reasoning quite a few ceratopsians "never existed", as the only fossils we have of them are heads while their bodies are reconstructed using related genera as models. People just don't get how reconstruction works. --Khajidha (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Or how synonymy works, either.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure how to cite these, but here are links to the Oxford dictionaries for the derivation of Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus that we can use to replace the current citation of that silly NPR piece for the etymology. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/apatosaurus and http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/brontosaur --Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If you scroll down to "day three" of this podcast[19], there's an interesting interview with Robert T. Bakker about the Brontosaurus situation at 14:50, where he argues that Brontosaurus should be valid... I'm not exactly sure what's going on, but has something to do with a new skull, also mentioned here[20] and [21] I think. Here's an abstract that could probably be cited, IJReid:[22] FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Bakker's been trying to find evidence to support the validity of Brontosaurus since the '80s. The problem is that excelsus seems to be nested between ajax and louisae, possibly as part of an anagenic lineage (as argued by G.S. Paul in his field guide). Now that excelsus seems to have been limited to the holotype, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if even the name excelsus was sunk in the future. Either way, all this depends on how each researcher defines a "genus". But if Brontosaurus is valid, then louisae needs a new genus name (hmm, "Carnegiesaurus" has a nice ring to it...). The abstract you cite actually seems to contradict Bakker's claim and supports Paul's: the skull of ajax (the youngest species, Upper Morrison) is far more derived than louisae (the oldest species, lower Morrison) and somewhat more derived than excelsus (a single middle Morrison specimen). This points to all Apatosaurus species representing a single population evolving through Morrison time. I think the only thing that could possibly overcome inertia and break up Apatosaurus would be the discovery that Supersaurus is nested within it, though my hunch is that Supersaurus probably evolved directly from A. ajax and is the terminal point of the Apatosaurus lineage... Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, also weird since Bakker's interview is immediately followed by another interview about that new A. aja snout. Seems there's quite some confusion about which specimens belong to what species. Those recent articles seem to indicate that no A. ajax skull is known other than the new one? Then what is CMC VP 7180 that we have a photo of here? FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Given that both skulls have only been mentioned in abstracts so far as the sources here say, they may not be aware of each other. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Does seem like all these new skulls will shake some taxonomy up, the "Max" specimen will apparently be the basis of a new genus[23] next month ("press embargo" on the name, yes, but then why write it on the website?), so I've removed our photo from this article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
"("press embargo" on the name, yes, but then why write it on the website?)" It's on the press website so the press can download it without somebody having to email it around ;) The embargo notice just means the name is not to pass beyond that site until the specified date. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
After listening to that podcast again (with more than half an ear), the guy after Bakker does hint pretty heavily that A. ajax is different enough from A. excelcus to warrant another genus for it... Not sure what excelsus skull material he's talking about, though. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Taylor (2014) on neck posture

Mike Taylor's published a new paper about the effects of cartilage on the neutral neck pose in diplodocids. https://peerj.com/articles/712.pdf Could we ref this in the "Posture" section? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

We could, is the genus mentioned? FunkMonk (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Repeatedly: it was one of the main subjects of this study.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Good article

Hi! I have not done any work on the article, just to say, but when reading it I think it should be nominated as a good article. Gug01 (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Have a look above: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AApatosaurus&diff=644626389&oldid=644596780#Anyone_feel_like_kicking_this_into_full_gear.3F FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, there goes the stability. :p Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll also give it a read with GA/FA in mind when Casliber is done. Took some time to get it running, but it seems "collaboration" is working again! FunkMonk (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I've finished for the time being. I think once my queries are done it can go to GAN. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Pre-GAN tweaks

  • The sentence "The braincase of Apatosaurus is well preserved in BYU 17096." is followed a few sentences later by "Anatomy of the braincase also fits with the diagnosis of Apatosaurus, assigning BYU 17096 to the genus with little doubt" - which flows oddly. I'd remove the second one as too much detail I think as we've already been told it's Apatosaurus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Done.
  • Within the species, the scapula of A. louisae is intermediate in morphology between those of A. ajax and A. excelsus. - you mean, "within the genus?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Within the subfamily Apatosaurinae, Apatosaurus may be most closely related to Suuwassea, Supersaurus and Eobrontosaurus - first, Apatosaurinae isn't explained or introduced before this, and second, seems to disagree with material in diplodocid.
Done
  • Para 2 of classification and para 1 of discovery and species overlap quite a bit - you need to try and reduce repetition here. Upon reading it again, I recommend reducing para 2 of classification or eliminating it, and consolidating it all in discovery and species
Done. IJReid discuss 05:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

All of these are now done, anything to add before GA FunkMonk. IJReid discuss 05:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Just go ahead and nominate it, I'll take a look tomorrow, I doubt it'll be reviewed before that anyway. But I'm probably too involved here to take on the actual review... FunkMonk (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It appears that the only specimen left in A. excelsus is the holotype specimen, but the article doesn't seem to make that clear. FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Mentioned, as well as the type of its synonym A. amplus.
  • There are soem very convoluted sentences under description, for example "One of the first estimates of A. louisae, published by Charles Whitney Gilmore in 1936, was found to be 21.8 m (72 ft), which was concluded by measuring the vertebral column of the holotype of A. louisae,[4] and remains valid".
Think I fixed this.
  • "The Apatosaurus skull CMC VP 7180 preserves many teeth still in the jaw. One tooth includes signs of wear, a sugary texture on the dentine surfaces. No scratches were found on the tooth.[7]" This seems better suited under paleobiology or history. Description should be about typical features, not about how individual specimens are preserved.
Better I think
  • "found to be most similar to Camarasaurus in 1936" Probably more helpful to attribute name of writer rather than year in such cases.
Done.
  • Something to keep track of, you jump between past and present tense a lot when describing the animal as it was, could maybe be good to keep it consistent.
  • Wasn't it proposed that manual claws were used in defense?
Added
Perhaps better under paleobiology, since it is about function, not form? FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Moved and added more info.
  • It seems a great deal of "Feeding" and "Posture and locomotion" overlap, I'm thinking of neck posture debate.
I figured it would be okay since that's the case for Diplodocus. LittleJerry (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "thus, "deceptive lizard". Marsh gave it this name based on the chevron bones" So why are these bones "deceptive"?
Got it, from the original description.
  • "a tail fashioned to appear as earlier Marsh believed it should" What does this mean?
Done.
  • "as well as a composite model of what the museum felt the skull" What is a "composite model"?
Done.
  • You should note full name of the people featured in the text at first mention.
Done.
  • I see American English is used some places, is it consistent across the article? Since this is only known from the US, that spelling is probably most appropriate.
I believe that it is consistent
  • "Other studies find that all tetrapods appear to hold their necks" As far as I understand, this debate is mainly between two groups of scientists, so they could be attributted in text?
Done.
  • "These estimates have been suggested to be unreliable." Why?
Done.
"as the methods producing them are not sound" doesn't really explain what the problem is- why are they not sound?
elaborated
  • "In 1877 this formation became the center of the Bone Wars, a fossil-collecting rivalry between early paleontologists Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope.[5]" Isn't this better suited under history, also to explain why Marsh preumalbly wanted to "name as many species as possible"?
Done.
  • "As well, it is not the longest as Supersaurus is longer." Couldn't this be worded better? It is not longer because X is longer seems redundant.
Done.
  • "It was one of the largest land animals known to have ever existed" This is not specifically stated in the article, only in the intro.
Done.
  • "is truly much more similar to that of Diplodocus." Truly is too informal.
Done.
  • "It was originally included in Atlantosauridae with Atlantosaurus, a now invalid genus, and was once considered part of Opisthocoelia." Why go so much into detail in the intro, when you don't even mention its current classification? I'd replace that sentence with the modern scheme.
Done.
  • "but it is not the longest nor even the most common sauropod in the Morrison" Why is that relevant to the fact that it was once considered the longest`? Was it ever considered the most common? If not, why state this?
Done.
  • Nice fixes, now we can only wait for the actual review... FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems like the re-review didn't work, Casliber? FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hang on, I'm not following....Gugs01 reviews it but the templates aren't working? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, ok, maybe this[24] explains it better. In short, there wasn't much of an actual review, as the reviewer seemed to be unaware of how the process works. So it would be better to blank the review, so it could have the old timestamp and get reviewed again. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that is respectful to the reviewer's review. I think there is something amiss with the transclusion as one of mine is being reviewed but for some reason is not linked off the talk page. There have been several eyes on this article and I think it is good enough to be within striking distance of FA status - I think nominating it there is the way to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright, following the GAN talk page, it was my impression that single sentence reviews were frowned upon, and often reset, but yeah, many have looked at this already. To speed things up, IJReid, you could perhaps ask on the copyedit request talkpage if you could swap my unanswered Deinocheirus request with your Apatosaurus request? Deinocheirus is now featured, so copyedit is kind of redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Now after Firsfron's thorough copy edit, I think you can go ahead and nominate this for FAC, IJReid, and LittleJerry! FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I have done a little work proofing the article. It probably still needs work. However, this article was just nominated for FAC without even an edit summary. Please, folks, always use edit summaries, especially when asking for reviews; doing so will alert watchers of the page know that the article needs a thorough review. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyediting the newly-added Juvenile section, I notice this sentence: "More juvenile Apatosaurus material is known, one specimen of A. parvus." I was going to fix the comma splice, but I wanted to double-check that the specimen of A. parvus is the juvenile material. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

History

I feel the way the Discovery section is currently laid out is still a little misleading about the naming situation. It first discusses the mounting of the AMNH specimen (which was also the first ever sauropod mount) and the guesswork that went into creating its skull. That was completed in 1905. It then goes on to talk about how Riggs reclassified Brontosaurus as Apatosaurus, and implies this was immediately followed by all paleontologists, and pop culture lagged behind for fifty years. In fact, the renaming occurred two years before the first mount was complete. Osborn was of course well aware but, for reasons I'm not sure he ever published on, labelled the mount Brontosaurus anyway. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Dinoguy, would you be willing to edit that section, and bring it into line? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
There should be plenty of time for fixes, the FAC process is incredibly slow these days. You on this, IJReid? FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
How does it look? IJReid discuss 14:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Reading the section again, I'm still about confused, was the first "proper" skull referred to A. louisae or not? FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the skull was and is referred to A. louisae, though it was not found directly associated. I tweaked the history section a little for clarity, is it any better? Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Good to me, can we maybe get the specimen number of the skeleton in there as well? FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Brontosaurus revived

Brontosaurus has just been revived by Tschopp E., Mateus O., Benson R.B.J. (2015) "A specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sauropoda)", PeerJ 3:e857 https://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.857 The article will have to be completely rewritten. Well, nearly completely :o).--MWAK (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ouch! I think for now, as this is only one paper, we should wait with a split until there is some kind of scientific consensus. But for now, it should definitely be explained in this article. Seems this is also the paper that names Galeamopus... FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I think temporarily, the best option would be to pull an Edmontosaurus annectens and simply give each species its own article. Then the issue of synonymies can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Everyone agrees these are different species and genera are subjective (though the present study is the first ever to try and apply a quantitative standard to splitting vs. lumping genera). These articles wouldn't need so much re-writing if we didn't insist on treating genera like species in the first place... ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Skimming the article, I don't think splitting out Brontosaurus would have much of an effect. Most of the description and paleobiology sections use A. louisae as their basis.Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Also worth noting the paper and the interview on PeerJ have some good CC images. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I made the same point about cut content at the FAC page, it is also similar to the case of Mantellodon, where some of the info did not apply to the Iguanodon page anymore, but didn't make much of difference to the article's structure anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A slightly confusing issue is that the AMNH skeleton has often been the basis for Brontosaurus/A. excelsus restorations, including Gertie the dinosaur and the famous Charles Knight painting, but that specimen is now referred to A. ajax. So what to do? Refer to them as Brontosaurus or Apatosaurus? Much of the culture section in this article refer to those, and they would therefore perhaps not be appropriate in the Brontosaurus article... FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually the new paper discusses this in some detail. They classify AMNH 460 as Apatosaurinae indet. sp. pending a full description (which was never done) but actually find slightly better support for it as excelsus rather than ajax. So the AMNH mount is probably Brontosaurus after all. I'd include it on the Brontosaurus page with a note that it may belong to a different species of apatosaurine. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
And wasn't Knight's painting done in 1897? The AMNH specimen was not found until 1898 and the mount was completed in 1905. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that my six year old would be pumped if a reference is made that the brontosaurus might be back. Overhere2000 (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the best news EVER for kids and former kids, at least in english speaking world to be sure. there will be kids books on this topic: "Brontosaurus is Back!", "Hooray for Brontosaurus!" the only better news would be pluto becoming a planet again, and even that is iffy on the excitoscale (after all it still exists)(Mercurywoodrose)108.94.1.23 (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (To Dinoguy) That makes sense, not sure about the image date. Seems we'll be tarred and feathered if we don't split off Brontosaurus under the genus name. Puzzled why there's no word of this on the DML yet... Could seem like the current FAC should be put on hold until we've untangled this... May be quite a bit more complicated than I first thought, due to all the specimens that have been rendered "indetermined" or have been referred elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Should the pop culture section maybe be cut entirely from this article? FunkMonk (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the Gould stuff is still relevant since it specifically discusses the Apato/Bronto saga. Distinct or not, those names will always be deeply historically entangled. The stuff about the AMNH mount can really be in both articles until they figure out what species it is. Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Whip-cracking tail claim

A user tagged this claim for citation, in the lead. I removed the tag, because the relevant main article section is cited. I'm more concerned about possible issues of WP:UNDUE weight and prominence given to this hypothesis in the lead, especially given the likelihood of damage to the whip-cracking tail. The claim does not seem to have been commented on or reviewed by peers within this speciality. Haploidavey (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"A". brontodiplodocus

Perhaps a few words to explain the matter? The name redirects to Apatosaurus, without any further mention or explanation. With such a curious taxon, the odd name, the number of specimens involved, a bit of explanation would be fitting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.196.204 (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Some years ago, some researchers released an unpublished paper where they attempted to synonymize species of Apatosaurus and Diplodocus as being different-aged individuals of a species of Amphicoelias. Personally, I think it should redirect to Amphicoelias and not Apatosaurus--Mr Fink (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't properly published (here's the article:[25]), it was some commercial venture to sell skeletons, so I'm not sure we can even mention it. I'm not sure, but I think most of the skeletons involved ("Apollonia", "Prince", "Twinky") ended up in a Singaporean museum:[26] Others ended elsewhere, and one at Dubai Mall ("Sleeping Beauty") was later labelled Diplodocus.[27] This one ("Einstein") was later labelled as Apatosaurus:[28] So it seems the describers backtracked when it turned out the skeletons were easier to sell when assigned to established taxa... And what the name redirects to depends on what the holotype is, so we'll have to wait for a proper description of that, if it ever happens (we can't expect much to happen with the specimen that ended up in the mall). The problem is that the "paper" synonymised Apatosaurus and Diplodocus (considered as sexual morphs) with Amphicoelias, which certainly didn't fly with anyone else. There was some nice discussion of the article here:[29][30] FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I have redirected the species name to Amphicoelias for now, and it seems it is actually already discussed in that article. But as for the strange history of what happened to the specimens, see this article[31], and this brochure[32] for how they were all later relabelled. "Probarodiplodocus" appears to be yet another name given to the "holotype" of "A". brontodiplodocus, DQ-BS, which is apparently also nicknamed "Apollonia"... "Misty"[33] at the Zoological Museum in Denmark is apparently also of this batch. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Error

In the image in the Discovery and Specific Error section:

BYU 17096 was collected from the Jurassic Morrison Formation of the Cactus Park BYU Quarry in western Colorado (Curtice and Wilhite, 1996) - source

"Einstein" (DQ-EN) was collected from the Dana Quarry site is located at the western edge of the Bighorn Mountains near the town of Ten Sleep in Washakie County, Wyoming (Galiano and Albersdörfer, 2011) - source

It cannot be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.242.60.83 (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Morrison, Colorado is in Jefferson County Colorado not Gunnison County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:CB03:613A:C130:B229:CB91:DDAE (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Images

I am getting considerable MOS:SANDWICHing on all screens, and suggest that some images should be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps double images could also be used here and in some of the other articles where it's a problem to circumvent it, I got fond of it over at Podokesaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/brontosaurus.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apatosaurus/Archive_1&oldid=1170750247"