Talk:Giraffatitan

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

Concensus[edit]

The text here says that only GSP and George Olshevsky use Giraffatitan in the literature. I don't think that forms the conservative scientific consensus. This article should be merged with Brachiosaurus until we have some sort of consensus that brancai isn't Brachiosaurus. (Ignore all this if there is newer literature supporting Giraffatitan.) John.Conway 16:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text does also mention the skull, which lends credence to the idea that they are separate genera. I guess, as always, it comes down to lumpers vs. splitters. I think it has been the general policy here to keep separate articles for names which have not been conclusively proved to be junior synonyms, or whose synonomy is still debated. "Wyomingraptor", which as far as I know is only proposed by Bakker, has its own article. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's original research -- we ourselves should avoid having to be lumpers or splitters on the Wikipedia (though I concede that it's sometimes necessary for us to use our own judgment). The problem is that the Giraffatitan specimens are really famous as Brachiosaurus, and have been called that for decades in thousands of books, papers and pictures. One (fringe) researcher isn't enough to justify splitting the article, George Olshevsky's Mesozoic Meanaderings is not a peer-reviewed journal, and certainly doesn't justify the treatment it gets in the Brachiosaurus article. GSP in his peer-reviewed paper had it as a subgenus of Brachiosaurus. So, as far as I know, Giraffatitan has never been erected as a genus in the scientific literature. I think people just like the sound of Giraffatitan. John.Conway 08:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind a merge at this time, since as John points out, it hasn't yet made it into the literature as something people take seriously (and it was proposed as a subgenus anyway). I keep it as separate at my place because I believe it probably is, but such a view is hardly the consensus at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if a sauropod worker makes the case for a separation in the next few years, or at least publishes a detailed analysis of the question; the thing that's been holding back research is the fact that historically, Morrison brach material is not that common. 90% of everything that's been written about Brachiosaurus is about the African material anyway. J. Spencer 13:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree--I was actually trying to follow up on this last week. The new Brach skull from north america probably makes a good case for splitting, but that case has not really been made in print yet and gained wide acceptance. So, I vote for a redirect to Brachiosaurus with modifications to that article. We can always bring this one back later when it (probably inevitably, from what I've been reading on the DML and such) gains wider acceptance as a valid genus. Dinoguy2 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...yeah. I tend to like the idea of 'merging mainly because of the knowledge being so enmeshed, but not strongly..cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XV2[edit]

Most of the size estimates for Giraffatitan have used the Berlin skeleton (HM SII), since it is so complete. Giraffatitan definitely got significantly bigger, though: HM XV2 is a G. fibula that is 12% longer than that of HM SII. Also, HM SII is probably not fully grown. See Matt Wedel's post [here.

I'm not sure how much of this should be in the article, but we should at least mention that HM XV2 exists and came from a bigger animal than HM SII.

Re-write / re-structuring[edit]

This article shares many (negative) parallels with brachiosaurus, some of which can be fixed easily. Others, however, mean a total re-write. Any volunteers to help me? HMallison (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page for draft of re-write: Talk:Giraffatitan/DraftReWrite HMallison (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Giraffatitan split was critisised in the paper describing Abydosaurus, so shouldn't we mentioned that it might not be the consensus? FunkMonk (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - I haven't gotten around to reading that. However, lots of people love to critizise a lot of stuff in passing; the Taylor et al. paper makes a good case.... go figure...HMallison (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Taylor has the fitting reply here:
[[1]]
'nuff said. HMallison (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While looking for old photos in my collection I could upload, I found this[2] of a Giraffatitan femur in Berlin, but I'm not sure if the second bone is a smaller femur or an arm bone. Can anyone identify before I upload and label it, MWAK, Jens Lallensack, IJReid? FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah both are femora. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The plural Oberschenkelknochen is a dead give-away of course ;o). The smaller bone looks strange because it has been eroded and distorted. An alternative explanation might be that it isn't Giraffatitan. Indeed humerus and femur are often difficult to tell apart, as shown by the original Brachiosaurus find.--MWAK (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Giraffatitan femora
Thanks, yeah, I saw the sign, but I thought it only referred to the first bone (my German grammar isn't so sharp anymore), and that I had not gotten a second sign into the frame when I took the photo. Anyhow, here's the image, which could come in handy if this article is expanded one day... I also uploaded this close up of the mounted hand:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My German ain't so sharp either as Knochen may be both singular and plural... Well, it used to be just Knoche.--MWAK (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Giraffatitan" is not used by the majority of scientists.[edit]

It's okay with me with a Giraffatitan article. It should however be more concise in the lead sentence that it's not approved by the majority of the scientists. One of the article's sources Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages page 32 writes: "Giraffatitan. Considered a species of Brachiosaurus by most palaeontologists", the web page from the German museum with the exhibited "Giraffatitans" describes them as Brachiosaurus brancai The World of Dinosaurs. The current article's jaunty claim "It was originally named as an African species of Brachiosaurus (B. brancai)." isn't so cast-iron as it looks. It should be something like: "It is a proposed name of the African species of Brachiosaurus (B. brancai) by Dr. this[1] and Dr. that[2]. However the majority of the palaeontologists does not concur." Furthermore it should be written as Brachiosaurus (Giraffatitan) brancai in the text to help unaware readers. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please check your facts, and in fact read the article and discussion page, before you make statement like the above.
- the section right before this should show you that a huge rewrite is happening - I know it is taking long, but that's life. In fact, Brachiosaurus and Sauropoda need some fixing first, which is ongoing.
- it is nice to cite an outdated source, one that by its very character (a laypeople's guide). However, as a student of geology, you should know that these types of artciles are usually outdated, and as the article clearly shows, the relevant taxonomic reassessment happened in 2009 (Taylor 2009), while your soruce is from 2008.
- have you ever heard of web pages going outdated, especially those of underfunded government entities (e.g., museums)?
- Demanding that an incorrect taxonomy be used to 'help unaware readers' means dumbing things down to the level of inexactness because of what? Because people are too stupid to read? it does not reflect well on you if you think wikipedia should only be written for the imbeciles. HMallison (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any info on whether the museum labels in Berlin are going to be changed to Giraffatitan? FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit difficult for Tom Holtz to have 2009 information in a book he wrote before 2009. This is relatively recent research, for the most part. It wouldn't make sense to say "Fruitadens is a proposed genus of heterodontosaurid" because it was only named in 2010 and hasn't yet reached wide circulation, and instead call it the "Fruita Echinodon" because that was its nickname for years, would it? J. Spencer (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone seems to have accepted Taylor's work. Daniel Chure et al. published in February 2010 an article First complete sauropod dinosaur skull from the Cretaceous of the Americas and the evolution of sauropod dentition and on page 380 they believe that Giraffatitan isn't "sufficiently justified at present". These four authors are not the "majority of scientists" but it creates doubt whether Wikipedia's transition is prematurely. Some kind of official statement from the iczn.org/ might be useful. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and again, RTF discussion page.

QUOTE:

The Giraffatitan split was critisised in the paper describing Abydosaurus, so shouldn't we mentioned that it might not be the consensus? FunkMonk (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - I haven't gotten around to reading that. However, lots of people love to critizise a lot of stuff in passing; the Taylor et al. paper makes a good case.... go figure...HMallison (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Taylor has the fitting reply here:
[[4]]
'nuff said. HMallison (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/QUOTE

Obviously, this can be mentioned, but if you actually RTFP (read the fucking paper), you will see that the authors do not present any evidence at all that Taylor 2009 is wrong. Basically, they just say they don't want to follow. If they had read Taylor 2009, they would have noted that in fact, the degree of difference (at least one big thin in each freaking bone) is bigger than between, e.g., Diplodocus and Barosaurus. Thus, they are actually shown wrong, because even smaller differences have historically typically been used to split genera. Think as you will, but to me Chure et al. 2010's "decision" is certainly not a level adequate for wikipedia. HMallison (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History has shown that there sometimes are two schools of scientists, who interpret the same observations differently. In this case there could be the Taylor school, and the non-Taylor school. HMallison is a defender of the Taylor school but the German museum he belongs to (with B/G brancai) does not recognize Taylor’s work. Even the most cash strapped museum could easily change the word ”Brachiosaurus” to ”Giraffatitan” on its web page. It should be possible to argue without using swearwords. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History has also shown that researchers very close to finishing work are often unwilling to dump half their work and incorporate new evidence. One might actually RTF and think for oneself, or one can pull the 'equal time' arugment. However, the simple fct is that thus far, nobody has critizised the conent of Taylor 2009. You can speculate about future acceptabce all you want, but currently, Taylor 2009 is the name of the game.
And whether or not a museum changes a wepb page depends indeed not ony a few bucks, but actually on having quite a lot of bucks to pay personell to do it. The MFN does NOT have web admins or other people paid for continuously updating the web page. Thus, your second argument is moot to begin with. In fact, the responsible people at the MFN are considering renaming - but bureaucracies take forever to ge anything done.
Also, as you hopefully continue your education in paleontology, you'll come to realize that "read the fucking paper" is a well known and standard expression, and that it has nothing to do with swearing. HMallison (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any consensus will emerge until good phylogentic studies are done to show that brancai is/isn't closer to altithorax than to other brachiosaurids. Right now, the only relevant paper that exists argues that brancai is a separate genus. In paleo right now, this seems to be the only working definition of "genus". Chure et a. isn't relevant because they didn't present a counter argument, just an unsubstantiated opinion. The "consensus" right now is that brancai is separate, if you can call a single paper less than 12 months old (so new that even if people have opposing arguments there's no practical way they could have been published yet) a consensus. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is the vertpaleo and the dinosaur mailing lists - both FAILED to elict reasonable counter arguments. Yes, that is not published science, but if there was any major flaw in Taylor 2009 it is highly likely the list would have mentioned it. HMallison (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Daniela Schwarz-Wings from Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin sends me an e-mail, stating that they recognized Dr. Taylor's work BUT they will follow the debate in the scientific community closely before they will rename their brachiosaurs. IMO Wikipedia should do the same.
I assume that HMallison understands German. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do, but others do not and this is en.wikipedia.org. Aside from that, I wrote
QUOTE: the responsible people at the MFN are considering renaming /QUOTE
as Daniel still does, thank you very much. As Daniela pointed out,
QUOTE: bis jetzt auch hauptsächlich Anerkennung gefunden. /QUOTE
So the fact that the museum will wait a while to see if there are fact-supported opposing view published, and how the scientific community accepts Taylor's work means exactly nothing for wikipedia. Or do you suggest we use the reaction of a museum, which is generally positive but delays acting for a while tog et more feedback, to peer-reviewed science? Hey, let's use the Creation Museum as our proper guideline! LOL ROFL!
btw, your claim that QUOTE: the majority of the palaeontologists does not concur/QUOTE is simply wrong. Of the few papers in question that I have seen (published, accepted, in review), the vast majority DOES use G., and specifically points to Taylor 2009 for the renaming.

HMallison (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giraffatitan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sesotho[edit]

Telecommunication Technician — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.207.45 (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Giraffatitan&oldid=1200806997"