Talk:Apatosaurus

Template:Vital article

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

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[1]. 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).[2] 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[3], and the headless specimen we have a photo of.[4] FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just for ease, the papers recommended by Mike.

• Marsh 1879: http://marsh.dinodb.com/marsh/Marsh%201879%20-%20Principle%20characters%20of%20American%20Jurassic%20dinosaurs,%20Part%20II.pdf
• Marsh 1893: http://marsh.dinodb.com/marsh/Marsh%201883%20-%20Principle%20characters%20of%20American%20Jurassic%20dinosaurs%20-%20Part%20VI%20-%20restoration%20of%20Brontosaurus.pdf
• Marsh 1891: http://marsh.dinodb.com/marsh/Marsh%201891%20-%20Restoration%20of%20Triceratops%20(and%20Brontosaurus).pdf
• Riggs 1903: http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/Riggs-1903_Structure%20and%20relationships%20of%20opisthocoelian%20dinosaurs.%20Part%20I.%20Apatosaurus%20Marsh.pdf

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:[5] 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.[6] 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:[7] 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"[8]? 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
• 
  UWGM 155656 parvus
• 
  FMNH P25112 sp
• 
  FMNH P25112 sp
• 
  FMNH P25112 sp
• 
  unidentified
• 
  unidentified
• 
  OMNH
• 
  unidentified
• 
  BYU 17096
• 
  CMNH 3018 louisae
• 
  NSMT-PV 20375 ajax
• 
  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?[9] 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.[10] 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)

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[11], 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[12] and [13] I think. Here's an abstract that could probably be cited, IJReid:[14] 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[15] 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/enwiki/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[16] 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)

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)