Talk:Apatosaurus

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)." 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.

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)

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 [4]. From Ask A Biologist: [5]

• 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: [6]. 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)

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)

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! [7]. 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)

• Why not, I ask? J. Spencer (talk) 01:24, 8 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":

• O. C. Marsh. 1877. Notice of new dinosaurian reptiles from the Jurassic formation. American Journal of Science and Arts 14:514-516 - Names genus, A. ajax, and A. grandis (later Camarasaurus grandis)
• O. C. Marsh. 1878. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs. Part I. American Journal of Science and Arts 16:411-416 - move A. grandis to Morosaurus
• O. C. Marsh. 1879. Notice of new Jurassic reptiles. American Journal of Science and Arts 18:501-505 - names genus Brontosaurus and B. excelsus
• O. C. Marsh. 1879. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs. Part II. American Journal of Science, Series 3 17:86-92 - more description of Apatosaurus, some plates
• O. C. Marsh. 1881. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs. Part V. The American Journal of Science and Arts, series 3 21:417-423 - more description of Brontosaurus, names B. amplus
• O. C. Marsh. 1883. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs. Part VI. Restoration of Brontosaurus. The American Journal of Science and Arts, series 3 26:81-85 - first reconstruction of Brontosaurus (not same as described above)
• O. C. Marsh. 1891. Restoration of Triceratops. The American Journal of Science and Arts, series 3 41:339-342 - second restoration of Brontosaurus, this time with the Brachiosaurus skull
• O. C. Marsh. 1895. On the affinities and classification of the dinosaurian reptiles. American Journal of Science 50(300):483-498 - classification
• O. C. Marsh. 1896. The dinosaurs of North America. United States Geological Survey, 16th Annual Report, 1894-95 55:133-244 - big-arse file
• O. C. Marsh. 1898. On the families of sauropodous Dinosauria. Geological Magazine, decade 4 3:157-158 - Marsh's sauropod classification
• O. A. Peterson and C. W. Gilmore. 1902. Elosaurus parvus: a new genus and species of the Sauropoda. Annals of Carnegie Museum 1:490-499 - names Elosaurus
• Riggs, Elmer S. (1903). "Structure and Relationships of Opisthocoelian Dinosaurs. Part I, Apatosaurus Marsh". Publications of the Field Columbian Museum Geological Series (2): 165–196. - Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus as synonyms
• Holland, W. 1915. Heads and tails: a few notes relating to the structure of the sauropod dinosaurs. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 9:273-278 - the skull rears its ugly head (also on Google Books)
• Holland, W. 1915. A new species of Apatosaurus. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 10:143-145-278 - names A. lousiae
• C. W. Gilmore. 1936. Osteology of Apatosaurus, with special reference to specimens in the Carnegie Museum. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 11(4):175-300 - apparently not online.
• D. S. Berman and J. S. McIntosh. 1978. Skull and relationships of the Upper Jurassic sauropod Apatosaurus (Reptilia, Saurischia). Bulletin of Carnegie Museum of Natural History 8:1-35 - the skull once and for all; the good news is, I made a scan, the bad news is, it's 31 mb and could be better
• J. S. McIntosh. 1990. Species determination in sauropod dinosaurs with tentative suggestions for their classification. In K. Carpenter and P. J. Currie (eds.), Dinosaur Systematics: Perspectives and Approaches, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 53-69 - Google Books has this minus four pages J. Spencer (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"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)

"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)