Talk:Brachiosaurus

Untitled

Maybe the Jurassic Park snapshot should be placed further down the page and an illustrative drawing could take its place. Doesn't this break copyright restrictions by using a screenshot from a film, on a page not relating to the film itself?

Yes, we need a replacement. John.Conway 09:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. John.Conway 09:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

B. brancai is currently on a seperate page under Giraffatitan... Maybe it should be included in the taxobox species list with a question mark or something as well.Dinoguy2 13:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not that up on sauropods, but how well accepted is Giraffititan brancai? Looks to me like the conservative scientific consensus is with Brachiosaurus brancai - John.Conway 03:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Im not that intrested in sauropods that much but this article is on a seperate from the Giraffatitan. Maybe we should probaly put a sighn on Giraffatitan on the dinosaurs list. These could have been the same dinosaurs. --408.965.879.065.765.216.519.296.848.4 22:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Skull Photo

For all those who have worked hard on this article, I just wanted to say that it looks great. I would just like to add this photo because i think that it would be great addition to the article. Brachiosaurus is definitly my favorite sauropod, so by contributing it would mean a lot to me. If you think that it is inappropriate or not right in any way, please let me know as soon as possible or if you try to change. Thank you, and I hope it works out! --Jraffe0404 (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Cite sources of new research!

The more dramatic and/or controversial the research, the more important it is to cite it with a link. There have been edits made that claimed highly dubious research. I removed them after a cursory search for sources.

Massive copyedits and article cleanup

Worked on this today. Unfortunately, there's not a lot I can do about citations -- those need serious work if this article is to be brought up to featured status. Killdevil 23:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I removed two of the three external links because they didn't seem to be working. If they come back online, feel free to re-insert them. Matt Deres 01:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

picture?

Why picture has so extremely broadened neck?

To make room for all the muscles and guts that had to fit in there. The neck wasn't just bone ya know :) Dinoguy2 16:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the creature on the left just looks absolutely huge, I mean, almost unearthly; it dwarfs the brachiosaurus on the right.

The neck is restored with air sacs, as opposed to with empty hollows as became fashionable a few years back. And the animal on the right is a juvenile! John.Conway 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say that I think this is the most badass picture of a Brachiosaurus I've ever seen. :) -- 67.183.218.185 05:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

it looks like it would topple over —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.171.115 (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Good thing the air sacs mentioned above were filled with air and not lead ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

To the person who said "it looks like it would topple over", its bones are hollow like a bird's, a human has a better chance of toppling over than a brachiosaur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.153.240 (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, is the brachiosaur on the top left really a juvenile? Good lord, these things were massive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.153.240 (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

reorganizing into headings

Tricky here - usually nice to have a bit of an intro but this one is quite long. Also, heading 'paleobiology is used elsewhere.... Cas Liber 03:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that brachiosaurus was a warm-blooded animal like with anyother dinosaur because it grew fast, and not even gigantotherming helped them grow to full adult size in 10 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslan10000 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Brachiosaurus nougaredi

im not sure about the dates for Brachio nougaredi (100 to 110mya) Ive been reading a peper by LAPPARENT (THE DINOSAURS OF THE “CONTINENTAL INTERCALAIRE” OF THE CENTRAL SAHARA)where he talks about it being in the jurassic? It was written in 1960 so maybe more evidence has come to light?

Quotes form the paper 'The genus Brachiosaurus is only known up to now from the Upper Jurassic(Lusitanian-Kimmeridgian-Portlandian). However, it is to this level that the layers where it was found should undoubtedly be referred: they are stratigraphically older than the In Akhamil series attributed to the Lower Cretaceous, and they have revealed a Jurassic flora [Boureau and Gaillon, 1958].'

'The discovery of Brachiosaurus in the Taouratine beds, which it seems must well be attributed to the Jurassic, evokes the dinosaur discoveries made at Tendaguru in the Upper Jurassic. Unfortunately, for the moment we do not have other elements from the Taouratine series to make comparisons.'Steveoc 86 22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This site http://www.users.qwest.net/~jstweet1/sauropoda.htm puts it in the Albian-early Cenomanian like in the artical, and http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Jun/msg00382.html sais a similar time, am i misreading the paper?? Steveoc 86 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur

• Don't you think we should include a notice that there was a Brachiosaurus named Emma in Dinosaur? Pahrak bionicle lover 06:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Now done, in Extinct animals in popular culture#Brachiosaurus. Anthony Appleyard 07:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Whoops, not Emma, huh? Sorry! Pahrak bionicle lover 02:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

um the brach in the dino movie is named bailine

Size comparison

I guess I must have missed this if it was on Image Review, but the size comparison is way too large. With it's neck in that position, Brach should only be about 12m tall. This one looks over 14. I think the problem is that the length of 25 m was applied to a reconstruction with the neck in an upward position--if I'm not mistaken, the 25m is the total length if the neck were to be outstreatched completely forward. For that pose, I'd scale it by height rather than length. Dinoguy2 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the silhouette either. -- John.Conway 13:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

im not happy with the neck pose, i dont know of a study that sais what brachiosaurus raised neck limmit is,(due to imcomplete vertebra?) however there is one this one that sais is neutral pose [1]. Steveoc 86 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

-the problem with the scale picture is that the brachiosaur is not actually 82 feet in that picture....its actually closer to 65 feet. Thus the scale is off.

The actual size chart seems a bit off, both the neck and tail are too short, Mike Taylor's reconstruction of the holotype of B. altithorax (so far the only recontruction of the species) is ~25m in length, 6m body, 9m neck, 9m tail and ~0.7m head. What we have in the chart is has a ~7neck, 6m body and 7m tail which puts the overall length at ~21m, even smaller than G. brancai holotype, I can't even reason why it has a 7m neck, G. brancai size chart here has an ~8m neck, so it also has a small neck, because both animals neck length are estimated at 9m. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Pop culture section

The pop culture section of this article is pretty poor. It's neither informative nor structured very well. I removed it once already, but it's been re-added. I think until something properly structured can be written, it should be left out. — John.Conway 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have it left in. Whenever the dinosaur collaboration team chooses Brachiosaurus for improving in preparation for FA, it would be nice to have a popular culture text to work from, instead of having to write every word from scratch. Even if the section contains material of a trivial nature, it's better to at least have a section that can be improved an expanded upon than no section at all; additionally, this pop culture section is written in a more formal tone than it would be once some anon IP notices there's no pop culture section and starts listing all the Brachiosaurus appearances on The Transformers. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

the problem with the scale picture is that the brachiosaur is not actually 82 feet in that picture....its actually closer to 65 feet. The scale is off thus.

Is that the length or the height, and, if the length, is that taking into account the neck and other "up" parts of the animal? J. Spencer 18:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, you would haveto take those body parts into consideration when it applies to length.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Posture

It seems that paleontologists have now given all sauropods except Brachiosaurus a horizontal, neck at shoulder level, posture. What evidence is there that suggests that Brachiosaurus stood like a modern day giraffe instead of adopting the same posture as all of the other sauropods are thought to have stood? (143.246.219.162 (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

Well, if you look at the relevant studies, the neck of Brachiosaurus should be pretty much horizontal coming off the body as well. The difference is that the torso of Brach is also on an angle, due to the short back legs. So even though the neck is straight, it still comes off the body at about a 45 degree angle. The swan-like neck posture seen in Jurassic Park and in the mounted taxobox skeleton are probably wrong. The illustration of B. altithorax halfway down the page has its neck at about maximum upward flex, according to those studies. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The neck vertebra of Brachio are incomplete, the top halfs are missing. This means that it's difficult right now to be certain of how the neck naturally articulates (the nuetral pose) and how much range of motion it has. The studies Dinoguy mentioned have come to the conclution that it probably articulated in an inverted U shape that comes straight of the shoulders. The angle of the neck in this pose is dependant on how the back articulates. If the back is staightish the neck is raised higher, if the back has a slight curve the neck might be angled lower. How high or low the neck can go from the nuetral pose is dependant on the missing parts of the vertebra. Also to add to the trouble brachio has long cervical (neck) ribs which might stiffen the neck depending on if they are rigid or flexible. This is one of the studies that favors horrizontal: [2]. Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Taylor et al. (2009) (PDF and plenty of additional info here: http://svpow.wordpress.com/papers-by-sv-powsketeers/taylor-et-al-2009-on-neck-posture/), as well as some stuff that I have to dig up, IIRC by Christian and Dzembski, make a very strong case that the studies by Stevens & Parrish as cited above are too restrictive. I can add something about the controversy around mid-September. HMallison (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

taxonomy

(I guess a separate section for this is in order)HMallison (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Forgive me if I'm wrong, but, since there's debate as to whether or not 'B.' brancai even BELONGS in Brachiosaurus, wouldn't it be more prudent to get up a pic of B. altithorax as the main article picture? Or doesn't that matter? Dinosaur bob (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there are any mounted skeletons of B. altithorax. If and when Giraffatitan is accepted as a valid genus (and from what I hear there's a paper in the works now making a case for separation), it's going to do to Brachiosaurus what Citipati did for Oviraptor--almost everything that's been done on it is going to be transfered over, including all the well-known images. Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan don't look that much alike, especially in the skull. This article will be left with only one or two pictures, so we can worry about all that later ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read the upcoming paper, and so have people at the Berlin museum. Until it is formally published we will not comment. However, as soon as it is officially out, I will add comments here. Personally, I think the case for separation is pretty strong. The museum's reaction, whether they will change the name or not, I cannot predict now.

Therefore, we should let this sleep until the Taylor paper is officially out. HMallison (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The paper is officially out: Here's a pdf [3]. Looks like a pretty solid case to me. Taylor notes on his [blog] that the differences between Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan are greater than those between Diplodocus and Barosaurus, at least. Apparently every comparable element between the two species shows significant differences in proportion and/or morphology. If that's not generic distinction I don't know what is. Interested to hear the museum's reaction, as this is obviously a big issue for their centerpiece... well, the plaques at least. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, is this it? Seems like the article has to be split then, there was already a Giraffatitan article which could be reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giraffatitan&diff=121918673&oldid=119164161 FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

yeah, this is it, and the way I read this and have been reading it since I received it ages ago the case is very solid indeed. So Giraffatitan goes elsewhere, but there should be a section here detailing the history. After all, 99% of all laypeople will come here for the Berlin mount. HMallison (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So, shouldn't we be resurrecting the ''Giraffititan'' article then? (I don't know how.) John.Conway (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That was done on the day of publication I think, see Giraffatitan. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

John was clicking on Giraff-I-titan instead of Giraff-A-titan Which untill a few minutes ago was redirecting to brachiosaurus. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Brachiosaurus sp.

In the redescription of the Felch Quarry skull, it is assigned to Brachiosaurus sp.

Should that species be mentioned in the taxobox, even though it will probably never be known wether it belongs to altithorax?

Also, according to the paper, it was only the drawn skeletal restoration[4] of Brontosaurus that Marsh made that used Brachiosaurus sp. elements, not the mount. FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Taylor refer it to B. altithorax in the new paper? Or am I misremembering? Right about the mount though, I was about to upload a cropped picture of the mount skull and label it Brachiosaurus when I noticed it's quite different... Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, in the caption to the new skeletal the skull is mentioned as altithorax, but in a slide from a talk he made in Berlin, he stated that all material referred to altithorax is dubious:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Still, I think for the taxobox we need to draw a distinction between sp. as in unnamed possibly new species that's probably distinct and sp. as in we don't know which of the several species it belongs or if it's new, to due to incomplete specimens. I think the former belongs in the taxobox (i.e Citipati sp., Sinornithosaurus sp.), the later not (i.e. Brachiosaurus sp., Velociraptor sp.) but maybe others have different opinions. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that, just didn't realise there was a distinction. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this it? [6] --Dragon Helm (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure looks like it. Agh, too bad, I once uploaded some pictures from that site to Commons (the author claims they're free to use), but it turned out that the license wasn't compatible (not specific about them being free to use for commercial purposes or for everything). FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Found a free photo on Flickr with the skull in it, it's a pretty blurry photo, but it's better than nothing. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If the image is needed for the expansion at some point, I can probably touch it up in Photoshop so it isn't so blurry and out of focus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Total re-write / makeover needed

This article has suffered badly, especially from the separation from Giraffatitan. I have found many places where , and lots of stuff is there twice, often in adjoining sentences. The overall structure is also not quite at the level it should be.

Is there anyone willing to cooperate on a total re-design to get this thing up to a more tolerable level?

Also, please list problems and missing stuff here. HMallison (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Things to alter

Here, I'll list things that I notice to be sub-standard; please feel free to add more or comment on those I name. I welcome suggestions on how to improve them all!

• Language: the level fluctuates wildly.
• structure: the various sections and sub-sections are not at equal importance to each other. Their order is also counterintuitive; Giraffatitan should either be a separate section, or the last section in the "Discovery and Species" section.
• size: size is such a dominating aspect of the article that everything else seems to be of only secondary improtance. Additionally, some of the stuff on size is speculative, and comments on the genus 'formerly being on of the largest' etc. are partly false, partly totally irrelevant. Also, duplicate bits.
• Metabolism: outdated, language and style abyssmal, incomplete, badly sourced
• Environment and behaviour: highly speculative, unsourced, a hardly interconnected assemblage of ?fact statements. HMallison (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that most of what's been written about Brachiosaurus has really been about the Tendaguru material, not the holotype. With Giraffatitan gone there's not much left to say that's not a generalization about 'brachiosaurs'. Additionally, it's often hard to tell whether an author is is talking about B. or G. when they don't specify the species, so the research to spruce this article up will be pretty intensive. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Not as much as you think, at least for me - I am a vertebrate paleontologist working on sauropodomorphs :) But I can't do it all, and any help is welcome! You are exactly correct that smuch was about G., not B., but this doesn't mean that we should not keep it. In contrast, wild speculations about sauropods and dinosaurs in general should not be kept. So if you have any material on either topic, please add it! HMallison (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Certainly one for the Department of Redundancy Department. I'll definitely be on hand for repairs. J. Spencer (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I can patch up grammar and clarity... once the article is in decent shape. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Great! I'll get started collecting papers and so on on Tuesday, so that we can set up a rough draft by the end of the week. I'll put that on my wiki page for discussion, first. HMallison (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Draft page for re-write is here: Talk:Brachiosaurus/DraftReWriteHMallison (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Has it actually been created, or will it be created at a later date? It's a redlink. Either way, thanks in advance for your work. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Works now. I'll help if I can, I think I'm partially responsible for messing the page up after the Giraffatitan split, removed alot of stuff, without rewriting or substituting it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Took a while, my DSL was down a few minutes. A rough structure suggestion is there, and I created sections as repositories for pics, refs, etc for now. I hope this makes large-scale editing of the text easier than it was with Plateosaurus. ANY input is VERY WELCOME!HMallison (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

btw, I am up to rewriting Giraffatitan, too: Talk:Giraffatitan/DraftReWrite. Again, any help is highly appreciated! HMallison (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinks for anatomical terms

I am placing a link to anatomical terms of location every time I use a temr that is not familiar to most people for the first time, even though all the temrs are linked to the same wiki article. I do not feel that a link at first use of one term is sufficient, because that would require people to scroll around on the page a lot - provided they realize that 'distal' is an anatomical temr and the correct link might be found for 'anterior' furhter up.HMallison (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that anatomical terms never be used unless absolutely necessary, and then they should be followed with an explanation in parentheses as well as a link. Wikipedia is meant to be understood by laymen, and even a few years ago I would have given up on this article even after having read the DML for years. I can't think of many situations where "distal dorsal vertebra" can't simply be replaced with "rear back vertebra", etc. MMartyniuk (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point - I'll try to add simpler terms in parentheses. However, simply using simple terms only is not an ideal solution, because they are often ambiguous. This is, after all, not SimpleWiki ;) HMallison (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Metabolism: elswhere?

While then-Brachiosaurus brancai was an guinea pig used for many calculations of sauropod metabolism, I think it may be better to debate the topic elsewhere, e.g., in the Sauropoda article. Here, we could just mention the results (there is a consensus in paleontology, which differs from that among physiologists), and that's that. Opinions? HMallison (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with that. John Foster may have some North American Brach-specific paleoecological information in one of his Morrison volumes (NMMNH&S Bull 23 and Jurassic West); I'll have to check. J. Spencer (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Description and paleobiology

Thank you, J. Spencer, for starting this! I'll have some stuff to add on the neck mobility (my own paper, e.g.), some minor stuff on size, and a few words on procreation - much will be short recaps and a pointer to the Sauropoda article (where more work is waiting for me). HMallison (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I will probably be available only for short periods of time early this week, so I won't be adding as much in the immediate future. J. Spencer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinking in general

May I suggest we do NOT wikilink anything at this time? The text is in such a raw state right now that most parts will have to be moved up or down later on anyways, which may mean that we will need to remove links and replace them higher up later on. Let's do the linking once the text is pretty much done, when we move the refs, too. HMallison (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do (or will not do!) (that's pretty confusing, actually - I will do as you suggested, which means I won't wikilink) J. Spencer (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding already improved sections

Since it will probably take quite a while to overhaul the entire article, would it be acceptable to add the sections that have already been improved to the current article already? In any event, it is a better placeholder than what we have now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, work and family have been a chaos for nearly 3 months now :( I promise to put this at the top of the agenda again. HMallison (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all, I think we all understand if you have to postpone it for a long time (wellbeing of your family and your contributions to real life paleontology are a bit more important than Wiki after all), was just wondering if you would have anything against us adding the sections already improved to the current article? FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, without editing anything much. If anyone (J. Spencer?) wants to have a go at it, be my guest ;) HMallison (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have some time coming up, so I think I'll have a look. J. Spencer (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Article is nice now! Shouldn't the invalid species section of the taxobox be restricted to the main text? The species aren't exactly invalid, but rather reassigned... FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, invalid isn't the right term, taxonomically speaking. Usually reclassified species are discussed in the text, sometimes in huge tables like on Pterodactylus. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

extinct species category

I really believe this belongs here.--FifthCylon (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nesting categories - Brachiosaurus is in a few dinosaur categories, which nest into prehistoric animal categories, which nest into extinct animal categories. If we wanted to, it could have dozens of categories, but it's been the practice to put articles into the smallest-scale categories that are applicable, and let the nesting categories take care of the higher categories. Also, to be technical, it's not a species (it's a genus). J. Spencer (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And now?

So we've now got a snazzy rebuilt article. I'm satisfied that it touches on about everything you can get for Brachiosaurus without going into speculation or stretching general references. What now? Is there any desire to try for laurels of some form? If so, I'd be happy go through it some more, and also beef up the lede a bit (judging by article size, it could stand another paragraph). I am going to be out for the next couple of days, though. Also, I'm willing to run interference during a candidacy, although I should note that I haven't done one for a while. J. Spencer (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

1. A noble sentiment. I second this motion. Vaxine19 (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Nostril placement

Doesn't everything in that section refer to G. brancai? It is rather misplaced here, since no skull is really known of B. altithorax. FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

I'd like to point out a grammatical error in the executive summary of this page:

"It has been used as an example of a dinosaur that was most likely ectothermic due to its large size and the corresponding need for forage, but more recent research finds it to have been warm-blooded."

ought to read:

" It had been used as an example of a dinosaur that was most likely ectothermic due to its large size and the corresponding need for forage, but more recent research finds it to have been warm-blooded."

Cheers,
Vaxine19 (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)