[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Brontosaurus compromise
Ken Kinman wrote:
Well, for those of you who really want to use the name Brontosaurus,
you certainly could use it as a subgenus: Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus)
A big name for a big dinosaur. It doesn't go as far as Bakker might
like, but it's better than no Brontosaurus at all.
Unfortunately, I think we'll have to get used to the demise of the name
_Brontosaurus_. The type species of _Brontosaurus_ (_B. excelsus_) is very
similar to the type species of _Apatosaurus_ (_A. ajax_). In fact, rather
than splitting the two into separate genera (or subgenera -usually not done
for fossil vertebrates), it is more likely that the two would be combined
into a single species. As Jack McIntosh has pointed out on many an
occasion, the two species are indistinguishable based upon the described
material - apart from the fact that _A. ajax_ is bigger than _A. excelsus_.
(There is some very large _A. excelsus_ material that may invalidate this.)
_A. ajax_ also lived later in time.
Bakker (1998) argues that the genus _Brontosaurus_ should not be
sunk into _Apatosaurus_. He bases this principally on a new skull which he
refers to _B. excelsus_; it shows a few substantial differences compared to
the skull referred to _A. ajax_. However, this skull has yet to be
described, and the reasoning behind its referral to _A. excelsus_ has never
been published by Bakker (AFAIK).
_A. louisae_, on the other hand, is a good species and is readily
distinguishable from _A. ajax_ and _A. excelsus_.
Bakker, R. T. (1998). Dinosaur Mid-Life Crisis: The Jurassic-Cretaceous
Transition in Wyoming and Colorado," in Lucas, Kirkland, and Estep, J. W.,
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com