[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

No Subject

I am very pleased to see the excellent work Michael has done to firmly 
elevate Giraffatitan to full genus status. 

I recently did a proverbial dope slap to the forehead when I realized that 
the Brachiosaur holotype dorsals have a very unusual medial rib articulation 
in which the parapophyses are set on strange goose neck peduncles not seen 
in other brachiosaurs or dinosaurs as far as I know. It is blazingly obvious 
yet no one noticed them over all the years. Had I done so in 88 I would 
have made Giraffatitan a full genus at the time. I have always suspected that 
it would become a genus at some point, my occasional not using the name since 
88 was simply because citing subgenera was not pertinent to the occasion. 

The Morrison Formation was deposited over 8 million years, species rarely 
last more than a few million years, and there is a lot of variation in the 
brachiosaur material, so it is nearly impossible for there to be just one 
taxon in the formation. The Garden Park skull is much younger than the B. alt
ithorax type and probably belongs to a different species or genus. There is 
some Giraffatitan like material in the Morrison. 

Mike's skeletal restoration of ye old Brachiosaurus is good, the only thing 
I might change is that the anterior dorsals may have been a little more 
elevated. I recently modified my classic Giraffatitan to give it a straight 
dorsal series (as per the B. altithorax type) which further elevates the 
shoulders making it even more giraffe like. It is good to se that Mike confirms 
the unusually small, rather mammalian tails of these brachiosaurs in contrast 
to some recent claims that they had more typically large sauropod caudal 
series. One thing that is disconcerting is that the hip and tail usually 
applied to the Giraffatitan holotype presacrals and limb material to make a 
complete G. brancai may be a different taxon.   

The one point where Mike errs is in the silly nonsense about Giraffatitan 
not being a fine name. Au contraire, it is perfectly apropos and superbly 
elegant like the animal itself, being the ideal title for the taxon, a name 
that cannot be improved upon. Brachiosaurus is nice enough but all it means is 
arm lizard, snort. If I do say so myself and I do, Giraffatitan brilliantly 
describes both the exceptional and rather nondinosaur giraffe like form of 
the type, as well as its immense size. That it ties the African sauropod to 
its closest living African analog is also excellent. The run of the mill and 
over used saurus ending is avoided. It's a short and punchy appellation with 
nothing obscure about it, and it is easy to say Giraffatitan brancai unlike 
some of the crappy names coming out these days (can anyone actually 
pronounce Futalognkosaurus? Should anyone have to?). I attribute Mike's 
failure in this regard to the diet on the British isles -- bangers and mash is 
fine fare but too much clogs up the cognition. It being my favorite 
dinosaur I gave a new name to brancai because of fears that someone else would 
apply some wimpy designation that would not capture the great and noble beast's 
full nature. I shudder to think what would have happened had I not done so, 
and can sleep well knowing that my brave and valiant naming of the Tendaguru 
monster will protect its taxonomic honor and all that is good and decent 
forever according to the inviolate ICZN rules.