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

RE: The skinny on Apato versus Brontosaurus

While I think your pessimism regarding the referral of non-articulated 
Apatosaurus specimens is unwarranted, and find the current trend of "rebooting" 
old species based on neotypes to be lazy, we can both agree these holotypes 
need to be redescribed.  Based on how many of Marsh's and Cope's sauropods have 
had their types redescribed in the last century (er... none?), I unfortunately 
find your estimate of decades to be realistic or even optimistic.  By that 
time, there may not be anyone left alive who remembers when even outdated 
childrens' books used Brontosaurus.  Without the nostalgic/romantic impetus, I 
doubt such a big deal will be made of Brontosaurus' possible validity.

Mickey Mortimer

> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:17:31 -0400
> From: GSP1954@aol.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: The skinny on Apato versus Brontosaurus
> Alas 20375 is not an articulated specimen, and may include pieces of
> camarasaurs or even multiple species of apatosaurs from the same quarry. The
> apatosaur stuff from high in the Morrison is a mess. And with the problems 
> with
> the specimens on hands, it is not possible to reliably recontruct the
> phylogeny of apatosaurs. As we all know, the results of cladograms shift 
> around and
> about all the time. So they are of limited use in determining genera. And
> as I mentioned, the types of Apat and Bront have never been properly
> described. What needs to be done is to do the work on the types and see how 
> things
> work out. It may then may be better to reboot with by dropping Apatosaurus in
> favor of Brontosaurus based on most of one individual. Which would have the
> advantage of reviving a popular name. Or maybe not. Let's wait and see
> (which could be decades).
> GSPaul
> In a message dated 4/29/13 8:16:53 PM, mickey_mortimer111@msn.com writes:
> << now that we have associated specimens with th
> e same character distribution (e.g. NSMT-PV 20375), >>
> </HTML>