Post ARbRrWA9BKSmUdcTrs by keesey@sauropods.win
(DIR) More posts by keesey@sauropods.win
(DIR) Post #ARZSNlTrNQLex3ITBY by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-12T15:22:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
On the subject of sexual dimorphism in #dinosaurs #sexualdimorphism
(DIR) Post #ARZgf8xcjLcI3SOq8W by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-12T18:02:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
No replies! The argument carries.
(DIR) Post #ARZxmWaD03f0Z9YKno by llewelly@sauropods.win
2023-01-12T21:14:07Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@john Congratulations!Suggested paper title: "Attacking Basal Little Iguanodontians Nobody Cares About: A Promising New Approach to the Problem of Too Many Dinosaur Genera"Abstract: "Beginning in 1913, Riggs battled valiantly and long against Brontosaurus. Yet ultimately he failed. In this paper we ..."
(DIR) Post #ARaMCDSh725Dgwp064 by llewelly@sauropods.win
2023-01-12T23:47:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john on second thought, I hope this attempt at a joke isn't too mean.
(DIR) Post #ARaMCDvlMxKr96QDPE by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-13T01:47:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@llewelly Mean to who?
(DIR) Post #ARbOkiYGQCtf1kxwpM by mike@sauropods.win
2023-01-13T12:40:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@llewelly @john * 1903.But it's not clear that the name is definitely back. Tschopp et al. 2015 is still current state of the art, but it only takes someone else to publish a different analysis and we're back where Riggs put us._sigh_
(DIR) Post #ARbOkj3SYDqmaVYrS4 by markwitton@sauropods.win
2023-01-13T13:51:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mike @llewelly @john How likely do you think this is, Mike? I was under the impression that the science for resurrecting Brontosaurus was pretty robust - at least, as robust as it could be for the time. I hope it continues to remain valid - if nothing else, because APATOSMASH! is nowhere near as fun.
(DIR) Post #ARbQa9Kyh09epBq92m by mike@sauropods.win
2023-01-13T14:11:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@markwitton @llewelly @john I think the name is probably here to stay, and I'd be prepared to lay a bet on that at 3 to 1, but not at 10 to 1. In the end, it comes down to who publishes what, in what order, and how convincing they are. And even (I hate to say) how well they work the media.
(DIR) Post #ARbQuCXiU5ugYeMMyG by llewelly@sauropods.win
2023-01-13T14:15:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@markwitton @mike @john but would synonymization of Brontosaurus necessitate Brontosmash to Apatosmash? IIRC, Brontotherium and Brontops are both synonymized to Megacerops, but Brontotheriidae remains the name of the family. Brontosmash needn't follow taxonomic rules anyway, but if Brontosmash is already in use, changing it to Apatosmash could be, well, a little confusing, maybe even (forgive me) deceptive. : )
(DIR) Post #ARbRrWA9BKSmUdcTrs by keesey@sauropods.win
2023-01-13T14:19:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mike @markwitton @llewelly @john Unless ajax and excelsus turn out to be synonyms (unlikely), it’s a subjective question. At least until someone phylogenetically defines Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus.
(DIR) Post #ARbRrWbRXqIVrIOHPk by markwitton@sauropods.win
2023-01-13T14:25:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@keesey @mike @llewelly @john Good point. Hopefully stability will be considered if/when that definition is made - a case could be made that it's better to stick with both names now that Brontosaurus has been widely adopted again.
(DIR) Post #ARbUXFuWCFmU9vL6Aq by mike@sauropods.win
2023-01-13T14:55:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@markwitton @keesey @llewelly @john Yes. Also because all dinosaur genera should be monospecific. (As soon as you have two or more species in a genus, you have tied your nomenclature to your phylogenetic hypothesis.)