Talk:Brontosaurus

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Brontosaurus-skull-TATE-099.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Flintstones

Although I agree the popular culture section could get out of control easily, I do think that aside from Gertie, the modern-day public are mostly familiar with term brontosaurus from its use in The Flintstones, as it is used almost universally in that franchise to refer to dino species. (Dino is one of the exceptions, being identified as a snorkasaurus, which if nothing else saves some awkward conversations with children over why, if Dino is a brontosaurus, why Fred often eats brontosaurus burgers!) 23skidoo (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brontosaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Morrison Man (talk · contribs) 17:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Before we start, I'd like to request that you mark any comments of mine that you've fixed. That way the process is going to run a lot smoother for both of us. Though it's going to take me a little longer to review the entire article, I have some notes on the first bits of prose that I can already share with you.

Lead

*Maybe "from Greek" could be changed into "from the Greek words"

• The sentence that starts with "For decades..." at the end of the first paragraph is structured in a weird way, maybe change it to something like "For decades, the animal was thought to have been a taxonomic synonym of its close relative Apatosaurus, though a 2015 study by Tschopp and colleagues found it to be distinct."
• In the final sentence of the first paragraph, "notably" can be removed.
• In the second paragraph, you contrast the robustness of the cervicals with that in Diplodocus and Barosaurus. Maybe adding a note that they're close relatives would help clarify the comparison?
• "Supported by" > supported respectively by
• "Juveniles" > Juvenile specimens
• "adult sizes" > adult size
• Instead of saying "It was in the family Diplodocidae", maybe say "Brontosaurus has been classified within the family Diplodocidae".
• I would split the sentences talking about the Morrison Formation out of the third paragraph and into a section of its own. That also creates space to say something about the environment instead of just having it be a list of contemporaneous taxa.

The above changes have been implemented, as well as an expansion of the last paragraph as I thought it was necessary to mention how Brontosaurus was one of many genera to evolve in this period.

Excellent! I'll have more pointers ready within 24 hours.

===History of Discovery===

Initial discovery and the Felch Quarry skull

• I'd advise moving the first image here down to the 2nd paragraph.
• Restructuring the first sentence into something like: "The discovery of a large and fairly complete sauropod skeleton was announced in 1879 by Othniel Charles Marsh, a professor of paleontology at Yale University. The specimen was collected from Morrison Formation rocks at Como Bluff, Wyoming by William Harlow Reed." will probably make it flow better.
• "named by him" > he named
• "that also comprised" I would change this to "that also included".
• Is it "in Como Bluff" or near Como Bluff?
• "in Felch Quarry" > in the Felch Quarry
• First sentence of the second paragraph could also use a restructure, maybe into something like: "In August 1883, Marshall P. Felch collected a disarticulated partial skull (USNM V 5730) of a sauropod further south in the Felch Quarry at Garden Park, Colorado and sent the specimen to Yale."
• "truly different to any dinosaur" > truly different to any other dinosaur
• I'm assuming that the sentence about the weird features of the Felch Quarry skull is trying to exemplify that it was inaccurate? It could be rewritten to more clearly reflect this.
• Split the final sentence into two by removing "and"
• "at Felch Quarry" > at the Felch Quarry

Second Dinosaur Rush and skull issue

"in 1901 to Wyoming" > to Wyoming in 1901

• Restructure the latter half of the first sentence, it starts off talking about Reed finding one new Brontosaurus skeleton, when the rest of the sentence goes on to state there were two intermingled specimens.
• I would advise explaining "technical" terms like cervical and caudal in brackets when they first appear in the text. Something like: caudal (tail) vertebrae. Do this throughout the article.
• It doesn't make sense to talk about the specimen as Brontosaurus when we're still in the part of its history where it was named Elosaurus, in my opinion. The first paragraph would need some restructuring to accomodate this but I'm open to discussion.
• "in 2015 by Tschopp et al." > by Tschopp et al. in 2015
• Seeing as you're mostly tackling the history in a chronological order, the sentence starting with "In 2008..." might have to be changed to reflect the fact that it wouldn't be untill then that more skeletal material similar to E./B. parvus was found, which I'm assuming to be the purpose of the sentence.
• "Elmer Riggs, in the 1903 edition of Geological Series of the Field Columbian Museum," swap these two parts around and remove the last comma
• Don't forget to italicise the genus names
• "though he was a strong opponent of Marsh and his taxa" Do you have any more information on why Osborn chose to label it Brontosaurus anyways? That would be a nice addition to the text I think.
  • I am unsure as to why, I will look for more info.
• Maybe swap the image of the 1905 AMNH mount to the right side of the page for a bit more variation.
• "as the species Brontosaurus excelsus" I think that "the species" can be left out here
• I think the paragraph as a whole would benefit from taking the sections currently in brackets out of brackets and incorporating them in the text. Would improve flow.
• Remove the comma between lower leg and shoulder bones, assuming these were all added from AMNH 222
• "which had too few vertebrae" > which meant it had too few vertebrae
• "might look" > might have looked
• "for which" > of which
• Remove the 2nd comma from the first sentence of the third paragraph.

Skull correction, resurgent discoveries, and reassessment

• Maybe move the image on the right down to be level with either the 2nd or 3rd paragraph
• "in literature" > in the literature
• Quick reminder to always link the first appearance of words, unlike what happens here with Diplodocus where the 2nd mention is linked and the first one isn't.
• "correct, that" > correct in that
• Take "and Brontosaurus" out of brackets
• "pertain to" > belong to
• "Apatosaurus was noted to possibly have possessed a Camarasaurus-like skull" You've just mentioned that they referred some Diplodocus-like skulls to Apatosaurus, so this sentence makes the whole thing a little confusing to read for me. Maybe it could use some more clarification.
• "Apatosaurine" shouldn't be capitalised
• "although later Tschopp et al.'s phylogenetic analysis" > although Tschopp et al.'s 2015 phylogenetic analysis
• Again, remove brackets in the third paragraph. This would create: "According to the rules of the ICZN, which governs the scientific names of animals,"
• "as the official name" This can be removed
• Perhaps the final two sentences could be combined into a single one beginning with something like: "The publication was met with some criticism from other paleontologists, namely..."

Description

*"proportionate to the body" > in proportion to the body

Apologies again for the long wait, here are the notes for History of Discovery. I've made a start on Description, and those should follow much sooner. If you have any questions let me know.

Vertebrae

• Perhaps it would be good to clarify that the bifurcation of the cervicals is present on the dorsal side.
• ”vertebrae was noted” -> has been noted
• ”dorsum” -> torso/chest
• Should ”pneumatic foramen” not be plural?
• ”to lighten to” -> to lighten the
• Same for “diverticula” as for pneumatic foramen
• ”than other diplodocids” -> than those of other diplodocids
• Same for “the vertebra” as for pneumatic foramen
• ”of a diplodocid’s” -> of that of other diplodocids
• Explain technical terms like fossae in brackets. It would be smart to check for this throughout the article.
• Merge sentence 2 and 3 of the 2nd paragraph
• It would be good to look at the second half of paragraph 2. Some things belong in the section about legs, like the comments on the ilium and ischium, while others need to be moved, like the sentence on neural spines included after the ones on the ribs.

Limbs

• Maybe it would be good to talk about the nature of Brontosaurus’ own scapula before comparing between it, Camarasaurus and Apatosaurus. Unless we don’t have a scapula from Brontosaurus, of course.
• As for the coracoid being more like that of Apatosaurus than Camarasaurus, wouldn’t this be expected considering their phylogenetic placement?
• ”sterna are preserved” -> sterna have been preserved
• Merge the sentence “The limb bones were…” with the one directly after it.
• ”Metacarpals” -> the metacarpals
• It would make the most sense if this paragraph was structured to include all parts of the arms together, followed by the legs (if that makes sense). Perhaps it can even be split up into two smaller paragraphs.

Classification

• ”is also classified” -> is classified
• ”and one or more possible unnamed genera” -> and possibly one or more unnamed genera
• It would be good to include another phylogeny if possible, as right now only Tschopp et al (2015) is represented, and their results have met some criticism if I’m not mistaken.

Species

• Maybe rephrase the section on B. excelsus. First you mention that a lot of specimens have been referred to it, and then you say only two have. It feels weirdly contradicting.
• “in Wyoming, in the lower Morrison Formation” -> in the lower Morrison Formation of Wyoming

Palaeobiology

• ”recent research… akin to modern birds.” Is this also true for sauropods specifically? Otherwise it might need changing.
• ”feeding” I would guess this is meant to be “foraging”?

Diet and energy requirements

• Algae? I wouldn’t expect that from land-dwelling sauropods. If it is true thats an unexpected but interesting food source.
  • Turns out that was an old hypothesis
• ”tooth rows” -> tooth row
• I think you’re missing another animal in the comparison of tooth crosssections.
• ”Hypothesis” -> hypotheses
• ”analogs” -> analogues
• I would put ecto- and endotherm in brackets to differentiate them from mammals and reptiles.
• Would it be possible to include the estimated energy requirement in calories instead of joules?
  • Ill add that later.

Posture

• ”believed to be” -> believed to have been

Physiology

• ”They assumed” -> they also assumed / furthermore, they assumed
• ”have argued” -> have also argued
• Include the first name for “Paladino”, and check for this throughout the article.
• ”on this basis” -> based on this
• ”have been” -> have comprised of

Juveniles

• ”reached its” -> reached their
• ”first noted in 1903” would it be possible to cite that source alongside the 1936 one?
• ”based on the type” -> from the type

Tail

• ”Baron (2020) considers” -> Baron (2020) has considered
• ”on the sides” -> to the sides of the animal
• Remove “while migrating”

Neck combat

• ”the cervical ribs” -> notable features include dense cervical ribs and diapophyses, …
• Perhaps it would be good to mention that Wedel (2015) hasn’t been published yet.

Paleoecology

• Fix the 146.8 mya date in accordance with the comments left by Ken Carpenter on the Morrison Formation talk page
• Small nitpick, “Lourinha Formation” should be changed to Lourinhã Formation
• ”and have” -> and was
• ”zones 2-6” According to which model? I’d assume Fosters, but it would be good to mention that in the prose
• As far as I’m aware, Fungi are not considered Flora.
• Remove the comma between “tree ferns” and “and ferns”

In popular culture

• The section on #BRONTOSMASH could probably use the same thing I suggested in the tail section of paleobiology, mentioning that Wedel’s paper hasn’t been published as more than a preprint.

• All suggestions except for the cladogram one have been implemented - Augustios

I have some comments:

• John Foster should probably be mentioned as a researcher who has continued to regard Brontosaurus as a synonym of Apatosaurus[1][2]
  • Done
• "B. excelsus fossils have been reported from the upper Salt Wash Member to the upper Brushy Basin Member, ranging from the middle to late Kimmeridgian age, about 154–151 Mya. Additional remains are known from even younger rocks, but they have not been identified as any particular species." This is somewhat misleading, as the cited source predates the taxonomic reevaluation of Tschopp et al., and probably included specimens in Apatosaurus excelsus that Tschopp et al. did not include in Brontosaurus excelsus
  • Done
• There doesn't seem to be much information here on how the species of Brontosaurus differed from one another.
  • will add
• "Brontosaurus differs from Apatosaurus in that the base of the posterior cervical vertebrae's neural spines are more elongated." This isn’t one of the differences listed by Tschopp et al. between the two, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
  • it was dorsals instead. "a longer than wide base of posterior dorsal neural spines (279-0, unique among Apatosaurinae"
• "Like those of other sauropods, the vertebrae of the neck were deeply bifurcated on the dorsal side; that is, they carried paired spines, resulting in a wide and deep neck." Most sauropods had unbifurcated neural spines, so this should be rephrased to say something like "Like those of other diplodocids..."
  • done
• "The spine and tail consisted of 15 cervicals, ten dorsals, five sacrals, and about 82 caudals." No complete tails of Brontosaurus are known; this would be inferred from Apatosaurus.
  • Done
• "The cervical vertebrae were stouter than those of other diplodocids, though not as stout as in mature specimens of Apatosaurus." Citation needed; this isn't one of the differences listed by Tschopp et al.
  • Done
• "thick parapophyses (extensions on the lateral sides of the vertebrae)" It might be useful to clarify that the parapophyses are one of the attachment points for the cervical ribs.
  • Done
• "Neural canals, which contain the notochord of the vertebral column, are ovate and large..." You mean spinal cord, which is distinct from the notochord.
  • Done
• "Brontosaurus spp. also had very long ribs compared to most other diplodocids, giving them unusually deep chests" this is slightly SYNTH and misleading as the cited source refers to Apatosaurus and Supersaurus having longer ribs and deeper chests than Barosaurus or Diplodocus; it is not clear whether this inference is drawn from specimens now assigned to Apatosaurus, Brontosaurus, or both, and in any case Brontosaurus would presumably be similar to at least Supersaurus and Apatosaurus in this regard.
  • Removed
• “The shape of the tail was unusual for diplodocids, being comparatively slender, due to the vertebral spines rapidly decreasing in height the farther they are from the hips.” I'm not sure what this is talking about, as this is true of all diplodocids.
  • done
• "The scapulae of Brontosaurus and Camarasaurus are very similar overall. Brontosaurus differs however in that the shaft of the scapula is thinner with a reduced anterior transverse process." Marsh 1881 is a very outdated source and I'm not sure it's appropriate to use here (our understanding of sauropod anatomy has come a long way since then, and Marsh only compares it to Morosaurus because that's basically all he had available to compare it to at the time). I have no idea what an "anterior transverse process" of the scapula is, nor does the source seem to say anything of the sort.
  • removed
• "One of traits that distinguishes Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus is the presence of a depression on the anterior face of the scapula, which the latter lacks." This presumably refers to the fossa posterior to the acromial ridge on the lateral face of the scapula.
  • Done
• "The acromial ridge on the scapula of Brontosaurus also has a rounded extension off of its edge, a characteristic unique to the genus." This presumably refers to the rounded expansion on the acromial side of the scapular blade, not anything to do with the acromial ridge. It's also only unique to Brontosaurus among apatosaurines; it's also found in many other sauropods.
  • done
• "Brontosaurus had a single large claw on each forelimb, and the first three toes possessed claws on each foot” This phrasing is somewhat confusing.
  • fixed
• "Many specimens have been assigned to the species, though only two are definitively known. They include FMNH P25112, the skeleton mounted at the Field Museum of Natural History, which has since been found to represent an unknown species of apatosaurine" This phrasing is somewhat unclear, as it makes it sound like FMNH P25112 is one of the two definitively known specimens mentioned.
  • fixed
• "Brontosaurus amplus, occasionally assigned to B. parvus," When did that ever happen?
  • fixed
• The holotype of Brontosaurus amplus is technically from Reed's Quarry 11, although they're only fifty yards apart (McIntosh 1995).
  • fixed
• What is "UW 15556 (which had once been accidentally mixed with the holotype)" referring to? As far as I am aware, that never happened.
  • fixed

This list is probably non-comprehensive, but it's all I have the time to review right now Ornithopsis (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Wont be able to implement for a few days or even a week. Will do. Thank you AFH (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

UW 15556 was mixed with the juvenile holotype specimen in the quarry. See the third paragraph here AFH (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. Nothing in that paper suggests that the skeletons had been "accidentally mixed". All that paper says is that the holotype was disarticulated and found associated with the larger specimen, which is not the same thing as the two skeletons being mixed together. Ornithopsis (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Just a comment, this[3] is not the Felch Quarry skull at all, it's a sculpt possibly based on Camarasaurus.[4] FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  • fixed

Should be stated on which mount it was used, and it is now on the same "line" as the infographic, creating text sandwiching. FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, should be good now. AFH (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 22:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Skeleton of Brontosaurus at the Yale Peabody Museum

• ... that after over a hundred years of being considered invalid, Brontosaurus was found to be valid again in 2015? Source: https://peerj.com/articles/857/
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Augustios Paleo (talk). Self-nominated at 20:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Brontosaurus; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Review

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - A DYK hook should present a definite fact but this hook fact is disputed as the article states that "Nevertheless, not all paleontologists agree with this division." I'm not sure how such disputes are resolved but the hook should be qualified or otherwise amended to clarify the issue.
  • The hook works because I mention specifically the 2015 study, not all research. If needed, it could be "that after over a hundred years of being considered invalid, Brontosaurus was found to be possibly valid again in 2015?", which would work.

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: So far as I can tell the nominator has only done one DYK and so no QPQ is required. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: The nominator on September 10 replied above to your comment without leaving a ping. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
• I'm not sure why this has been stalled so long, but let me suggest what I think is a better hook:
  • ALT1: ... that a Brontosaurus stamp led to the United States Postal Service being accused of "fostering scientific illiteracy"?
• Even better would be
  • ALT2: ... that the Brontosaurus was thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end?

if I could figure out a way to get it past the DYK curmudgeons (ping EEng for moral support). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)

• @EEng: for RoySmith's comments above. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I had the Anne Elk idea in mind when I saw the ping, even before actually landing on this page. Imagine my pleasure on seeing that one of my fellow editors had anticipated me -- my heart swells with pride. Now if only we can think of a way to actually work it into the article. EEng 03:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Much as I loathe In popular culture sections, especially in serious scientific articles, I was much relieved to find that this article already had one. After that, I couldn't resist. ALT2 for April 1, 2024, anyone? RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Nicely done. EEng 16:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'm the original DYK reviewer, returning as requested. My thoughts on the developments above are

1. The original hook idea still doesn't work because addition of the word "possibly" clearly shows that this is not a definite fact.
2. The ALT1 hook checks out and is quite interesting but needed some copy-editing, which I have done by expanding the USPS abbreviation and fixing a typo.
3. The ALT2 hook is problematic in that it just re-tells the punchline from the sketch and I reckon this is contrary to the spirit of WP:DYKFICTION. The article about the sketch has more interesting details such as the bit about the style guide but that's not the article we're dealing with here.

So, ALT0 is not approved. ALT1 is fine and ALT2 is debatable. We can make progress with ALT1 and so that gets a .

One other point is that this article qualifies by dint of it passing a GA review. As some liberties are being taken with the topic, I'm pinging the nominator and GA reviewer for their input. @The Morrison Man and Augustios Paleo:

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I would say that ALT1 would be fine for use. I would advise against using ALT0, due to ongoing disagreements on the validity of the genus. Don't think anything else needs to be said about ALT2 The Morrison Man (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson, RoySmith, The Morrison Man, and Augustios Paleo: I wonder if we are OK with the unattributed quote in ALT1. I archived the NYT article and the line in the article is Furious purists point out that the brontosaurus is now properly called apatosaurus. They accuse the stamp's authors of fostering scientific illiteracy, and want the stamps recalled.. So to quote what might be a handful of people may be making it seem like there was more of a controversy. Lightburst (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

There's plenty more sources which seem to make it clear that the opposition was significant. For example, the NYT specifies the Smithsonian and the Paleontological Society, amongst others. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point. I did a bit more searching and found "Bully for Brontosaurus" which I see is already covered in our article. The Washington Post did a better job of covering the controversy and mentions that the stamp rollout was timed to coincide with the release of The Land Before Time, also mentioned by (cough, gag) Fox News. This is picked up again in"Revising Fiction, Fact, and Faith - Google Books". google.com. Retrieved 3 October 2023., which quotes Gould quoting the NY Times. So, this all seems to be repeating the same meme. RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

PS, the key document seems to be USPS Postal Bulletin 21744, which I can't find anywhere. However, the USPS says if you can't find what you're looking for, you should file a FOIA request, so I've gone ahead and done that. Just getting through the crappy web interface was an adventure in itself, but we'll see what happens. RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I gotta give credit to the USPS for speedy processing of my FOIA request. I got the document this afternnon. See Talk:Brontosaurus#Source of Postal Bulletin quote? for the full story. RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thanks for getting that document - I saw the production "unexpected problems" comment. Do you think we are ok promoting the approved ALT1 hook? Lightburst (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say, "If it was good enough for the NY Times, it's good enough for us", but since it's my hook, I really shouldn't be the person passing judgement on it. Best to get an uninvolved opinion. RoySmith (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: thanks... It appears that @The Morrison Man: has already approved it above. Then @Andrew Davidson: also weighed in. I will promote. Lightburst (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Source of Postal Bulletin quote?

I got curious about the "Although now recognized by the scientific community as Apatosaurus..." quote attributed to Postal Bulletin 21744, so I dug up a copy. I believe the citation is in error; the only mention of the dinosaur stamps is a short mention at the end of "National Stamp Collecting Month – Update" on page 5. I suspect the quote is real, but from a different document. RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Turns out, everybody just got the PB number wrong. It's really 21742. Also discovered there's a complete archive of these available on-line at http://www.uspostalbulletins.com/. This one is http://www.uspostalbulletins.com/PDF/Vol110_Issue21742_19890914.pdf RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)