Talk:Brontosaurus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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)