Talk:Brontosaurus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Inappropriate link?

Is it really appropriate for a scientific article to link to a site which argues for creationism on the basis of a very poor understanding of the relevant science? (see http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/ - the "There is No Such Thing as a Brontosaurus" link)

Probably not; feel free to remove it. — JEREMY 00:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Another link that is a problem is the in-text link to Brontosaurus baxteri in the film section. That link seems to be dead [as at Jan 2008]. It may have moved on to a new home, so if anyone can update it, that would be great, otherwise re-word the sentence and remove the hyperlink. Why don't I do it? you ask. Because I'm hopeless [[[Special:Contributions/60.242.50.195|60.242.50.195]] (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)].

Incorrect Name Pteradon

I'm not a expert but my 6 year old son pointed out that Pteradon should actually be Pteranodon. I didn't want to change it because I have not researched it, but I did look it up in his dinosaur book and he is correct, they call it Pteranodon. In fact, if you follow the link it also calls it a Pteranodon, not a Pteradon.

You are absolutely correct, of course - I have read this page before and failed to notice what appears to be a misprint. However, it goes deeper - there is a "redirect" from "Pteradon" to "Pterodactyl" and, if looked up in "Google", lots of results appear for "Pteradon". Did the actual stamp misspell the word itself? If so, this article is correct, even tho' the word isn't. I have searched and cannot find either the stamp or the literature about it. Can anyone come in on this? Otherwise, I think we should change the spelling .... Ballista 04:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain the stamp series spelled it Pteradon (a recognised variant of the name), which is why I included it in the article in that form. After all, they included the Brontosaurus, long after it was publicly recognised to be imaginary. — JEREMY 06:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The post office apparently did NOT mispell "Pteranodon" -- here is a link to a picture of the stamp <http://www.search4dinosaurs.com/postage_stamps/unitedstates_1989_pteranodon.jpg>. It seems that this portion of the article should be deleted, since it alleges a mistake that was not made. 209.23.169.6 22:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is to say that the stamp you are looking at wasn't a "reprint" that fixes their prior mistake? The article may still be accurate. DavidPesta 13:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

'Brontosaurus' a common descriptor?

I'm almost entirely certain that the word 'brontosaurus' (and related adjectives), on account of its sheer lacck of validity, is not used by most, if any, scientists when discussing sauropods, as claimed in the introduction. So where did that come from?

Piotr

I think you'll find it's Robert Bakker and "his people" who've promoted that usage, along with "eobrontosaurus". &#0151; JEREMY 09:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Status of the name Brontosaurus

Do you think that Brontosaurus may be considered a distinct genus from Apatosaurus, an idea proposed by Robert Bakker?

It depends on whether or not you believe A. excelsus is different enough from A. ajax to warrent a seperate genus. Most people don't, Bakker does, but it seems like the main reason he does is that he likes the name Brontosaurus--not very scientific. If cladistic analysis start to show that A. excelsus is more closely related to, say, Eobrontosaurus than it is to A. ajax, there are two options--bring back the name Brontosaurus, or sink A. excelsus as Eobrontosaurus excelsus. On the other hand, if A. excelsus ever turns out to be closer to A. louisae than A. ajax, they could bring back the name Brontosaurus and form the species B. excelsus and B. louisae, or abandon the name A. louisae as a junior synonym of B. excelsus, or even create a sub-genus, like Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus) excelsus and A. (B.) louisae. Not too complicated or anything... but for the time being, most paleontologists seem happy with three species in the one genus Apatosaurus. Dinoguy2 23:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

mention in the bible.

I think a section in this article should be added talking about the Brontosoraus in the bible in the book of Job. In that book, it perfectly describes a Brontosoraus but calls it a "Behemoth." If you don't believe me, read it for yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lynx Austin (talk • contribs) 05:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Unless Job did a comparitive study of the bones of the Behemoth, finding no appreciable difference between them and the bones of Apatosaurus, subsequently referring the Bahemoth to this genus (that he foresaw would be erected several thousand years later), and published his findings in a peer-reviewed scientific paper, than it should just stay in the article on Behemoth ;) More seriously, even if you're going to take the Bible literally, there's no way the behemoth could be a dinosaur of any kind. It states clearly that the behemoth has a naval, a feature found only in mammals.Dinoguy2 05:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is astonishing how many inaccurate misperceptions are used when arguing against the authenticity of Biblical records. Even if you don't believe in Biblical theology, you cannot just dismiss all historical information that exists in the text. After reading the account in Job 40:15-24 and not seeing any reference at all to a 'naval' that you said was 'clearly stated', I performed an exhaustive search of every english Bible translation for the word naval in the book of Job:

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=naval&version1=31&searchtype=all&spanbegin=22&spanend=22

Search Limited to: from Job to Job

No results were found for naval in the version(s):New International Version.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):New American Standard Bible.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):The Message.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):Amplified Bible.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):New Living Translation.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):King James Version.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):English Standard Version.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):Contemporary English Version.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):New King James Version.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):21st Century King James Version.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):American Standard Version.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):Young's Literal Translation.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):Darby Translation.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):New Life Version.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):Holman Christian Standard Bible.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):New International Reader's Version.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):Wycliffe New Testament.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):Worldwide English (New Testament).

No results were found for naval in the version(s):New International Version - UK.

No results were found for naval in the version(s):Today's New International Version.

And, there is nothing wrong with the search parameters because it finds "behemoth" just fine:

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=behemoth&searchtype=all&version1=31&spanbegin=22&spanend=22

In any event, I agree that this is not the article to discuss Behemoth, but rather the controversy over the name 'Brontosaurus'. But I must say, there is a real divide between intellectual Christians and skeptics because the skeptics rarely take Christians seriously enough to properly develop honest and effective arguments. That in itself should give skeptics pause and wonder if they had accidentally woven themselves into a self-perpetuating bubble of self-deception. (Intelligent Christians see through all that. What you need to understand is that not all Christians have rocks for brains, there are very well developed reasons behind what the rest of the world believes to be a fairy tale.)

DavidPesta 14:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This conversation doesn't even belong here, but let's ignore that for now. The correct spelling is "navel", which is why your thorough search of multiple versions of the Bible produced no results.

From the King James Version of the Bible[1]:

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Aside from the obvious lack-of-a-navel problem, there are several other reasons why the Behemoth can't be Brontosaurus: while the former is said to eat grass like an ox, the latter didn't eat grass, as grass did not appear until the Cretaceous: not a problem for Young Earth Creationists, obviously, but it would appear the very skeleton of Brontosaurus doesn't support the idea of eating grass: the neck bones weren't that flexible. I'm not even sure what moving a tail like a cedar is supposed to mean, and his stones...? Brontosaurus also obviously didn't have a sharp nose that was able to "pierce" through anything. I'd call this about as far from a "perfect description" as possible. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition, brontosaurs would not have eaten anything like an ox, which chews and has a short neck. A brontosaur eating at ground level would have been more like a goose head (which plucks and does not chew) on a long vacuum-cleaner extension. J. Spencer 02:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My personal supposition is that someone in the Ancient Near East found the bones of a sauropod, made some reasonable (but not entirely accurate) assumptions about its anatomy and diet, and worked a mention of it into the Bible as an example of God's most amazing creatures. But that's just my own hypothesis, and wouldn't qualify for a mention in the Behemoth article, let alone this one. Wardog (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• But why specifically a sauropod, and not any other dinosaur type? Why even a dinosaur, and not an existing animal the writer was unfamiliar with? There is practically no physical description.FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. Remember that concepts like "science" and "biology" did not exist in any form back then, let alone comparative anatomy. Let alone the idea that fossils were the remains of one-living animals and not just cool looking designs in the rock. I think it's fairly likely it was an account of some exotic African animal, and even more likely it's simply a mythical animal like a dragon. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

US Postal Service Stamp Copy Right.

How do you make new link? Because the part where is says "The US postal service made stamps of dinosaurs" stamps of dinosaurs should be a link and then the picture need only be removed from this page. To a special page that talks about the stamps themselves. Otherwise the image will not be available.

Merger proposal

Writtenonsand brought this up at WP:Dino. I'm not a big fan of retaining articles for sunken genera, so I agree we should merge this into Apatosaurus. Obviously it's a well-known, often asked about topic, so a heafty "Brontosaurus" subsection there would be appropriate. However, this article is mostly a pop culture dumping ground anyway. It reminds me of the old Pterodactyl page--people wanted to keep it around to "deflect" useless trivia from Pterosaur, but if that trivia is useless it should not be anywhere on Wikipedia in the first place. I propose merging the intro and History section into an appropriate spot at Apatosaurus, condensing some of the important pop culture into Apatosaurus' pop culture section, and redirecting this article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with that, and wondered about it myself. There isn't really anything in the Brontosaurus article that justifies a separate article, apart from a probably too extensive pop culture section. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, let's merge and then try to get Apatosaurus featured. Sheep81 (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support for merge - same species. Let's merge!
• Support Brontosaurus has been recognised as a junior synomym for well over 10 years. But we must ensure that Google searches for "Brontosaurus" get the merged article. Philcha (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well over 100 years actually, though the trickle-down into pop culture must have been well under way by at least the '80s. Would be cool to find some sources discussing that. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support I believe that the Apatosaurus and the Bronotosaurus are the same species. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 15:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Tentative support - as long as we keep the controversy over the name, including the reference to the stamp controversy and Stephen Jay Gould's weighing in. I don't care at all if the pop culture stuff goes. CopaceticThought (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, though this could be filed under popular culture. There is no "controversy"--the rules are clear over which name wins out. Gould's essay was more a paean to the popular image of the dinosaur, not an argument that Brontosaurus should be reinstated as a nomen conservandum or anything. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Brontosauruses have completely different heads. - JefiKnight (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not quite - "brontosaur" skeletal mounts were Apatosaurus skeletons with Camarasaurus-type heads - in other words, chimeras. J. Spencer (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. Which led to the Brontosaurus (the pop culture "fictional" dinosaur) having a different head than the real dinosaur Apatosaurus. Unless you are denying there was ever such thing as a pop culture fictional dinosaur called Brontosaurus distinct from Apatosaurus. - JefiKnight (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's no more fictional than Dilophosaurus with a frill. The head they put on it was the best guess at the time, before the actual skull was known. Actually, that "camarasaur"-like head wasn't Camarasaurus at all--it was a totally new skull they honestly thought went with the Apatosaurus excelsus bones, since it was found next to them. It's no known to be the missing skull of Brachiosaurus altithorax. So, no, there never was such a thing as a pop-culture fictional Brontosaurus. That idea itself is a product of pop-culture fiction that doesn't understand the science behind what really went on. Plenty of dinosaurs inm usems today knowingly have skulls that are based mainly on known parts of related species, because the actual skull is unknown. When the real skull gets found, that doesn't make the old version "fictional", it's just the nature of paleoart. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be hard for even pop-culture to be ignorant of the science involved for so long. More likely pop-culture was simply apathetic toward it. The brontosaurus was just popular in a way apatosaurus never was. Toys, films, pictures, and books featuring the brontosaurus were common into the '80's. The 2005 King Kong film says it all. The filmmakers knew full well what an apatosaurus looks like, but they chose to feature a brontosaurus in the film, which is a fictional dinosaur distinct from the real apatosaurus in that it has "a square head, low-hanging tail, and snake-like neck reminiscent of 1930s period depictions of the species in art" (quoted from this article). The wiki really needs a brontosaurus article of its own. As it is the wiki is being willfully blind. - JefiKnight (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"a square head, low-hanging tail, and snake-like neck reminiscent of 1930s period depictions of the species in art" The quote describes the depiction of ever sauropod, Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus and Diplodocus alike, up until the 1980s... The makers of King Kong did NOT know full well what Apatosaurus looked like--the depiction in the film (other than size and carnivore) was pretty accurate for the time. You seem to be thinking the modern version of sauropods as terrestrial with horizontal bodies and straight tails has always been known but Brontosaurus was somehow an exception, which is not the case at all. (Do they ever even say the word Brontosaurus in King Kong or does everyone assume that's what they were depicting rather than a generic sauropod?). Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Again, I agree with Dinoguy. There is no need for a new article when all there is to be said about Bronto can be said here. As for King Kong, they used Brontosaurus because they were inventing new animals for the film (just like Vastatosaurus instead of Tyrannosaurus and so on), exactly because it didn't exist already, the animals were supposed to be the evolved descendants of Mesozoic dinosaurs, not identical to them. FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Image Date

Is the correct image date 1905, 1902, or 1945. The article previously showed 1905. A recent edit changed that to 1945. But the image source information shows 1902. The image was recently updated from nlack&white to color though. -- Tcncv (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Knight made his paintings for the American Museum of Natural History around 1900, so the 1902 date is most likely correct. The previous version of the file was a black and white version of the same image. Funkynusayri (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• The new source says 1897: http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/history/extras.html#1&gsc.tab=0 FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Best news ever announced in human history

Brontosaurus is real!!!!!!!!!!! Its not an Apatosaurus! (ill give someone else the honor of recreating an article, a stub of course)(Mercurywoodrose)108.94.1.23 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In light of the new paper and the publicity/attention it has stirred up (and in the hope this isn't going to prove merely a flurry of recentism), I've restored the version of the article I originally wrote in 2006, which focusses particularly on the cultural importance of the Brontosaurus (and no doubt needs a lot of work on the paleontological aspects). I'd ask that we wait at least a couple of months for the dust to settle before anyone moves to re-merge it with Apatosaurus. &#0151; JEREMY 15:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, almost makes up for losing Pluto as a planet. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The stuff toward the end about the debate has about a billion sources, some of them kind of "iffy"...I know usually more sources is good, but it actually kind of interferes with the narrative a bit. I wonder if it makes sense to reduce some of those? StoneProphet11 (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Popular culture material

One of the main reasons the return of the Brontosaurus to the list of "real dinosaurs" has generated so much public interest is that the creature has a significant place in the popular imagination. This is discussed and detailed in the "In Popular Culture" section of the article. Some of that section currently constitutes a not-particularly-encyclopaedic set of lists. These lists need to be replaced by prose-style exposition, but I believe they deserve to remain in place as a source for that content until that task is completed. If you feel otherwise, please discuss that here first, rather than simply removing the material. &#0151; JEREMY 18:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not all of this is relevant here. We don't have to mention every single time Brontosaurus had a cameo somewhere, only those appearances that are significant. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Significant to whom, though? Working the pop-culture section into something of encyclopaedic quality is going to take time, and at this stage, while it's a hot topic—and given the material is already quarantined off—it seems to me that inclusionism might be the best course. &#0151; JEREMY 19:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If the appearance was discussed (not just mentioned, but discussed) in a published source outside of the appearance itself, it may be relevant. If nobody ever mentioned that it matters that Brontosaurus was a DinoBot or something, then it doesn't matter as far as wiki is concerned. Bully For Brontosaurus and My Beloved Brontosaurus are two possible secondary sources discussing its role in the popular imagination that we can mine for info. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the pop culture significance of Brontosaurus, the incoming links to Apatosaurus (Special:WhatLinksHere/Apatosaurus) are a huge mess. There are 200+ links, and as many as half of them are pop culture related. I've unpiped a few that had "Apatosaurus|Brontosaurus", but I'm not sure that's the best approach. In many cases of visual media, I'm not sure that the source material actually provided any name for whatever generic sauropod was depicted. Are the sauropods in King Kong (1933 film) actually identified to genus? In other cases, the animal may have been identified as Brontosaurus in the source material, but we've "corrected" it on Wikipedia to Apatosaurus. Secondary sources may provide a name when it's not explicitly given in the primary source, but these are few and far between. The Wikipedia article Calvin's alter egos (Calvin and Hobbes) mentions Apatosaurus, but in the comics it seems to have been Brontosaurus. Sunkist Fun Fruits identifies a "fruitasaurus" as a Brontosaurus; presumably the fictional genus doesn't correspond to any real one, and it's Original Research for Wikipedia to link to provide any real word identity.

Any thoughts on what to do with these incoming links? Plantdrew (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess they'll be corrected over time by random editors, on a case by case basis. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

About the illustration by Knight in this section - does he indicate that one of the animals is a Diplodocus? I have always known the painting referred to as representing a group of brontosaurs. The lighter coloured creature is, I've presumed, a dry Brontosaurus.Gazzster (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It is stated in the source ":swamp-bound 'Brontosaurus' (now Apatosaurus), painted in 1897, with static terrestrial Diplodocus in background.[2], the heads are also different. FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• It appears at least Robert Bakker and Gregory S. Paul used "brontosaur" as a common name for sauropods overall in the 80s. Does this warrant a mention somewhere, and was it used by anyone else? FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Tail dragging holotype

It's a rather petty issue, so I haven't bothered to bring it up until now. The taxobox image currently shows the holotype mount, which is incorrectly dragging its tail. Per the dinosaur projet guidelines, such images should not be used in the taxobox, but I can see why it is the most appealing image. Should we either swap it with one of the B. parvus images, or simply replace it with for example this photo[3] of the same mount, where the tail isn't visible? FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see it in the latter image, beside the foot. Anyways, I think showing the type species is best, as others may be reclassified (if a more inclusive study of sauropod specimens in general is published). The best alternative images would likely be of AMNH 460, but the placement of it is variable. Right now I think that the current image is the best, until someone gets a side view excluding the tail. IJReid ^discuss 04:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The tail is much less visible in the other image, so wouldn't it be better? At least it can't be seen at thumbnail size, unlike in the current one, so though not perfect, it is better. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

In the current image the tail seems to be almost completely hidden behind the hind leg, so I don't think it's an issue here. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I swapped the image today, the image I referred to earlier was this[4] one. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah ok, I was fooled because the current image is the one I last saw in the taxobox... somebody must have switched it to the more lateral view recently. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

'Not all agree' line from lede.

In regard to the line "Nevertheless, not all paleontologists agree with this splitting." in the lede section. Looking at the cite used as reference I note that it's from a blog first of all, and doesn't entirely support that claim. The author merely raises questions about it, while praising the study, acknowledging it as a 'landmark in careful anatomical work' and its importance. He does not explicitly disagree with the splitting in general terms, but is making a statement about his personal position. It's also only evidence of one POV, so the implication of a plurality in the line is misplaced, and its position in the lede could be considered undue weight.121.73.221.187 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay...so about the pop culture section.

The "In popular culture" section REALLY needs to get a citing cull, because it's getting way too out of hand now. I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure of which cites are valuable enough to keep and which ones are not; and I don't want to accidentally remove any valuable cites. Raptormimus456 (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine with me, although I've not been involved with this article creation: the overkill is ugly and uncalled-for. Many footnotes seem to be used as primary sources to support a position, rather than sources that state a position, which along with suspect phrases like "is perhaps no surprise" (to whom?), "seemingly" (to whom?), give this section an air of editorializing. Redundant sources that do not add substantial new content, or that could be construed as cherry-picked to support a POV should be culled. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Cull completed. This looks a lot better now, and I've managed to determine which to keep and which to discard. Raptormimus456 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Brontosaurus skull

The article states that no skull of Brontosaurus has been found, but I found a skull cast on the Ohio University website that is listed as Apatosaurus excelsus. It seems the species excelsus has been reevaluated as the type species of Brontosaurus. If this is found to be a cast from a fossil, which all indications point to, this would mean we do have Brontosaurus skull material, and the statement in the article needs correction.

I can provide the link here: http://www.ohio.edu/people/witmerl/collections/sauropods/apatosaurus.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.95.51.32 (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note the cf.. It is only an approximate classification. Maybe it will be published and identified formally one day. FunkMonk (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Update in "In popular culture" section

The "In popular culture" section could probably use some updates. It is still written as if brontosaurus was still unequivocally an error. — al-Shimoni (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Tail dragging (again)

This needs clarification. Whilst it is now considered likely that they did not drag their tails.. in all likelihood, once old, they DID do so. To a greater or lesser extent. (The same can be witnessed in many animals today, such as domestic cats or rats for example). I think the article needs to be clear about this. Images showing the tails down are NOT necessarily incorrect. 92.154.235.156 (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Unless there has been verifiable research done to confirm that geriatric sauropods dragged their tails, or otherwise retroactively confirm that Charles Knight's paintings were of elderly sauropods, this is wp:original research--Mr Fink (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, and as far as I know, trackways do not show dragging tails, or are there any exceptions to this? FunkMonk (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The tracks are made in mud, and if the mud was covered in water one wouldn't expect drag marks. But I think the contention of the original post is that even though it is believed that sauropods habitually held their tails aloft, it would be strange indeed if they never rested them on the ground. As the poster notes, many long tailed animals today, such as kangaroos, crocodiles, monitors, cats, pangolins and armadillos do.Gazzster (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

According to this report from National Geoographic, http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/04/a-tale-of-tail-traces/ , traces of tail drag marks are not unknown:

'At the barest level, dinosaur bones record death and postmortem transformation. How the animal lived only becomes apparent through the clues we coax from prehistoric remains. Tracks and traces, on the other claw, are manifestations of life. Dinosaur sign, preserved as impressions in stone, record fleeting moments of anatomy in action. And within the library of fossilized behavior studied and cataloged so far, there is a small number of traces that record something that might seem unexpected within the imagery of the thoroughly modern dinosaur – tail marks.' Gazzster (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read the article again. Sauropod tail impressions are comparatively rare, and do not necessarily tell us that these animals dragged their tails - for instance, they could be resting traces or impressions left by a tripodal pose adopted during feeding (per Heinrich Mallison's work on sauropod biomechanics). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The original post of this thread does not suggest that tail dragging was habitual in sauropods. It only offers the consideration, as I read it anyway, that we cannot say that tails were never dragged. Modern animals do on occasion. Gazzster (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the article does not specifically address the issue of tail-dragging. No matter the intention of OP, I feel that it is unnecessary, weakly founded fluff that does not significantly contribute to the article. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

In any case, we can't state anything not stated by reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• On this note, should we move the photo of the holotype out of the taxobox and into the history/classification sections, due to its dragging tail? We could then move one of the more correct B. parvus photos into the taxobox. Or is the tail of the holotype hidden enough? Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I had to go out of my way to see it after reading this; it's nearly completely obscured and way in the back of the picture, so I think it's fine. Lusotitan 03:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Uh, depicting a sauropod with its tail on the ground is actually not heretical.Let's not get paranoid about this. Gazzster (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems the Yale Peabody Museum will be renovated, "The Apatosaurus will be reconfigured so that its tail is raised, providing patrons with a view of the colossal creature as they enter the hall"[5], so at least we can hope to get a photo of the remounted Brontosaurus by that time. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Omission of Anne Elk's theory

I noted with horror that Anne Elk's eminent theory of the Brontosaurus is entirely absent from this entry. Is there any particular reason for this?2A02:C7D:A07:A900:ED0E:4B2E:FEE:ABE7 (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

See Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses. The article here is about paleontology. Elk's sketch is comic. At best, Elk's theory could be mentioned in the In popular culture section. Maybe even then, it's game show trivia. Brontosaurus is widespread in popular culture, and we don't want this section to become a collection of trivia in the "me, too" tradition.Sbalfour (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Excessively detailed History section

The History section is essentially an elaboration of the Brontosaurus v. Apatosaurus argument, which belongs under Classification section. Paleontologists know all this, and the general public doesn't care. The giant section tends to swamp the article; I suggest we condense it, and append it as a subsection under Classification.Sbalfour (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The In popular culture section contains more Brontosaurus v. Apatosaurus stuff, and needs to be combined with History section, condensed and moved into Classification section. Sbalfour (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Essentially the same history text passed FAC reivew in Apatosaurus, so it is hardly a problem (if anything, the text here should conform more to that). It would be almost impossible to explain the situation with these taxa in any meaningful way without going into detail. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Oversaturation of non-important sources?

The sentence, "However, an extensive study published in 2015 by a joint British-Portuguese research team concluded that Brontosaurus was a valid genus of sauropod distinct from Apatosaurus.", links to 3 different sources; one (source #4) is the actual aforementioned study, while the other 2 (sources #32 & #33) are simply pop culture articles that only refer back to source #4. These two sources seem to be just clutter, and don't provide any new information, since they just restate what was already stated in source #4; besides, neither of them are scientific studies, either- should they be removed? Maharama (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree we should keep pop science articles to a minimum unless they bring something additional (interviews, etc.) to the table. But I'll leave this case to the primary writers of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)