RE: BRONTOSAURUS FOREVER!

["Williams, Tim" <TiJaWi@agron.iastate.edu>]

Mike Keesey wrote:

> I could see certain kids being picky like that, but I think most 
> adults would see the long neck, massive body size, relatively small 
> head, and agree that it's a "brontosaur".

Or, if it has flippers, it's a Loch Ness Monster.

> Bakker would refer to _Brachiosaurus_ as a "brontosaur", and he's as 
> much an influence on layman perceptions as any living scientist.

Ain't that the truth!  Also, let's not forget the eminent Dr Alan Grant,
who's proven invaluable in educating the public in the finer points of
theropod paleobiology - especially tyrannosaurs.

> > Sauropoda contained within Sauropodomorpha is much more intuitive.
>
> I never proposed to do away with that - that's been a solid feature 
> of dinosaurian taxonomy for a long time now.

There may be a need for a less inclusive definition of 'Brontosauria', for a
clade *within* the Sauropoda and anchored in _Apatosaurus_.  Sort of like
Plateosauria for a subset of the Prosauropoda.  Of course, we all know that
this entire 'Brontosauria' issue is just a way of resurrecting a name
we-all-know-and-love now that the nominative genus is defunct.  All that's
needed is a clade to attach the name Brontosauria too - sort of putting the
nomenclatural cart before the phylogenetic horse.

I still hold out some hope that Elmer Riggs was right, and the type specimen
for _Apatosaurus ajax_ (a juvenile) is non-diagnostic at the species level,
and _Brontosaurus excelsus_ (based on an adult specimen) wins out as a valid
species for the remaining hypodigm.



Tim



------------------------------------------------------------------


Timothy J. Williams, Ph.D. 

USDA-ARS Researcher 
Agronomy Hall 
Iowa State University 
Ames IA 50014 

Phone: 515 294 9233 
Fax:   515 294 9359