Re: The skinny on Apato versus Brontosaurus

[GSP1954@aol.com]

Alas 20375 is not an articulated specimen, and may include pieces of 
camarasaurs or even multiple species of apatosaurs from the same quarry. The 
apatosaur stuff from high in the Morrison is a mess. And with the problems with 
the specimens on hands, it is not possible to reliably recontruct the 
phylogeny of apatosaurs. As we all know, the results of cladograms shift around 
and 
about all the time. So they are of limited use in determining genera. And 
as I mentioned, the types of Apat and Bront have never been properly 
described. What needs to be done is to do the work on the types and see how 
things 
work out. It may then may be better to reboot with by dropping Apatosaurus in 
favor of Brontosaurus based on most of one individual. Which would have the 
advantage of reviving a popular name. Or maybe not. Let's wait and see 
(which could be decades).  

GSPaul

In a message dated 4/29/13 8:16:53 PM, mickey_mortimer111@msn.com writes:

<< now that we have associated specimens with th

 e same character distribution (e.g. NSMT-PV 20375), >>

</HTML>