Talk:Brontosaurus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] '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". — JEREMY 09:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)