Talk:Pelorosaurus

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] Nomenclature of Pelorosaurus

The authorship for Pelorosaurus conybearei should be changed from Mantell, 1850 to (Melville, 1849). The webpage for the taxonomic history of Pelorosaurus at Mikko's Phylogeny Archive (http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/metazoa/deuterostoma/Chordata/Archosauria/Sauropodomorpha/History_Pelorosaurus.html) correctly attibutes the authorship of P. conybearei to (Melville, 1849). Mantell (1850) officially created created Pelorosaurus as a new genus for "Cetiosaurus" conybearei.

Mantell G. A. 1850. On the Pelorosaurus; an undescribed gigantic terrestrial reptile, whose remains are associated with those of the Iguanodon and other saurians in the strata of the Tilgate Forest, in Sussex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 140: 379-390.

The synonymy of Dinodocus, Oplosaurus, and Ornithopsis with Pelorosaurus performed by McIntosh (1990) has been rejected, because Dinodocus, Oplosaurus, and Ornithopsis are nomina dubia (Upchurch and Martin, 2003). Oplosaurus may be the first record of the clade Turiasauria from the Cretaceous (http://www.users.qwest.net/~jstweet1/sauropoda.htm), and Upchurch et. al. (2004) consider this genus valid and distinguishable from Pelorosaurus.

McIntosh, J. S., 1990: Sauropoda. 345-401 in Weishampel, D. B., Dodson, P., & Osmólska, H. (eds.), 1990: The Dinosauria. –University of California Press, Berkley, Los Angeles, Oxford, 1990 xvi-733.

Upchurch, P. & Martin, J., 2003: The anatomy and taxonomy of Cetiosaurus (Saurischia, Sauropoda) from the Middle Jurassic of England. –Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology: Vol. 23, #1, pp. 208-231.

P. Upchurch, P. M. Barrett, and P. Dodson. 2004. Sauropoda. In D. B. Weishampel, H. Osmólska, and P. Dodson (eds.), The Dinosauria (2nd edition). University of California Press, Berkeley 259-322.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Firstfron! Now I cannot pretend to be a great student of Pelorosaurus. I am however especially interested in Victorian dinosaurs and was trying to help to to expand the stub, and have done some serious research. You are right, of course- many authors equate Cetiosaurus conybeari with Pelorosaurus conybeari, and on that basis Melville should have precedence. But the generality of the scientific community seems to continue to use the name Pelorosaurus conybeari, if only as a nomen dubium. There may be some taxonomic or historical reason why this is the case. And the article notes that the name may in fact be a n.d. Perhaps sometime soon a consensus will establish P.conybeari as a junior synonym of C.conybeari, and we will have to edit. But isn't Cetiosaurus as nearly as messy as Pelorosaurus? It's interesting to note that the Wikipedia entry on Cetiosaurus does not list C.conybeari as a species, so perhaps it is itself a n.d? Upchurch suggests that Cetiosaurus medius, the type, is invalid, which would make the type C. oxonensis (1871). Pelorosaurus would then certainly have precedence. So the situation may not be as clear as Mikko's Phylogeny suggests. In any case I feel it safer to leave things as they are.

As to Dinodocus, Oplosaurus, etc: the taxonomic history of Pelorosaurus is, as you know, long and convoluted. The list of species and their relationships is taken from Dino Russ, which is why I originally listed that site as a reference. I dare say there are other interpretations. I don't understand why equating one or more species of Pelorosaurus with one or more of another sauropod 'lacks seriousness' because those other species may be nomina dubia. Could you please explain that to me? But in any case, we are dealing with the opinion of a small number of authorities, authorative as they may be. I could not edit the article to favour Upchurch's opinion unless I was sure it represented the consensus of the scientific community. Having said all this, do edit the article if you wish, but I do not think your edits should replace the present information, but be presented as alternate interpretations. Cheers!--Gazzster 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Cetiosaurus conybeari.. Pelorosaurus conybeari"... ye gods, I hope these don't have anything to do with the nomen oblitum Megalosaurus conybeari... ;) Those Victorians certainly had a fast and loose approach to taxonomy! Dinoguy2 06:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, as to the actual issue here, P. conybeari is the type, referred to it's own genus by Mantell 1850 after having been named as a new species of Cetiosaurus by Melville 1849, right? I'll modify the taxobox authorities accordingly. All this means is that the genus and the binomial have different authorities--pretty common, so not really a sticky situation. Dinoguy2 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The image has been removed on the grounds that it's anachronistic. It was an old print, the dino was in an urban setting, and human beings are running away from it. It is obviously from a piece of fiction. I suppose the caption should have sourced the image. So I can sort of see the editor's point, but still, I think the image was pretty cool. And it was fairly accurate for a brachiosaur- no glaring scientific innacuracies as far as I could see. I'd like to see it back. What do you think? There are early depictions of Anchisaurus and Ceratosaurus and other dinosaurs in their articles. And I don't think you will find a 100% accurate image of Pelorosaurus, because it is imperfectly known. So why not use the image, properly captioned?--Gazzster 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As per Wikiproject Dinosaurs image guidelines, historical images are appropriate if source information and context are given. They should not be in the taxobox, however. If the image is from a movie or an illustration for a piece of fiction (sounds like it based on the setting), it should be in a pop culture section. It is pretty inaccurate, by the way--much too bulky compared to modern restorations, the skull looks... goofy, broad, and non-brachiosaurid, and the front legs include toes and claws, which sauropods did not have. Dinoguy2 23:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Right then. Maybe somebody has a photo or drawing of the fossil material.Sauropods had no toes or claws? Didn't Apatosaurus and others have some pretty wicked claws on their front feet?--Gazzster 05:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, some sauropods had a large 'spike' that's basically a vestigial toe claw, possibly used in intra-specific combat or something. Ironically, these species still lack toes--the toes were lost, and that single claw became fused to the metacarpal 'stumps' left behind. Anyway, I do think it would be cool to keep that image, if we can dig up the source information and list it in the caption. Dinoguy2 18:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The source, www.copyrightxpired.com, lists it not as Pelorosaurus but as Gigantosaurus, published in Scientific American in 1914. I've moved the image to that article. Dinoguy2 00:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)