Talk:Brontosaurus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Dinosaurs This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[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)

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)].


[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)

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)

[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)

[edit] 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 seemsl ike 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)

[edit] 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.Funkynusayri (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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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. Funkynusayri (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)

[edit] 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)