RE: BRONTOSAURUS FOREVER! (and BIG MAMMAL TRAMPLES DEAD DINOSAUR)

[Garrison Hilliard <garrison@efn.org>]

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. 
-------- 

Screw it... I, Bob. and Gordon agree... it's
Brontosaurus.

-------
 p.s. On the "Big Mammal" thread, Dinotraker wrote: 
The find
might be interpreted as the first 'graphic' evidence of a mammal checking
out a dead dinosaur for food. We wouldn't be able to say whether it walked
away satisfied, however. I will say that the footprint is nicely
deep. Could that mean it walked away with a full stomach? :) 
-------

Okee-dokee, I'll admit it... it was me (via an a combined accident with a
gene splicer and a time machine) ! ;-)