Re: Bakker's Brontosaurus and Late Cretaceous populations

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Mike Taylor wrote:

> Ah, thanks for that correction.  I can't find the reference for this -- do 
> you have it?

It's just an abstract, to a presentation at the 1992 SVP meeting.  It won't 
tell you anything the (very long) 1996 paper by the same authors won't tell 
you.

Miller, W.E., McIntosh, J.S., Stadtman, K.L., and Gillette, D.D. (1992).  
Redescription of a new species of Camarasaurus: Camarasaurus lewisi 
(Jensen).  J. Vert. Pal. 12(3) p. 18A.

> I shouldn't really comment on this as I've not yet read the McIntosh et al. 
> osteology; but the Jensen 1988 paper does seem to make a strong case for 
> generic separation when read in isolation.

The sting in the tail... "when read in isolation".  :-)  From memory, some 
of the "diagnostic" characters turned out to be ontogeny-related.

> Well, "not large" would be a bit harsh :-)  [snip] At any rate, the 
> "Ultrasaurus" scap
> certainly does not represent a _much_ larger animal than is known from 
> Tendaguru, contra the widespread reports that it is 1/3 longer => 2.35 
> times as massive.

I still remember the swirl of publicity that surrounded (and followed) the 
discovery of the "Ultrasaurus" scapula.  "Ultrasaurus" even made it into the 
Guinness Book of World Records, as I recall, owing to its allegedly 
record-breaking dimensions.  When the dust had settled, the height and mass 
estimates for "Ultrasaurus" were substantially revised: Downwards.

> Yes ... with no actual justification whatsoever.  Anyone can make up new 
> combinations.  Look: _Triceratops rex_!  _Tyrannosaurus horridus_!

Or even make up whole new species, like _Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum_.  I 
intend to transfer this one to the new genus "Mofo".

;-)

Cheers

Tim