Re: Most popular/common dinosaur misconceptions

[mike@miketaylor.org.uk (Mike Taylor)]

Vorompatra@aol.com writes:
> In a message dated 8/18/06 12:05:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> qilongia@yahoo.com writes:
> 
>>> Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus are completely seperate animals. Of
>>> course you'll have to read my as yet unpublished issue of Dinosaur
>>> Comics to know why I think that so I'll move along.>
>>  
>> Well, I'd agree that they are separate animals. Separate species,
>> even. One is based on a juvenile, and another on an adult.
> 
> CMIIW, but wasn't Brontosaurus based on a chimera? (i.e.,
> Camarasaurus skull + Apatosaurus spine et al)

Not quite.  _Brontosaurus_ was _based_ on YPM 1980, an excellently
preserved partial skeleton lacking a skull.  Other material was
subseqeuntly referred to it, including the "Camarasaurus-like" skull
YPM 1986, but it was never part of the _Brontosaurus_ type series.

That skull has subsequently been further prepared and described by
Carpenter and Tidwell (1998) and appears to be morphologically
intermediate between those of _Camarasaurus_ and _Brachiosaurus
brancai_, more closely resembling the latter.  Since the North
American _Brachiosaurus_ species, _B. altithorax_, is not yet known
from an associated skull, it has been speculated that YPM 1986 might
in fact be a skull of _B. altithorax_.

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Fat Charlie the Archangel sloped into the room" -- Paul Simon,
         "Crazy Love, volume II"