# Talk:Brontosaurus

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Brontosaurus-skull-TATE-099.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Although I agree the popular culture section could get out of control easily, I do think that aside from Gertie, the modern-day public are mostly familiar with term brontosaurus from its use in The Flintstones, as it is used almost universally in that franchise to refer to dino species. (Dino is one of the exceptions, being identified as a snorkasaurus, which if nothing else saves some awkward conversations with children over why, if Dino is a brontosaurus, why Fred often eats brontosaurus burgers!) 23skidoo (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brontosaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Morrison Man (talk · contribs) 17:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 
Before we start, I'd like to request that you mark any comments of mine that you've fixed. That way the process is going to run a lot smoother for both of us. Though it's going to take me a little longer to review the entire article, I have some notes on the first bits of prose that I can already share with you.


### Lead
*Maybe "from Greek" could be changed into "from the Greek words"

The sentence that starts with "For decades..." at the end of the first paragraph is structured in a weird way, maybe change it to something like "For decades, the animal was thought to have been a taxonomic synonym of its close relative Apatosaurus, though a 2015 study by Tschopp and colleagues found it to be distinct."
In the final sentence of the first paragraph, "notably" can be removed.
In the second paragraph, you contrast the robustness of the cervicals with that in Diplodocus and Barosaurus. Maybe adding a note that they're close relatives would help clarify the comparison?
"Supported by" > supported respectively by
"Juveniles" > Juvenile specimens
"adult sizes" > adult size
Instead of saying "It was in the family Diplodocidae", maybe say "Brontosaurus has been classified within the family Diplodocidae".
I would split the sentences talking about the Morrison Formation out of the third paragraph and into a section of its own. That also creates space to say something about the environment instead of just having it be a list of contemporaneous taxa.
The above changes have been implemented, as well as an expansion of the last paragraph as I thought it was necessary to mention how Brontosaurus was one of many genera to evolve in this period.
Excellent! I'll have more pointers ready within 24 hours.


### Description
*"proportionate to the body" > in proportion to the body

Apologies again for the long wait, here are the notes for History of Discovery. I've made a start on Description, and those should follow much sooner. If you have any questions let me know.


#### Vertebrae
Perhaps it would be good to clarify that the bifurcation of the cervicals is present on the dorsal side.
”vertebrae was noted” -> has been noted
”dorsum” -> torso/chest
Should ”pneumatic foramen” not be plural?
”to lighten to” -> to lighten the
Same for “diverticula” as for pneumatic foramen
”than other diplodocids” -> than those of other diplodocids
Same for “the vertebra” as for pneumatic foramen
”of a diplodocid’s” -> of that of other diplodocids
Explain technical terms like fossae in brackets. It would be smart to check for this throughout the article.
Merge sentence 2 and 3 of the 2nd paragraph
It would be good to look at the second half of paragraph 2. Some things belong in the section about legs, like the comments on the ilium and ischium, while others need to be moved, like the sentence on neural spines included after the ones on the ribs.


#### Limbs
Maybe it would be good to talk about the nature of Brontosaurus’ own scapula before comparing between it, Camarasaurus and Apatosaurus. Unless we don’t have a scapula from Brontosaurus, of course.
As for the coracoid being more like that of Apatosaurus than Camarasaurus, wouldn’t this be expected considering their phylogenetic placement?
”sterna are preserved” -> sterna have been preserved
Merge the sentence “The limb bones were…” with the one directly after it.
”Metacarpals” -> the metacarpals
It would make the most sense if this paragraph was structured to include all parts of the arms together, followed by the legs (if that makes sense). Perhaps it can even be split up into two smaller paragraphs.


### Classification
”is also classified” -> is classified
”and one or more possible unnamed genera” -> and possibly one or more unnamed genera
It would be good to include another phylogeny if possible, as right now only Tschopp et al (2015) is represented, and their results have met some criticism if I’m not mistaken.


#### Species
Maybe rephrase the section on B. excelsus. First you mention that a lot of specimens have been referred to it, and then you say only two have. It feels weirdly contradicting.
“in Wyoming, in the lower Morrison Formation” -> in the lower Morrison Formation of Wyoming


### Palaeobiology
”recent research… akin to modern birds.” Is this also true for sauropods specifically? Otherwise it might need changing.
”feeding” I would guess this is meant to be “foraging”?


#### Diet and energy requirements
Algae? I wouldn’t expect that from land-dwelling sauropods. If it is true thats an unexpected but interesting food source.
Turns out that was an old hypothesis
”tooth rows” -> tooth row
I think you’re missing another animal in the comparison of tooth crosssections.
”Hypothesis” -> hypotheses
”analogs” -> analogues
I would put ecto- and endotherm in brackets to differentiate them from mammals and reptiles.
Would it be possible to include the estimated energy requirement in calories instead of joules?
Ill add that later.


#### Posture
”believed to be” -> believed to have been


#### Physiology
”They assumed” -> they also assumed / furthermore, they assumed
”have argued” -> have also argued
Include the first name for “Paladino”, and check for this throughout the article.
”on this basis” -> based on this
”have been” -> have comprised of


#### Juveniles
”reached its” -> reached their
”first noted in 1903” would it be possible to cite that source alongside the 1936 one?
”based on the type” -> from the type


#### Tail
”Baron (2020) considers” -> Baron (2020) has considered
”on the sides” -> to the sides of the animal
Remove “while migrating”


#### Neck combat
”the cervical ribs” -> notable features include dense cervical ribs and diapophyses, …
Perhaps it would be good to mention that Wedel (2015) hasn’t been published yet.


### Paleoecology
Fix the 146.8 mya date in accordance with the comments left by Ken Carpenter on the Morrison Formation talk page
Small nitpick, “Lourinha Formation” should be changed to Lourinhã Formation
”and have” -> and was
”zones 2-6” According to which model? I’d assume Fosters, but it would be good to mention that in the prose
As far as I’m aware, Fungi are not considered Flora.
Remove the comma between “tree ferns” and “and ferns”


### In popular culture
The section on #BRONTOSMASH could probably use the same thing I suggested in the tail section of paleobiology, mentioning that Wedel’s paper hasn’t been published as more than a preprint.

All suggestions except for the cladogram one have been implemented - Augustios
I have some comments:

John Foster should probably be mentioned as a researcher who has continued to regard Brontosaurus as a synonym of Apatosaurus[1][2]
Done
"B. excelsus fossils have been reported from the upper Salt Wash Member to the upper Brushy Basin Member, ranging from the middle to late Kimmeridgian age, about 154–151 Mya. Additional remains are known from even younger rocks, but they have not been identified as any particular species." This is somewhat misleading, as the cited source predates the taxonomic reevaluation of Tschopp et al., and probably included specimens in Apatosaurus excelsus that Tschopp et al. did not include in Brontosaurus excelsus
Done
There doesn't seem to be much information here on how the species of Brontosaurus differed from one another.
will add
"Brontosaurus differs from Apatosaurus in that the base of the posterior cervical vertebrae's neural spines are more elongated." This isn’t one of the differences listed by Tschopp et al. between the two, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
it was dorsals instead. "a longer than wide base of posterior dorsal neural spines (279-0, unique among Apatosaurinae"
"Like those of other sauropods, the vertebrae of the neck were deeply bifurcated on the dorsal side; that is, they carried paired spines, resulting in a wide and deep neck." Most sauropods had unbifurcated neural spines, so this should be rephrased to say something like "Like those of other diplodocids..."
done
"The spine and tail consisted of 15 cervicals, ten dorsals, five sacrals, and about 82 caudals." No complete tails of Brontosaurus are known; this would be inferred from Apatosaurus.
Done
"The cervical vertebrae were stouter than those of other diplodocids, though not as stout as in mature specimens of Apatosaurus." Citation needed; this isn't one of the differences listed by Tschopp et al.
Done
"thick parapophyses (extensions on the lateral sides of the vertebrae)" It might be useful to clarify that the parapophyses are one of the attachment points for the cervical ribs.
Done
"Neural canals, which contain the notochord of the vertebral column, are ovate and large..." You mean spinal cord, which is distinct from the notochord.
Done
"Brontosaurus spp. also had very long ribs compared to most other diplodocids, giving them unusually deep chests" this is slightly SYNTH and misleading as the cited source refers to Apatosaurus and Supersaurus having longer ribs and deeper chests than Barosaurus or Diplodocus; it is not clear whether this inference is drawn from specimens now assigned to Apatosaurus, Brontosaurus, or both, and in any case Brontosaurus would presumably be similar to at least Supersaurus and Apatosaurus in this regard.
Removed
“The shape of the tail was unusual for diplodocids, being comparatively slender, due to the vertebral spines rapidly decreasing in height the farther they are from the hips.” I'm not sure what this is talking about, as this is true of all diplodocids.
done
"The scapulae of Brontosaurus and Camarasaurus are very similar overall. Brontosaurus differs however in that the shaft of the scapula is thinner with a reduced anterior transverse process." Marsh 1881 is a very outdated source and I'm not sure it's appropriate to use here (our understanding of sauropod anatomy has come a long way since then, and Marsh only compares it to Morosaurus because that's basically all he had available to compare it to at the time). I have no idea what an "anterior transverse process" of the scapula is, nor does the source seem to say anything of the sort.
removed
"One of traits that distinguishes Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus is the presence of a depression on the anterior face of the scapula, which the latter lacks." This presumably refers to the fossa posterior to the acromial ridge on the lateral face of the scapula.
Done
"The acromial ridge on the scapula of Brontosaurus also has a rounded extension off of its edge, a characteristic unique to the genus." This presumably refers to the rounded expansion on the acromial side of the scapular blade, not anything to do with the acromial ridge. It's also only unique to Brontosaurus among apatosaurines; it's also found in many other sauropods.
done
"Brontosaurus had a single large claw on each forelimb, and the first three toes possessed claws on each foot” This phrasing is somewhat confusing.
fixed
"Many specimens have been assigned to the species, though only two are definitively known. They include FMNH P25112, the skeleton mounted at the Field Museum of Natural History, which has since been found to represent an unknown species of apatosaurine" This phrasing is somewhat unclear, as it makes it sound like FMNH P25112 is one of the two definitively known specimens mentioned.
fixed
"Brontosaurus amplus, occasionally assigned to B. parvus," When did that ever happen?
fixed
The holotype of Brontosaurus amplus is technically from Reed's Quarry 11, although they're only fifty yards apart (McIntosh 1995).
fixed
What is "UW 15556 (which had once been accidentally mixed with the holotype)" referring to? As far as I am aware, that never happened.
fixed
This list is probably non-comprehensive, but it's all I have the time to review right now Ornithopsis (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Wont be able to implement for a few days or even a week. Will do. Thank you AFH (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
UW 15556 was mixed with the juvenile holotype specimen in the quarry. See the third paragraph here  AFH (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't see what you mean. Nothing in that paper suggests that the skeletons had been "accidentally mixed". All that paper says is that the holotype was disarticulated and found associated with the larger specimen, which is not the same thing as the two skeletons being mixed together. Ornithopsis (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Just a comment, this[3] is not the Felch Quarry skull at all, it's a sculpt possibly based on Camarasaurus.[4] FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
fixed
Should be stated on which mount it was used, and it is now on the same "line" as the infographic, creating text sandwiching. FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Fixed, should be good now. AFH (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I got curious about the "Although now recognized by the scientific community as Apatosaurus..." quote attributed to Postal Bulletin 21744, so I dug up a copy.  I believe the citation is in error; the only mention of the dinosaur stamps is a short mention at the end of "National Stamp Collecting Month – Update" on page 5.  I suspect the quote is real, but from a different document. RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Turns out, everybody just got the PB number wrong.  It's really 21742.  Also discovered there's a complete archive of these available on-line at http://www.uspostalbulletins.com/.  This one is http://www.uspostalbulletins.com/PDF/Vol110_Issue21742_19890914.pdf RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)