Talk:Supersaurus

message: * "Whatever happened to 'Ultrasauros?, by Brian Curtice.
The page is no longer active.  -- Noclevername (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it. J. Spencer (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinct link 

message: From the pdf, it seems like the year should be 2007, but if it turns out that it should be 2008, I'm not going to raise a stink about correcting it. J. Spencer (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in cases like this it's usually the year of actual publication that gets listed, but I could be wrong. The paper was just published this week, online and elsewhere. It's definitely 2008. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dinogeorge and Dinogenera are using 2007 for the two new names from the issue, while Jerry Harris used 2008 in his DML posting.  Someone's bound to bring it up sooner or later. J. Spencer (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year for Lovelace ''et al.'' 

message: I'm thinking the image of the NAMAL mount needs to be replaced since it's outdated (portraying the animal as a diplodocine and not and apatosaurine). I would suggest using a picture of the WDC mount instead.
:Good catch, unfortunately our selection of Supersaurus images on Commons is pretty paltry...  If somebody can find/release a creative commons licensed pic of the WDC mount that would be phenomenal. MMartyniuk (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, on images of Supersaurus here, Darren Naish used Lady of Hats's restoration in this article in his recent Dinosaur Discoveries book. FunkMonk (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, cool! Still gotta get that one. MMartyniuk (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In that image, I've wondered what the grey scale sauropod in the background is supposed to represent. Anyone know? FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

text:  There I was, trying to do a good thing for humanity...Well, it's fixed now. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: At least it made for a good blog story! FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of image? 

message: If this article states that 'Recent discoveries show Supersaurus to be a large relative of the familiar Apatosaurus', then why do both the taxobox and the article Diplodocid both list Supersaurus as a Diplodocine rather than an Apatosaurine? Surely something that is actively noted as being a larger relative of Apatosaurus would be an Apatosaurine? Or is this sentence just included because Apatosaurus is a relatively famous dinosaur, more famous than, say, Barosaurus or even Diplodocus, and it's important to note that they were related? Which seems odd, especially since the article says 'recent discoveries'. Basically, was Supersaurus chunky or lanky?
:Somewhere in between. This is confusing as recent studies basically showed Apatosaurinae doesn't exist, but Apatosaurus is a basal diplodocid and other members form a grade leading toward Diplodocus. Supersaurus is something of a transitional form between bulky and lanky diplodocids. The discussion of classification was spread over several sections with the older info in the intro, so I consolidated and summarized the situation. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ok, so it's actually a lot more complicated than there just being two branches of diplodocidae? Is this mentioned in the diplodocid page? --86.146.156.158 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I just looked at the diplodocid page, and the bottom cladogram, after Whitlock, 2011, clearly shows this. So Apatosaurus is less derived than Diplodocus. Gotcha.--86.146.156.158 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Also, if this is the case, wouldn't Barosaurus be more derived than Diplodocus? It seems a lot more gracile. Is this not the right place for this discussion?--86.146.156.158 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well according to most studies Barosaurus and Diplodocus are sister groups, so they're technically equally derived (i.e. it's arbitrary which one is placed at the 'top' of the cladogram). It may be that Diplo is more 'primitive' in body form than Baro--not sure we can say. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, I didn't notice that on the cladogram sorry. Yes, it clearly has Diplodocus and Barosaurus as sister groups on two branches at the 'top/bottom' of the cladogram, just like the less derived Tornieria and Dinheirosaurus. Out of interest, where would something like Eobrontosaurus go? Would you say it was more or less derived than Apatosaurus? Or equally derived as with Baro and Diplo and...er..Torni and...Dinheiro?--86.146.156.158 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Eobrontosaurus hasn't been included in many analyses separately from Apatosaurus, unfortunately. We will need someone to publish in detail exactly how it's different (if it is) from the various species of Apatosaurus before it can be coded for cladistic studies. So right now the answer would be unknown, but either near the base close to Apato or in a clade with Apato, most likely. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant, thank you :) That is one of the most frustrating things about consolidating paleontological information - waiting for the papers!--86.146.156.158 (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, this is the guy who was '86.146.156.158'. As you may be able to see, I have an account now, and want to help with WikiProject Dinosaurs and just the dinosaur pages in general!--DiplodocoidsruleMacronariansdrool (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apatosaurine or Diplodocine? 

message: Perhaps a bit nigglish but I can't help note the scale image comparing various sauropods has no human for scale as indicated in its caption. --Dracontes (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No human for scale 

message: Shall it be listed how long and how heavy like Sue? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo 

message: Scott Hartman has a size estimate for Supersaurus at around ~36m http://i.imgur.com/inRduPBh.png 
Scott Estimated BYU 9024 to be around 6.5% larger then the WDC DMJ-021 at 34m making BYU ~36m
http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/smackdown-supersaurus-vs-giraffatitan-and-diplodocus7212014
The Wiki Rabbit 07:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing how Hartman was one of the Co-Authors of Lovelace et al. (2007), which was used for the size estimate for Supersaurus on this article. I will edit the size of Supersaurus and add the source I provided above for the edit. As for the picture that can be figured out later. Any objections reply to this section please. 
The Wiki Rabbit 17:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Well, we should not be citing context-free images, and the article does not contain any total length estimates for Supersaurus, so this qualifies as original research. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supersaurus Size 

message: According to sauropod researcher Matt Wedel, Supersaurus may not be a valid taxon, and is possibly a junior synonym of Barosaurus: https://svpow.com/2019/07/17/supersaurus-timeline/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.166.188 (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of Supersaurus