Talk:Sauropoda

message: "At least some of them laid eggs, like the camarasaurs and titanosaurs"
Does this imply that some auropods (may have) reproduced in other methods?  It seems to...
If there's a reason to believe that these dinosaurs reproduced in other ways, it'd be great to elaborate on what these ways are, and why it's a possibility.  I've never heard of dinosaurs reproducing in any other way, though I suppose in something so large, live birth wouldn't be impossible...  but at the same time, as stated, I've never heard of any possibilities of dinosaurs doing anything but laying eggs.
Sorry if this isn't edited correctly.  I'm not wiki-savvy... but felt this was important to mention.  It's either an ill-worded sentence, or the introduction of an idea that is not common knowledge and shouldn't be treated as such...  72.147.110.213 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably a reference to an older idea that sauropods had live births (this was before their eggs were well-known). J. Spencer 14:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha.  Thank you :)  I hadn't actually heard of that idea before.  Perhaps it should be mentioned to be as such?  "Some researchers held the idea that sauropods gave birth to live young; however, more recent discoveries of fossilized nests of eggs for many species has put this idea largely to rest." or some such.  Evolution of an idea is as important as the idea it's self.  Especially when there's not really any way to determine what 'the truth' really was.  but anyway.. I'd make a change, but my dinosaur knowledge is pretty limited-- I'll let someone who knows more on the topic determine if this should be altered, edited, or left alone. :)  But thank you very much for the very quick answer! 72.147.120.159 22:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's one of those things that should be addressed.  I don't know if he was the first to propose it, but Bob Bakker was the most recent popularizer of the idea (in the 1980s), if I recall correctly. J. Spencer 02:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some laid eggs?

message: There is more debate to the posture of the Sauropods then is currently indicated in this article.  One study (or possibly more then one study I can't remember) was made that showed that the heart couldn't have been strong enough to pump blood into the head if the head was raised high, to say nothing of the rearing up on legs.  One theory is that they were 'vacuum cleaners', keeping their huge bodies in one place on a plains environment to save energy while sweeping their long necks in wide arcs feeding on ground plants.  Saw an article recently that took this for granted saying that the idea of Sauropods eating like giraffes was outdated as they being swamp dwellers using their long necks heads as snorkels.   There are problems with this, like the peg teeth that are perfect for eating evergreen needles. And there is huge debate, but I was surprised no mention is made of this hypothesis.
Also rather surprising is no mention of the now out of favor theory that they were lake/swamp dwelling, the water buoying up the heavy weight, and their long necks acting as snorkels.  Considered 'wrong' now, I feel it should still be mentioned for history and completeness sake. 
Also there is some evidence, at least according to Bob Bakker, that some species may have had trunks like elephants.
Sorry I have no references for any of this. This is in fact my first post on Wikipedia...  Although I believe most of it was in "Dinosaur Heresies" by Bakker. --Riftmann 05:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trunks are pretty unlikely, as animals with trunks (Tapirs, Elephants) have incredibly reduced or no inscisors, as they have no need for them, while their molars are large and flat so they can crush up food that they put into their mouths. But Sauropods don't have molars like Hadrosaurs or Ceratopsians, and Sauropod teeth show signs incredible wear. Read more here --50.195.51.9 (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posture? 

message: Why redirct to the same page? Enlil Ninlil 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno.  There's doubtless a better place for it, but it's generally avoided in recent literature as a historic wastebasket family. J. Spencer 01:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cetiosauridae

message: Maybe someone can put in the first recognised genera of sauropod, the articles can be expanded a lot as well. Enlil Ninlil 03:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First Sauropods

message: The Guardian reports today on a bone being rediscovered at the Natural history museum. Xenoposeidon proneneukus, anyone? Andycjp 04:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if this is the same as "Angloposeidon", which was a Naish brachiosaurid. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, this is something else, based on a posterior dorsal, though Naish was in on the description. J. Spencer 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just figured that out. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd that Naish declined to name "Angloposeidon" despite fully describing it, but decided to name this one vert and suggest a new family could be erected around it... has nobody learned the lesson of Titanosaurus? ;) Dinoguy2 01:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mislabeled and forgotten?

message: As I remember there has been some debate about blood flow to the head in an upright posture. There's also this new bit. Perhaps a paragraph might be warranted discussing the issue. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Taylor et al.'s paper is already in the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on posture 

message: This should be new. Yosef1987 (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Taylor et al.'s paper is already in the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Head and neck posture

message: In the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs by David Norman from 1985 it is mentioned that Roland T. Bird found a sauropod trackway in Texas in the 1930s that showed it walking with only the front legs under water! This seems rather incredible, so does anyone know if it still holds up? And if it does, it would probably be notable for the article. FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Read this 2003 paper by Henderson on sauropod boyancy.  Sauropods with longer front legs and or upward sloping backs may have been able to make those tracks. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! Seems like sauropod behavour in relation to water isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, which should be a pretty good thing to have, at least to have the swamp dweller myth debunked on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the resulting counter-myth that they couldn't go into water or they'd die. Clearly, all those air sacs made them float pretty well. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aquatic front leg-walking 

message: As a seeker of information, writes Autochthony, can someone please advise what were the other of the "the largest animals to have ever lived on land"?
Indricotherium and the Mammoths did not get close, in height or - especially - weight. to any of the 'Top Ten' sauropods - perhaps 'Fantastic Fifty' if the splitters rule.  
Autochthony queried - 2150z 31.12.2009 [No answer expected this year!  Happy New Year!]. 86.151.60.238 (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some sauropods, such as Vulcanodon and Bellusaurus were considerably smaller than some of the larger mammals such as Indricotherium. Some were smaller than the modern elephant.--Gazzster (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it said, "included many of the largest," not "many were the largest." I've taken it out. Either the group includes the largest land animals or not. It does. It's not saying every one was the largest. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "many of the largest animals to have ever lived on land"

message: Under German copyright laws, only the exterior, not the interior of museums, is in the public domain. While taking photographs inside is usually allowed when not using a tripod, and sometimes even when doing so, it is always explicitly forbidden (unless the museum expressly permits it) to use the images for anything but "private use". Releasing images for commercial use is not covered. Thus, I am removing all questionable images for now. The Museum für Naturkunde Berlin has, to my certain knowledge, not released anything for use on wikipedia.HMallison (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: update here: talk:DiplodocusHMallison (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that include previously uploaded images that have not gotten specific requests? FunkMonk (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On paper, no - but in fact I do not think the MFN will do anything about old images when they are granting permissions left and right (which is great!). HMallison (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  image copyrights 

message: Recent research indicates quite clearly that the basal metabolic rate, grwoth rates and several other connected factors are the same for all Sauropoda. Is there anyone willing to help me write a section here, so that this stuff need not be rehashed on each separate genus page? 
Nice summary of all we need in:
Sander, M. et al. (2010): Biology of the sauropod dinosaurs: the evolution of gigantism. Biology Reviews (onlien first) doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00137.x
HMallison (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am interested, although as I mentioned on Talk:Brachiosaurus I will be unavailable for large projects for the next few days. J. Spencer (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: talk:sauropod/DRAFTmetabolism Draft page for the metabolism section HMallison (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found physiology of dinosaurs - most info is in there, but that page needs an update. Any other unexpected surprises (i.e., pages that are relevant / cover the topic and are not linked here already that anyone knows of? HMallison (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not per se, although Dinosaur and Dinosaur renaissance overlap. J. Spencer (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, thanks :(  More stuff to get on level ground..... HMallison (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

text: difficulties? Why? Because they did live, and did exist for long times, we can safely assume that they had no difficulties. Anything else is not parsimonious. HMallison (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metabolism, growth rates, etc. 

message: This section is based on one source, and a pretty shabby one at that. I'll rework it soon, once metabolism is done. Please list here anything that's helpful, such as literature refs, ideas, etc. HMallison (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 12 tons (short tons) for the Fenykovi elephant was an estimate made by the hunter himself as you should know by now, trophy hunters are prone to exaggerate, even the height he claimed is exaggerated because it was measured following the curves of the body. The Smithsonian, were the taxidermy mount resides has said that they estimated it at 8 tonnes. The "12 tonnes" elephant hunted in 1974, that's also an estimate and it probably was measured in the same misleading way, it probably weighted not much more than 9 tonnes. Either way this are freak specimens, mature males normally don't exceed 6 tonnes, and thanks to the fossil record we can see that ~10 tonnes is already approaching the limit of mammalian terrestrial body mass. Mammals have had 66 million years to surpass the 15 tonne mark and since first reaching it 40 million years ago, the best they have done since is matching it. Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Size evolution" 

message: :""When more complete specimens of Cetiosaurus were described by Phillips in 1871,""
Phillips who? --70.142.34.215 (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of discovery 

message: The article claims that sauropods appeared in the Jurassic. Isn't this inaccurate? What about the Triassic sauropods Antetonitrus, Isanosaurus and Lessemsaurus? 70.80.215.121 (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, i'll fix it up. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time 

message: The last paragraph of Ecology says there is evidence that they preferred wet and coastal climates. The last paragraph of Size evolution says that they were found primarily in semi-arid, seasonally dry environments. Which is it? If authorities disagree, I think the disagreement should be noted explicitly together with the evidence for each side.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.37.63 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wet or dry? 

message: I have no knowledge in the area, but I came here after hearing claims from media sources that sauropods both did and did not have brains in the base of their spine. I don't know if this is true, but even if it's not, I feel an entry stating it's a myth would be useful to others looking this up (unless this breaks wikipedia's policy on fringe theories) Lintome (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a myth but one more typically associated with Stegosaurus.--MWAK (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poserior brains, or myth thereof? 

message: A species name is always italicised, yet this isn't? -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: Jainosaurus is mentioned as a sauropod in the 'Genus List for Holtz (2007) Dinosaurs', but there is not a single mention of this giant dinosaur on the page.-Nimit (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: M.P. Taylor indicated a number of 136 valid sauropod genera in 2006. Today, this has risen to about two hundred. This implies that the article in its present scope can only mention the most important ones. Jainosaurus is interesting in itself but so poorly known that even its validity has been doubted. So, unless the Discovery chapter is vastly expanded to give an oversight of all names, Jainosaurus would be out of place here.--MWAK (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jainosaurus 

message: Rather than comparing weights of animals such as Male African Elephants to Sauropod weights, the articles should be comparing Volumetric Displacement Ratios.  Male African Elephants are not standardized to one reference Volume,but have volumes that vary between roughly 5.6 cubic meters to 6.0 cubic meters.  What we are after is not the smallest member in this group, nor the largest members in this group, but a number that is most representative of this group.  I propose starting with a reference Volume of 5.85 cubic meters of volumetric displacement.  Then Sauropod Volumes would be multiples of this number.  Recently the 15 Male African Elephant Volumes was replaced by a larger animal of 17 Male African Elephant Volumes. 98.245.219.152 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparative Volumetric Displacements 

message: Oppose: The pages for Eusauropoda and Neosauropoda are both fairly extensive (even if slightly redundant), and merging them into Sauropoda could serve to add more confusion and unnecessary clutter when navigating the pages. Having separate pages help casual readers to more clearly distinguish between the individual levels without trying to sort things out at a single sauropod page (I'm also looking at all of the "Uncertain affinity and basal genera" at Eusauropoda). Perhaps merging Neosauropoda into Eusauropoda would be a plausible alternative to avoid these issues? -SlvrHwk (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal