Talk:Pelorosaurus

message: The authorship for Pelorosaurus conybearei should be changed from Mantell, 1850 to (Melville, 1849). The webpage for the taxonomic history of Pelorosaurus at Mikko's Phylogeny Archive (http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/metazoa/deuterostoma/Chordata/Archosauria/Sauropodomorpha/History_Pelorosaurus.html) correctly attibutes the authorship of P. conybearei to (Melville, 1849). Mantell (1850) officially created created Pelorosaurus as a new genus for "Cetiosaurus" conybearei.
Mantell G. A. 1850. On the Pelorosaurus; an undescribed gigantic terrestrial reptile, whose remains are associated with those of the Iguanodon and other saurians in the strata of the Tilgate Forest, in Sussex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 140: 379-390.
The synonymy of Dinodocus, Oplosaurus, and Ornithopsis with Pelorosaurus performed by McIntosh (1990) has been rejected, because Dinodocus, Oplosaurus, and Ornithopsis are nomina dubia (Upchurch and Martin, 2003). Oplosaurus may be the first record of the clade Turiasauria from the Cretaceous (http://www.users.qwest.net/~jstweet1/sauropoda.htm), and Upchurch et. al. (2004) consider this genus valid and distinguishable from Pelorosaurus. 
McIntosh, J. S., 1990: Sauropoda. 345-401
in Weishampel, D. B., Dodson, P., & Osmólska, H. (eds.), 1990: The Dinosauria.
–University of California Press, Berkley, Los Angeles, Oxford, 1990 xvi-733.
 
Upchurch, P. & Martin, J., 2003: The anatomy and taxonomy of Cetiosaurus (Saurischia, Sauropoda) from the Middle Jurassic of England.
–Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology: Vol. 23, #1, pp. 208-231.
P. Upchurch, P. M. Barrett, and P. Dodson. 2004. Sauropoda. In D. B. Weishampel, H. Osmólska, and P. Dodson (eds.), The Dinosauria (2nd edition). University of California Press, Berkeley 259-322.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Firstfron! Now I cannot pretend to be a great student of Pelorosaurus. I am however especially interested in Victorian dinosaurs and was trying to help to to expand the stub, and have done some serious research. You are right, of course- many authors equate Cetiosaurus conybeari with Pelorosaurus conybeari, and on that basis Melville should have precedence. But the generality of the scientific community seems to continue to use the name Pelorosaurus conybeari, if only as a nomen dubium. There may be some taxonomic or historical reason why this is the case. And the article notes that the name may in fact be a n.d. Perhaps sometime soon a consensus will establish P.conybeari as a junior synonym of C.conybeari, and we will have to edit. But isn't Cetiosaurus as nearly as messy as Pelorosaurus? It's interesting to note that the Wikipedia entry on Cetiosaurus does not list C.conybeari as a species, so perhaps it is itself a n.d? Upchurch suggests that Cetiosaurus medius, the type, is invalid, which would make the type C. oxonensis (1871). Pelorosaurus would then certainly have precedence. So the situation may not be as clear as Mikko's Phylogeny suggests.  In any case I feel it safer to leave things as they are.
As to Dinodocus, Oplosaurus, etc: the taxonomic history of Pelorosaurus is, as you know, long and convoluted. The list of species and their relationships is taken from Dino Russ, which is why I originally listed that site as a reference. I dare say there are other interpretations. I don't understand why equating one or more species of Pelorosaurus with one or more of another sauropod 'lacks seriousness' because those other species may be nomina dubia. Could you please explain that to me? But in any case, we are dealing with the opinion of a small number of authorities, authorative as they may be. I could not edit the article to favour Upchurch's opinion unless I was sure it represented the consensus of the scientific community. Having said all this, do edit the article if you wish, but I do not think your edits should replace the present information, but be presented as alternate interpretations. Cheers!--Gazzster 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cetiosaurus conybeari.. Pelorosaurus conybeari"... ye gods, I hope these don't have anything to do with the nomen oblitum Megalosaurus conybeari... ;) Those Victorians certainly had a fast and loose approach to taxonomy! Dinoguy2 06:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, as to the actual issue here, P. conybeari is the type, referred to it's own genus by Mantell 1850 after having been named as a new species of Cetiosaurus by Melville 1849, right? I'll modify the taxobox authorities accordingly. All this means is that the genus and the binomial have different authorities--pretty common, so not really a sticky situation. Dinoguy2 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, things are a bit more complicated than that. Mantell meant Pelorosaurus conybearei to be the new name of Cetiosaurus conybeari. This implies that the type material of C. conybeari is the type of Pelorosaurus conybearei too, to which the humerus was referred. The humerus is however, arguably the genoholotype of the genus Pelorosaurus. If the specimina are to be considered cogeneric, as Mantell obviously did, this poses no contradictions. If not, there is a problem.--MWAK (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature of Pelorosaurus 

message: The image has been removed on the grounds that it's anachronistic. It was an old print, the dino was in an urban setting, and human beings are running away from it. It is obviously from a piece of fiction. I suppose the caption should have sourced the image. So I can sort of see the editor's point, but still, I think the image was pretty cool. And it was fairly accurate for a brachiosaur- no glaring scientific innacuracies as far as I could see. I'd like to see it back. What do you think? There are early depictions of Anchisaurus and Ceratosaurus and other dinosaurs in their articles. And I don't think you will find a 100% accurate image of Pelorosaurus, because it is imperfectly known. So why not use the image, properly captioned?--Gazzster 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Wikiproject Dinosaurs image guidelines, historical images are appropriate if source information and context are given. They should not be in the taxobox, however. If the image is from a movie or an illustration for a piece of fiction (sounds like it based on the setting), it should be in a pop culture section. It is pretty inaccurate, by the way--much too bulky compared to modern restorations, the skull looks... goofy, broad, and non-brachiosaurid, and the front legs include toes and claws, which sauropods did not have. Dinoguy2 23:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, some sauropods had a large 'spike' that's basically a vestigial toe claw, possibly used in intra-specific combat or something. Ironically, these species still lack toes--the toes were lost, and that single claw became fused to the metacarpal 'stumps' left behind. Anyway, I do think it would be cool to keep that image, if we can dig up the source information and list it in the caption. Dinoguy2 18:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source, www.copyrightxpired.com, lists it not as Pelorosaurus but as Gigantosaurus, published in Scientific American in 1914. I've moved the image to that article. Dinoguy2 00:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Cetiosaurs brevis cannot be considered the original type species of Cetiosaurus because: (1) Owen intended to base Cetiosaurus on the material now known as Cetiosaurus medius rather than C. brevis; and (2) Steel (1970) designated C. medius Owen, 1842 as the type species of Cetiosaurus in congruence with the original use of Cetiosaurus for the sauropod from the Middle Jurassic Inferior Oolite. Thus, the pages for Cetiosaurus and Pelorosaurus need updating.
R. Steel. 1970. Part 14. Saurischia. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie/Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart 1-87.
P. M. Upchurch and J. Martin. 2003. The anatomy and taxonomy of Cetiosaurus (Saurischia, Sauropoda) from the Middle Jurassic of England. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23(1):208-231.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.61.237 (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, update the pages as appropriate.--Gazzster (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type species of Cetiosaurus 

message: After reading the article, I am confused. Is there any valid species left in the genus? Is P. conybearei valid, or does it belong to Cetiosaurus? 84.186.75.51 (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an authority on the intricacies of Victorian sauropod names, but I think the article has turned shades of gray into black and white.  C. brevis was thought to be the type species by Upchurch and Martin (2003), but it looks like it was really supposed to have been C. medius all along (http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/pubs/upchurch-et-al-2009/UpchurchEtAl2009-BZN-case-3472-cetiosaurus-type-species-oxoniensis.pdf). Additionally, C. brevis may or may not be based on the same individual as Pelosaurus conybearei. The upshot is P. conybearei is the only diagnosible species of Pelorosaurus that belongs in Pelorosaurus, and if it is the same as Cetiosaurus brevis, the name would more properly be Pelorosaurus brevis. J. Spencer (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: Looking at the species list, I don't see any reason to retain the list of sauropods misassigned to Pelorosaurus (Neosodon, Gigantosaurus, Ischyrosaurus, Duriatitan, Ornithopsis leedsii, Morinosaurus, Ornithopsis, Dinodocus, Oplosaurus) as these are either recognized as distinct or unrelated to Pelorosaurus. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species list update 

message: This has been discussed before, but I suppose it's my turn to bring it up: I am confident that Pelorosaurus conybeari is not an objective junior synonym of Cetiosaurus brevis. Rather, this situation has come about as the result of confusion of three names: Cetiosaurus brevis Owen, 1842, Cetiosaurus conybeari Melville, 1849, and Pelorosaurus conybeari Mantell, 1850, the last of which is the type species of Pelorosaurus. C. brevis Owen, 1842 and C. conybeari Melville, 1849 are indeed based on the same set of caudal vertebrae, making the latter an objective junior synonym of the former, but P. conybeari Mantell, 1850, is separate, and the humerus is its holotype. Here are the exact quote of the passages in which Mantell named Pelorosaurus: First, after describing the humerus, he states: Later, he states:  Not only does Mantell explicitly state that he is establishing Pelorosaurus conybeari "upon the evidence of the humerus alone," at no point does he explicitly indicate that his Pelorosaurus conybeari is meant to be a new genus for Melville's Cetiosaurus conybeari. At one point, he does state the following regarding the caudal vertebrae:  However, this falls short of indicating that C. conybeari Melville, 1849 is the type species of Pelorosaurus. As such, it appears to me that Mantell is naming a new species, Pelorosaurus conybeari, and designating the humerus now known as NHMUK 28626 as its holotype. His decision to tentatively refer the type specimen of C. brevis/C. conybeari to his P. conybeari is nomenclaturally dubious, but does not refute my point. However, this is Wikipedia, and we must follow what the sources say rather than argue about interpreting text. To that end, I point out that until relatively recently, Pelorosaurus conybeari Mantell, 1850, based on the humerus, was consistently recognized as the type species of Pelorosaurus. Lydekker (1888) lists Cetiosaurus brevis and Pelorosaurus conybeari separately and regards the caudals as the type of the former and the humerus the type of the latter, which he attributes to Mantell. Steel (1970) and Ostrom (1970) both explicitly distinguish between Cetiosaurus conybeari Melville, 1849 and Pelorosaurus conybeari, the former being based on the caudals and the latter on the humerus. McIntosh (1990) lists the type species of Pelorosaurus as Pelorosaurus conybeari Mantell, 1850. Upchurch et al. (2004) also distinguish between Pelorosaurus conybeari based on the humerus and Cetiosaurus conybeari based on the caudals, and attribute P. conybearei to Mantell, 1850:  The conflation of Cetiosaurus conybeari Melville, 1849 and Pelorosaurus conybeari Mantell, 1850 appears to be a relatively new development. Naish and Martill (2001) is the earliest work I am aware of to regard Cetiosaurus conybeari Melville, 1849 as the type species of Pelorosaurus, though they state that the name is "here restricted to the type humerus and the remainder of the original material is retained under Cetiosaurus brevis".  Upchurch and Martin (2003) also conflate the two species, and state that Mantell (1850) believed the humerus and vertebrae belonged to the same individual. However, they appear to be incorrect as I cannot find any passage where Mantell makes such a claim. Taylor and Naish (2007) are the first to specifically make the claim that Pelorosaurus conybeari is an objective junior synonym of Cetiosaurus brevis, but state their intention to petition the ICZN to suppress C. brevis. Upchurch et al. (2011) regard Cetiosaurus conybeari Melville, 1849 as the type species of Pelorosaurus and list the caudal vertebrae and humerus as syntypes. Despite viewing C. brevis and P. conybeari as synonyms, they choose to use P. conybeari. To sum up: there is clear precedent in the literature to regard Pelorosaurus conybeari Mantell, 1850, as the type species of Pelorosaurus, with the humerus NHMUK 28626 as its holotype. The few recent papers to have argued otherwise are, in my opinion, incorrect in that regard, and moreover regard the potential synonymy of C. brevis and P. conybeari as undesirable. The combination Pelorosaurus brevis is scarcely used in the literature and, in my opinion, not justified by the sources. I wouldn't bring this up if I didn't feel that the available sources are sufficient to cast significant doubt on the taxonomy currently presented in the article. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship and synonymy of ''Pelorosaurus conybeari''