Talk:Cetiosaurus

message: Hey - nice work on cetiosaurus, folks. It's 'growing up'. I have to have a bit of a soft spot for him, he's my 'local' dino (along with Megalosaurus). - Ballista 04:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: me too, was one of my faves as a kid (maybe just the name..)Cas Liber 05:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

message: The holotype of Cetiosaurus longus consists of isolated dorsal and caudal vertebrae from the Late Jurassic Portland Stone of Oxfordshire (Upchurch and Martin 2003). Owen (1842) referred material that was given the nomen nudum Cetiosaurus epioolithicus Owen, 1842 (vertebra, metatarsals) to C. longus, but since the Portland Stone is of Kimmeridgian age (Upchurch and Martin 2003) and the material from Yorkshire is of Bajocian age (Whyte et. al. 2010), there is no evidence that the material named C. epioolithicus is conspecific with C. longus.
Cetiosaurus brachyurus Owen 1842 is a nomen dubium and the syntype dorsal and caudal vertebrae (from Wadhurst Clay Formation of Kent; see Owen 1842) are from an iguanodont and sauropod respectively (Upchurch and Martin (2003).
Owen, R. 1842. Deuxie`me rapport sur les reptiles fossiles de la Grande Bretagne. Institut 10:11–14.
Martin A. Whyte, Mike Romano, and Will Watts, 2010. Yorkshire dinosaurs: a history in two parts. Geological Society, London, Special Publications  v. 343:189-207. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - you're posting this so we can work it in somehow I take it....I've always had a soft spot for Cetiosaurus, so I'll digest a bit later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cetiosaurus longus 

message: I found this restoration on Flickr, but it looks a bit weird, anyone know if it is accurate, or what species it is supposed to be? ~~
:It is a restored cast of LCM G468.1968, aka the Rutland Dinosaur, indeed in the New Walk Museum. This specimen has been referred to Cetiosaurus oxoniensis by Upchurch & Martin (2003); if correct this would make it the most complete exemplar of the species known, with about 40% van the elements present. Much of the weirdness is caused by the perspective and the necessary zooming out to capture the immense skeleton. It looks almost juvenile in the picture but the mount is fifteen metres long!--MWAK (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, I've added the image to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And a lot of very useful data too, I see :o). When I've finished the expansion of the Dutch article, I'll start working on this one.--MWAK (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That was modified from a stub about the specimen actually. There are a few more old lithographs of other species I can add once there's room. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good to hear. Room can be provided in any quantity so desired :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a specimen of C. longus. Not sure if it's one of those "lost" specimens. As for the Rutland dinosaur, seems they gave it a new skull, compare the new image with an old one:   FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The new skull is a definite improvement :o). Though completely fake of course. I've wondered about the image of the C. longus vertebra too. Indeed it is natural to assume it was one of the lost Garsington specimens. Confusingly, there's no mention of it in the volume it was attached to. It also seems to be a rather late lithography by James Erxland, leaving open the possibility it instead is one of the C. oxoniensis or C. glymptonensis specimens because Owen at first referred this material to C. longus. The problem seems to be that these volumes were republished in a strongly edited form with all kinds of later additions put in, making it very hard to decide what Owen exactly claimed in the original publication unless one possesses the first editions.--MWAK (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Here's another image of a mounted specimen, which might be in the public domain. I'm a bit confused about what it is, as that site says it is Cetiosaurus leedsi, but Naish & Martill 2007 says it is Cetiosauriscus stewarti. Anyone know what it is? FunkMonk (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are right in a way. The picture shows specimen BMNH R.3078 found in May 1898 near Fletton. At the time this was the most complete sauropod exemplar from Britain (only the "Rutland" is today more complete). Originally this was referred to Cetiosaurus leedsi (aka Ornithopsis leedsii) but in 1985 Charig named it a separate species Cetiosauriscus stewarti. In 1995 the ICZN even made BMNH R.3078 the genoholotype of Cetiosauriscus. This is historically a very important specimen and it would certainly be worthwhile to see if the image were free from copyright!--MWAK (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find any info on who the original photographer was, but since the image is from 1905, it is PD in the US at least. But it sadly can't be moved to Commons, since it isn't known when the author died. I've put it in Cetiosauriscus. An shouldn't C. brevis be removed from the taxobox, by the way? FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from the archives of the Leeds family; should any member read this, he/she is invited to elucidate this point! I think the picture might be a bit older: in the 2010 article by Noé, "‘Old bones, dry subject’: the dinosaurs and pterosaur collected by Alfred Nicholson Leeds of Peterborough, England", it is presumed to have been made just before the 1903 exhibition of the piece. As regards the species list within the taxobox, I'm not sure what criterion to apply. Are these supposed to include all named species? Or only those present consensus includes in the genus? In the latter case only C. medius and C. oxoniensis should be given. But perhaps species never referred to another genus should also be mentioned?--MWAK (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it seems that only valid names or names that have never been referred to other genera are to be included. And if you ever gather more information about the photo, let me know, then I'll see if it can be moved to Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly shall! In the species list, I'll remove C. brevis as you suggested, it having been made Pelorosaurus in 1850. Probably it is best to abstain from inserting P. rigauxi and such ;o).--MWAK (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mounted skeleton