Talk:Barosaurus

message: http://www.cbc.ca/photogallery/canada/893/ shows a skull in the exhibit at the Royal Ontario...139.48.25.61 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely reconstructed based on Diplodocus. Mounted skeletons show all bones it was known to have had, whether they actually found them or not. One technique I like, and I've seen in a few modern museum mounts, is using different colors for casting known and speculative material. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No skull? 

message: Why is Tornieria listed as synonym? even if they were synonyms in the past that is not the current concensus, listing it as such implies that they are still synonymized which is not true, the question mark does not resolve the issue because even though it is probably meant to denote uncertainty of them being synonyms it is wrong because there is not uncertainty, they are not synonyms. Since this page doesn't seem to get much traffic I'll remove it for now, if anyone disagrees feel free to comment here. Mike.BRZ (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tornieria 

message: Over at SVPOW blog there is an interesting post about Barosaurus , they also did a SVPCA presentation as well  . It's worth reading through the comments as well. Barosaurus is usually visualised as the specimen AMNH 6341, a somewhat averaged size diplodocid. Whilst investigating specimens they looked at field jacket BYU 3GR; they think this is Barosaurus. If correct, it suggests a specimen much larger, with a neck in the 12-13m range.
They also looked at BYU 9024, the referred Supersaurus cervical vertebra which measures 1380mm in length. They reckon that this is actually a Barosaurus as well. They reckon it's Cervical 9 and it's twice the length of Cervical 9 in AMNH 6341. If their assumptions are correct then it suggests a crazy 17m long neck and a truly giant sauropod. Even more conservative estimates suggest a giant animal. 
This doesn't effect the life restoration in the Supersaurus Wikipedia article which I based on Hartmans' restoration of WDC JMD-021 (Jimbo). However it's not clear if the referral if Jimbo to Supersaurus is correct. The holotype of Supersaurus is just a scapular, any other material was just referred to it. If others re-examine Supersaurus there's the chance that Jimbo ends up its own genus. The SVPOW guys haven't looked into the validity of the rest of the Supersaurus material, just this Vertebra BYU 9024.
Should any of this be included in the wiki articles? Obviously this is not formally published yet, but  it could have big effects on the Wikipedia Articles in the future. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could be mentioned that so and so has stated it on their blog. But any major changes should probably wait for a proper publication... FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I'll have a look at the article and see what or where it could be mentioned. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Barosaurus]]'', ''[[Supersaurus]]'' and SVPOW 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Barosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621180213/http://pubs.gg.uwyo.edu/conttogeo/abstracts/CTG_31-1.htm to http://pubs.gg.uwyo.edu/conttogeo/abstracts/CTG_31-1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified