Favorite dinosaur?
- Thread starter Lord Paul
- Start date
[threadjack]
Creationsits for me fall from the state of 'logical' and 'intelligent' with the argument: 'the biblical flood happened recently - as you can see from the fact that the soil is still wet from it'
[/threadjack]
as there seemed to be a bit of confusion about this eariler on:
it is indeed so, that what was known as Brontosaurus is today called Apatosaurus.
Why? Well, one has to remember that dinosaurs are usually not found as entire skeletons, but normally as single bones, or partial skeletons, or sometimes a few bones that may or may not belong together. So, quite often, a name is given to an isolated bone or tooth or fragment - and that name has priority. But if different fragments show up (say, at first only one arm, later part of a tail) - how do you know they belong together? So the new part often gets a name, too - and if later on someone realizes that the parts belonged to one genus or species, then the older of the names sticks.
And that is what happened with Apatosaurus: a few isolated bones were named by Yale's professor Marsh, then he later coined the name Brontosaurus for a beautiful skeleton. Later one, it was discovered that the Apatosaurus bones belonged to an animal that was very closely related to Brontosaurus, and that these two species (Apatosaurus louisae and Brontosaurus excelsus IIRC) should both be put in one single genus. Since Apatosaurus was slightly older, they are now named Apatosaurus louisae and Apatosaurus excelsus.
Originally posted by Superevie
Darn tootin!Even if you are christian or creationist, you do believe in some evolution. I had a friend who was creationist and he did believe in evolution later on, but not in humans.
Creationsits for me fall from the state of 'logical' and 'intelligent' with the argument: 'the biblical flood happened recently - as you can see from the fact that the soil is still wet from it'
[/threadjack]
as there seemed to be a bit of confusion about this eariler on:
it is indeed so, that what was known as Brontosaurus is today called Apatosaurus.
Why? Well, one has to remember that dinosaurs are usually not found as entire skeletons, but normally as single bones, or partial skeletons, or sometimes a few bones that may or may not belong together. So, quite often, a name is given to an isolated bone or tooth or fragment - and that name has priority. But if different fragments show up (say, at first only one arm, later part of a tail) - how do you know they belong together? So the new part often gets a name, too - and if later on someone realizes that the parts belonged to one genus or species, then the older of the names sticks.
And that is what happened with Apatosaurus: a few isolated bones were named by Yale's professor Marsh, then he later coined the name Brontosaurus for a beautiful skeleton. Later one, it was discovered that the Apatosaurus bones belonged to an animal that was very closely related to Brontosaurus, and that these two species (Apatosaurus louisae and Brontosaurus excelsus IIRC) should both be put in one single genus. Since Apatosaurus was slightly older, they are now named Apatosaurus louisae and Apatosaurus excelsus.
Mescalhead
Vincebus Eruptum
T-Rex had stupid arms. I liked that dumb looking one with the club-tail.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Originally posted by carlosMM
[threadjack]
Creationsits for me fall from the state of 'logical' and 'intelligent' with the argument: 'the biblical flood happened recently - as you can see from the fact that the soil is still wet from it'
[/threadjack]
as there seemed to be a bit of confusion about this eariler on:
it is indeed so, that what was known as Brontosaurus is today called Apatosaurus.
Why? Well, one has to remember that dinosaurs are usually not found as entire skeletons, but normally as single bones, or partial skeletons, or sometimes a few bones that may or may not belong together. So, quite often, a name is given to an isolated bone or tooth or fragment - and that name has priority. But if different fragments show up (say, at first only one arm, later part of a tail) - how do you know they belong together? So the new part often gets a name, too - and if later on someone realizes that the parts belonged to one genus or species, then the older of the names sticks.
And that is what happened with Apatosaurus: a few isolated bones were named by Yale's professor Marsh, then he later coined the name Brontosaurus for a beautiful skeleton. Later one, it was discovered that the Apatosaurus bones belonged to an animal that was very closely related to Brontosaurus, and that these two species (Apatosaurus louisae and Brontosaurus excelsus IIRC) should both be put in one single genus. Since Apatosaurus was slightly older, they are now named Apatosaurus louisae and Apatosaurus excelsus.
I thought that the brontosaurus never existed in real life - the skeleton they named brontosaurus was an apatosaur skeleton with a skull from a camarasaurus.
The thing is, Marsh knew it was most likely a different animal - but he needed a head for his headless Apatasaurus, and one came up. Albeit miles away.
It took them over a hundred years to officially fix this.
Originally posted by thestonesfan
I thought that the brontosaurus never existed in real life - the skeleton they named brontosaurus was an apatosaur skeleton with a skull from a camarasaurus.
The thing is, Marsh knew it was most likely a different animal - but he needed a head for his headless Apatasaurus, and one came up. Albeit miles away.
It took them over a hundred years to officially fix this.
ah, well, it was a new species - but not a new genus......... Marsh was in a 'fight' who would find and name more dinosaurs, him or Cope, so he named everything without really studying it - maybe he *should* have realized that his new 'Brontosaurus' excelsus was an Apatosaurus - but then, no Apatosaurus skull was known and he didn't spend much time comparing legbones.
That the Camarasaurus skull was the wrong one wouldn#t have mattered at all - as Apatosaurus was known from a few isolated verterbrae and legbones IIRC
Dark Ascendant
Darkness Ascending...
T-rex would have beeen my fave if the arms weren't so short and weak. Raptors are smaller, but more deadly looking.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
They got brains in their tails which are like flails with minds! (think the medieval infantry weapon acting on its own!)
In fact, I used to love them so much in preschool I lied saying in Fantasia (sp?) during the dino fight the stegasaurus won. He shoulda...
I don't love them as much as before but they are still awsome.
WickedSmurf
pr0
Smurfosaurus. Not too common nor known to the average man, the smurfosaurus was no bigger than a badger. It was however a fearsome hunter wielding three axes while jumping one just one single leg. It is widely(?) believed that the color of the smurfosaurus was mainly blue, with some white details on its head and perhaps on other parts of the muscular body.
Unfortunately I have no pic to attach...
Unfortunately I have no pic to attach...
SideshowBob
Ah, winter finally.
CenturionV
Warrior Forever
Triceratops, I would have said T-rex untill i found out he was most likely a a big dumb, slow, smelly, bully who scavenged off everyone elses kills 
Originally posted by CenturionV
Triceratops, I would have said T-rex untill i found out he was most likely a a big dumb, slow, smelly, bully who scavenged off everyone elses kills
don't believe Jack Horner
it is a bit like the 19th century view of a lion as 'perfect killing machine' - if you WANT to see it that way, no proof no nothing will sway your view. Well. And Horner needs publicity atm as he has stepped on a lot of toes in the US.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Originally posted by CenturionV
Triceratops, I would have said T-rex untill i found out he was most likely a a big dumb, slow, smelly, bully who scavenged off everyone elses kills
I'm sure the Triceratops was witty, nimble, and sweet smelling, like the African Water Buffaloes of today.
