Jump to content

Talk:Brachiosaurus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Maybe the Jurassic Park snapshot should be placed further down the page and an illustrative drawing could take its place. Doesn't this break copyright restrictions by using a screenshot from a film, on a page not relating to the film itself?

Yes, we need a replacement. John.Conway 09:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. John.Conway 09:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
B. brancai is currently on a seperate page under Giraffatitan... Maybe it should be included in the taxobox species list with a question mark or something as well.Dinoguy2 13:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not that up on sauropods, but how well accepted is Giraffititan brancai? Looks to me like the conservative scientific consensus is with Brachiosaurus brancai - John.Conway 03:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Im not that intrested in sauropods that much but this article is on a seperate from the Giraffatitan. Maybe we should probaly put a sighn on Giraffatitan on the dinosaurs list. These could have been the same dinosaurs. --408.965.879.065.765.216.519.296.848.4 22:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Skull Photo

For all those who have worked hard on this article, I just wanted to say that it looks great. I would just like to add this photo because i think that it would be great addition to the article. Brachiosaurus is definitly my favorite sauropod, so by contributing it would mean a lot to me. If you think that it is inappropriate or not right in any way, please let me know as soon as possible or if you try to change. Thank you, and I hope it works out! --Jraffe0404 (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Cite sources of new research!

The more dramatic and/or controversial the research, the more important it is to cite it with a link. There have been edits made that claimed highly dubious research. I removed them after a cursory search for sources.

Massive copyedits and article cleanup

Worked on this today. Unfortunately, there's not a lot I can do about citations -- those need serious work if this article is to be brought up to featured status. Killdevil 23:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed two of the three external links because they didn't seem to be working. If they come back online, feel free to re-insert them. Matt Deres 01:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

picture?

Why picture has so extremely broadened neck?

To make room for all the muscles and guts that had to fit in there. The neck wasn't just bone ya know :) Dinoguy2 16:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the creature on the left just looks absolutely huge, I mean, almost unearthly; it dwarfs the brachiosaurus on the right.
The neck is restored with air sacs, as opposed to with empty hollows as became fashionable a few years back. And the animal on the right is a juvenile! John.Conway 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I just want to say that I think this is the most badass picture of a Brachiosaurus I've ever seen. :) -- 67.183.218.185 05:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

it looks like it would topple over —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.171.115 (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Good thing the air sacs mentioned above were filled with air and not lead ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

To the person who said "it looks like it would topple over", its bones are hollow like a bird's, a human has a better chance of toppling over than a brachiosaur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.153.240 (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, is the brachiosaur on the top left really a juvenile? Good lord, these things were massive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.153.240 (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

reorganizing into headings

Tricky here - usually nice to have a bit of an intro but this one is quite long. Also, heading 'paleobiology is used elsewhere.... Cas Liber 03:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that brachiosaurus was a warm-blooded animal like with anyother dinosaur because it grew fast, and not even gigantotherming helped them grow to full adult size in 10 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslan10000 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Brachiosaurus nougaredi

im not sure about the dates for Brachio nougaredi (100 to 110mya) Ive been reading a peper by LAPPARENT (THE DINOSAURS OF THE “CONTINENTAL INTERCALAIRE” OF THE CENTRAL SAHARA)where he talks about it being in the jurassic? It was written in 1960 so maybe more evidence has come to light?

Quotes form the paper 'The genus Brachiosaurus is only known up to now from the Upper Jurassic(Lusitanian-Kimmeridgian-Portlandian). However, it is to this level that the layers where it was found should undoubtedly be referred: they are stratigraphically older than the In Akhamil series attributed to the Lower Cretaceous, and they have revealed a Jurassic flora [Boureau and Gaillon, 1958].'

'The discovery of Brachiosaurus in the Taouratine beds, which it seems must well be attributed to the Jurassic, evokes the dinosaur discoveries made at Tendaguru in the Upper Jurassic. Unfortunately, for the moment we do not have other elements from the Taouratine series to make comparisons.'Steveoc 86 22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This site http://www.users.qwest.net/~jstweet1/sauropoda.htm puts it in the Albian-early Cenomanian like in the artical, and http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Jun/msg00382.html sais a similar time, am i misreading the paper?? Steveoc 86 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur

um the brach in the dino movie is named bailine

Size comparison

I guess I must have missed this if it was on Image Review, but the size comparison is way too large. With it's neck in that position, Brach should only be about 12m tall. This one looks over 14. I think the problem is that the length of 25 m was applied to a reconstruction with the neck in an upward position--if I'm not mistaken, the 25m is the total length if the neck were to be outstreatched completely forward. For that pose, I'd scale it by height rather than length. Dinoguy2 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the silhouette either. -- John.Conway 13:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
im not happy with the neck pose, i dont know of a study that sais what brachiosaurus raised neck limmit is,(due to imcomplete vertebra?) however there is one this one that sais is neutral pose [1]. Steveoc 86 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

-the problem with the scale picture is that the brachiosaur is not actually 82 feet in that picture....its actually closer to 65 feet. Thus the scale is off.

The actual size chart seems a bit off, both the neck and tail are too short, Mike Taylor's reconstruction of the holotype of B. altithorax (so far the only recontruction of the species) is ~25m in length, 6m body, 9m neck, 9m tail and ~0.7m head. What we have in the chart is has a ~7neck, 6m body and 7m tail which puts the overall length at ~21m, even smaller than G. brancai holotype, I can't even reason why it has a 7m neck, G. brancai size chart here has an ~8m neck, so it also has a small neck, because both animals neck length are estimated at 9m. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Pop culture section

The pop culture section of this article is pretty poor. It's neither informative nor structured very well. I removed it once already, but it's been re-added. I think until something properly structured can be written, it should be left out. — John.Conway 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have it left in. Whenever the dinosaur collaboration team chooses Brachiosaurus for improving in preparation for FA, it would be nice to have a popular culture text to work from, instead of having to write every word from scratch. Even if the section contains material of a trivial nature, it's better to at least have a section that can be improved an expanded upon than no section at all; additionally, this pop culture section is written in a more formal tone than it would be once some anon IP notices there's no pop culture section and starts listing all the Brachiosaurus appearances on The Transformers. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

the problem with the scale picture is that the brachiosaur is not actually 82 feet in that picture....its actually closer to 65 feet. The scale is off thus.

Is that the length or the height, and, if the length, is that taking into account the neck and other "up" parts of the animal? J. Spencer 18:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, you would haveto take those body parts into consideration when it applies to length.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Posture

It seems that paleontologists have now given all sauropods except Brachiosaurus a horizontal, neck at shoulder level, posture. What evidence is there that suggests that Brachiosaurus stood like a modern day giraffe instead of adopting the same posture as all of the other sauropods are thought to have stood? (143.246.219.162 (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

Well, if you look at the relevant studies, the neck of Brachiosaurus should be pretty much horizontal coming off the body as well. The difference is that the torso of Brach is also on an angle, due to the short back legs. So even though the neck is straight, it still comes off the body at about a 45 degree angle. The swan-like neck posture seen in Jurassic Park and in the mounted taxobox skeleton are probably wrong. The illustration of B. altithorax halfway down the page has its neck at about maximum upward flex, according to those studies. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The neck vertebra of Brachio are incomplete, the top halfs are missing. This means that it's difficult right now to be certain of how the neck naturally articulates (the nuetral pose) and how much range of motion it has. The studies Dinoguy mentioned have come to the conclution that it probably articulated in an inverted U shape that comes straight of the shoulders. The angle of the neck in this pose is dependant on how the back articulates. If the back is staightish the neck is raised higher, if the back has a slight curve the neck might be angled lower. How high or low the neck can go from the nuetral pose is dependant on the missing parts of the vertebra. Also to add to the trouble brachio has long cervical (neck) ribs which might stiffen the neck depending on if they are rigid or flexible. This is one of the studies that favors horrizontal: [2]. Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Taylor et al. (2009) (PDF and plenty of additional info here: http://svpow.wordpress.com/papers-by-sv-powsketeers/taylor-et-al-2009-on-neck-posture/), as well as some stuff that I have to dig up, IIRC by Christian and Dzembski, make a very strong case that the studies by Stevens & Parrish as cited above are too restrictive. I can add something about the controversy around mid-September. HMallison (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

taxonomy

(I guess a separate section for this is in order)HMallison (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Forgive me if I'm wrong, but, since there's debate as to whether or not 'B.' brancai even BELONGS in Brachiosaurus, wouldn't it be more prudent to get up a pic of B. altithorax as the main article picture? Or doesn't that matter? Dinosaur bob (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there are any mounted skeletons of B. altithorax. If and when Giraffatitan is accepted as a valid genus (and from what I hear there's a paper in the works now making a case for separation), it's going to do to Brachiosaurus what Citipati did for Oviraptor--almost everything that's been done on it is going to be transfered over, including all the well-known images. Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan don't look that much alike, especially in the skull. This article will be left with only one or two pictures, so we can worry about all that later ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read the upcoming paper, and so have people at the Berlin museum. Until it is formally published we will not comment. However, as soon as it is officially out, I will add comments here. Personally, I think the case for separation is pretty strong. The museum's reaction, whether they will change the name or not, I cannot predict now.

Therefore, we should let this sleep until the Taylor paper is officially out. HMallison (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The paper is officially out: Here's a pdf [3]. Looks like a pretty solid case to me. Taylor notes on his [blog] that the differences between Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan are greater than those between Diplodocus and Barosaurus, at least. Apparently every comparable element between the two species shows significant differences in proportion and/or morphology. If that's not generic distinction I don't know what is. Interested to hear the museum's reaction, as this is obviously a big issue for their centerpiece... well, the plaques at least. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow, is this it? Seems like the article has to be split then, there was already a Giraffatitan article which could be reverted to: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Giraffatitan&diff=121918673&oldid=119164161 FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
yeah, this is it, and the way I read this and have been reading it since I received it ages ago the case is very solid indeed. So Giraffatitan goes elsewhere, but there should be a section here detailing the history. After all, 99% of all laypeople will come here for the Berlin mount. HMallison (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So, shouldn't we be resurrecting the Giraffititan article then? (I don't know how.) John.Conway (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That was done on the day of publication I think, see Giraffatitan. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
John was clicking on Giraff-I-titan instead of Giraff-A-titan Which untill a few minutes ago was redirecting to brachiosaurus. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Brachiosaurus sp.

In the redescription of the Felch Quarry skull, it is assigned to Brachiosaurus sp.[4]

Should that species be mentioned in the taxobox, even though it will probably never be known wether it belongs to altithorax?

Also, according to the paper, it was only the drawn skeletal restoration[5] of Brontosaurus that Marsh made that used Brachiosaurus sp. elements, not the mount. FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Taylor refer it to B. altithorax in the new paper? Or am I misremembering? Right about the mount though, I was about to upload a cropped picture of the mount skull and label it Brachiosaurus when I noticed it's quite different... Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, in the caption to the new skeletal the skull is mentioned as altithorax, but in a slide from a talk he made in Berlin, he stated that all material referred to altithorax is dubious:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Still, I think for the taxobox we need to draw a distinction between sp. as in unnamed possibly new species that's probably distinct and sp. as in we don't know which of the several species it belongs or if it's new, to due to incomplete specimens. I think the former belongs in the taxobox (i.e Citipati sp., Sinornithosaurus sp.), the later not (i.e. Brachiosaurus sp., Velociraptor sp.) but maybe others have different opinions. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that, just didn't realise there was a distinction. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this it? [7] --Dragon Helm (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure looks like it. Agh, too bad, I once uploaded some pictures from that site to Commons (the author claims they're free to use), but it turned out that the license wasn't compatible (not specific about them being free to use for commercial purposes or for everything). FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Found a free photo on Flickr with the skull in it, it's a pretty blurry photo, but it's better than nothing. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If the image is needed for the expansion at some point, I can probably touch it up in Photoshop so it isn't so blurry and out of focus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This image[8] apparently shows another reconstruction of the Felch Quarry skull in the Field Museum, but it looks quite different from the one at Denver Museum. Anyone know what's up? FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Total re-write / makeover needed

This article has suffered badly, especially from the separation from Giraffatitan. I have found many places where [citation needed], and lots of stuff is there twice, often in adjoining sentences. The overall structure is also not quite at the level it should be.

Is there anyone willing to cooperate on a total re-design to get this thing up to a more tolerable level?

Also, please list problems and missing stuff here. HMallison (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Things to alter

Here, I'll list things that I notice to be sub-standard; please feel free to add more or comment on those I name. I welcome suggestions on how to improve them all!

  • Language: the level fluctuates wildly.
  • structure: the various sections and sub-sections are not at equal importance to each other. Their order is also counterintuitive; Giraffatitan should either be a separate section, or the last section in the "Discovery and Species" section.
  • size: size is such a dominating aspect of the article that everything else seems to be of only secondary improtance. Additionally, some of the stuff on size is speculative, and comments on the genus 'formerly being on of the largest' etc. are partly false, partly totally irrelevant. Also, duplicate bits.
  • Metabolism: outdated, language and style abyssmal, incomplete, badly sourced
  • Environment and behaviour: highly speculative, unsourced, a hardly interconnected assemblage of ?fact statements. HMallison (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem is that most of what's been written about Brachiosaurus has really been about the Tendaguru material, not the holotype. With Giraffatitan gone there's not much left to say that's not a generalization about 'brachiosaurs'. Additionally, it's often hard to tell whether an author is is talking about B. or G. when they don't specify the species, so the research to spruce this article up will be pretty intensive. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Not as much as you think, at least for me - I am a vertebrate paleontologist working on sauropodomorphs :) But I can't do it all, and any help is welcome! You are exactly correct that smuch was about G., not B., but this doesn't mean that we should not keep it. In contrast, wild speculations about sauropods and dinosaurs in general should not be kept. So if you have any material on either topic, please add it! HMallison (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Certainly one for the Department of Redundancy Department. I'll definitely be on hand for repairs. J. Spencer (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I can patch up grammar and clarity... once the article is in decent shape. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Great! I'll get started collecting papers and so on on Tuesday, so that we can set up a rough draft by the end of the week. I'll put that on my wiki page for discussion, first. HMallison (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Draft page for re-write is here: Talk:Brachiosaurus/DraftReWriteHMallison (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Has it actually been created, or will it be created at a later date? It's a redlink. Either way, thanks in advance for your work. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Works now. I'll help if I can, I think I'm partially responsible for messing the page up after the Giraffatitan split, removed alot of stuff, without rewriting or substituting it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Took a while, my DSL was down a few minutes. A rough structure suggestion is there, and I created sections as repositories for pics, refs, etc for now. I hope this makes large-scale editing of the text easier than it was with Plateosaurus. ANY input is VERY WELCOME!HMallison (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

btw, I am up to rewriting Giraffatitan, too: Talk:Giraffatitan/DraftReWrite. Again, any help is highly appreciated! HMallison (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am placing a link to anatomical terms of location every time I use a temr that is not familiar to most people for the first time, even though all the temrs are linked to the same wiki article. I do not feel that a link at first use of one term is sufficient, because that would require people to scroll around on the page a lot - provided they realize that 'distal' is an anatomical temr and the correct link might be found for 'anterior' furhter up.HMallison (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that anatomical terms never be used unless absolutely necessary, and then they should be followed with an explanation in parentheses as well as a link. Wikipedia is meant to be understood by laymen, and even a few years ago I would have given up on this article even after having read the DML for years. I can't think of many situations where "distal dorsal vertebra" can't simply be replaced with "rear back vertebra", etc. MMartyniuk (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Good point - I'll try to add simpler terms in parentheses. However, simply using simple terms only is not an ideal solution, because they are often ambiguous. This is, after all, not SimpleWiki ;) HMallison (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Metabolism: elswhere?

While then-Brachiosaurus brancai was an guinea pig used for many calculations of sauropod metabolism, I think it may be better to debate the topic elsewhere, e.g., in the Sauropoda article. Here, we could just mention the results (there is a consensus in paleontology, which differs from that among physiologists), and that's that. Opinions? HMallison (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with that. John Foster may have some North American Brach-specific paleoecological information in one of his Morrison volumes (NMMNH&S Bull 23 and Jurassic West); I'll have to check. J. Spencer (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Description and paleobiology

Thank you, J. Spencer, for starting this! I'll have some stuff to add on the neck mobility (my own paper, e.g.), some minor stuff on size, and a few words on procreation - much will be short recaps and a pointer to the Sauropoda article (where more work is waiting for me). HMallison (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I will probably be available only for short periods of time early this week, so I won't be adding as much in the immediate future. J. Spencer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinking in general

May I suggest we do NOT wikilink anything at this time? The text is in such a raw state right now that most parts will have to be moved up or down later on anyways, which may mean that we will need to remove links and replace them higher up later on. Let's do the linking once the text is pretty much done, when we move the refs, too. HMallison (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do (or will not do!) (that's pretty confusing, actually - I will do as you suggested, which means I won't wikilink) J. Spencer (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding already improved sections

Since it will probably take quite a while to overhaul the entire article, would it be acceptable to add the sections that have already been improved to the current article already? In any event, it is a better placeholder than what we have now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, work and family have been a chaos for nearly 3 months now :( I promise to put this at the top of the agenda again. HMallison (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem at all, I think we all understand if you have to postpone it for a long time (wellbeing of your family and your contributions to real life paleontology are a bit more important than Wiki after all), was just wondering if you would have anything against us adding the sections already improved to the current article? FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Done, without editing anything much. If anyone (J. Spencer?) wants to have a go at it, be my guest ;) HMallison (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I have some time coming up, so I think I'll have a look. J. Spencer (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Article is nice now! Shouldn't the invalid species section of the taxobox be restricted to the main text? The species aren't exactly invalid, but rather reassigned... FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, invalid isn't the right term, taxonomically speaking. Usually reclassified species are discussed in the text, sometimes in huge tables like on Pterodactylus. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

extinct species category

I really believe this belongs here.--FifthCylon (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nesting categories - Brachiosaurus is in a few dinosaur categories, which nest into prehistoric animal categories, which nest into extinct animal categories. If we wanted to, it could have dozens of categories, but it's been the practice to put articles into the smallest-scale categories that are applicable, and let the nesting categories take care of the higher categories. Also, to be technical, it's not a species (it's a genus). J. Spencer (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And now?

So we've now got a snazzy rebuilt article. I'm satisfied that it touches on about everything you can get for Brachiosaurus without going into speculation or stretching general references. What now? Is there any desire to try for laurels of some form? If so, I'd be happy go through it some more, and also beef up the lede a bit (judging by article size, it could stand another paragraph). I am going to be out for the next couple of days, though. Also, I'm willing to run interference during a candidacy, although I should note that I haven't done one for a while. J. Spencer (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. A noble sentiment. I second this motion. Vaxine19 (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Nostril placement

Doesn't everything in that section refer to G. brancai? It is rather misplaced here, since no skull is really known of B. altithorax. FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

I'd like to point out a grammatical error in the executive summary of this page:

"It has been used as an example of a dinosaur that was most likely ectothermic due to its large size and the corresponding need for forage, but more recent research finds it to have been warm-blooded."

ought to read:

" It had been used as an example of a dinosaur that was most likely ectothermic due to its large size and the corresponding need for forage, but more recent research finds it to have been warm-blooded."

Cheers,
Vaxine19 (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2013

I believe a [citation needed] tag is needed for the statement regarding the Brachiosaurus being warm blooded (towards beginning of article) 2.26.173.178 (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC) 2.26.173.178 (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Done I agree with there is no citation for this claim and it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, which is poor form for a lead section. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The topic is indeed covered in the body of the article, under "Metabolism"; it just uses the technical terms homeothermic and endothermic instead of warm-blooded. J. Spencer (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I missed that; thank you for catching my mistake. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Mesothermic

The opening suggests they were warm blooded, but it fact it appears they probably feel somewhere between warm and cold blooded coined mesothermic. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27794723 The article should be updated to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brachiosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2016

Hello, I heard that their is a Brachiosuarus femur in the BYU collections that is 2.42 meters. It only gets a brief mention in randomdino's deviantart page. I was wondering if I could add it since it is a real thing. VRB TO (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brachiosaurus. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Brachiosaurus nougaredi Part II

I just noticed there is a Brachiosaurus nougaredi article, though we usually don't have articles about dinosaur species, especially not dubious ones. What to do wit that one? FunkMonk (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Redirect it.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
There is quite a bit of unique text, so it has to be incorporated here... Will be a bit of a task, I'll look into it, if no one else does first... FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Dinosaur Collaboration ToDo

Brachiosaurus was chosen as the current subject of the Dinosaur collaboration of the WP:WikiProject Dinosaurs. New editors are welcome to join the collaboration at any time. The (non-exhaustive) list below contains remaining tasks to be done, helping to distribute workload. Please feel free to add new tasks, and add your signature to ones you are currently working on. Completed tasks may be crossed out.

  • Incorporate Riggs, 1904, section "Probable Habits". Paper available from paper collection.
  • Produce annotated figures illustrating anatomical features mentioned in text.
Worked on by --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Section "Assigned material" could be further expanded based on Taylor, 2009 (section "additional material").
  • New section "Ontogeny" or "Life history" based on Carballido et al. 2012 (since the Tony baby was considered a probable Brachiosaurus specimen). Paper available from paper collection.
I'll get to that sometime this weekend or next week. I maybe be busy the last couple weeks of April. LittleJerry (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Done, or at least got started. LittleJerry (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks User:LittleJerry and User:MWAK for the good work, I stroked the point. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Add info on excavation from Brinkman's The Second Jurassic Dinosaur Rush.
Done.--MWAK (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Upload free illustrations from Riggs 1903, as well as relevant photos from SVPOW.
Some of this will be done by me. FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • More discussion of the Field Museum mounts, there are some interesting discussions at SVPOW as well as Rieppel & Brochu 1999. Apparently the old mount has more vertebrae due to being close to a fire exit or something so people could pass underneath...
  • Figure out what to do with the culture section. Can more reliable sources be found?
I've practised a bit with making a meaningful pop culture section at Dilophosaurus, and will try to make something similar at Gallimimus (both dinosaurs mainly popular for appearing in Jurassic Park). If that's successful, I will see if I can do something similar here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Citation consistency. This is often not done until requested at FAC, where it becomes a pain in the butt, and drags out the process, and is therefore best done before. This includes adding citation templates, making sure all names (abbreviated or not?) and titles (capitalised or not?) are formatted the same way.
Very good point :o). I hope Brinkman's book is cited correctly this way. I'd say: do not abbreviate personal names as this is an encyclopedia and we should not hide information. Not so important in the case of modern researchers but where will people find the names of Menke and Bradbury, if not here? And if we strive for consistency, I feel we can better consistently use the full species names, especially when we also apply scare quotes — which perhaps we should not, given the fact that these species are perfectly valid from a purely nomenclatural point of view.--MWAK (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I have a kind of sad reason for always abbreviating names in citations; sometimes the sources themselves do not include the full names, and if the full names can't be found for even a single citation, the only way to get consistency is to abbreviate the names in all citations... Granted, it may not always be the case in the end that such a citation is among the sources, but I just do it by default now because it is easier than changing it all in the end. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but such consistency is not part of the policy and it violates the MOS which states: Use initials in a personal name only if the name is commonly written that way. The rule seems to be: full name on the first mention and last name only in subsequent mentions. The rule may be broken if you don't know/can't source the full name but it seems not to be allowed to break the rule in a "race to the bottom" to ensure a completely consistent style. So, we have some legal ammo to counter a too rigid assessment...--MWAK (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I think that refers to the prose, but in any case, I'm not going to push any one way here, I'll be more than happy to stay completely out of the citations game if I can! FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I generally put in as many first names as I can find - there is no problem if we have both "Smith, John" and "Jones, B.", it only becomes a problem if some then have the Vancouver (?) "Smith J, Jones B" as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
My objection was indeed against any implications of such a rule for the plain text :o). In the references as such we can be consistent.--MWAK (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I'll do the citations if no-one else wants to. Unless there are objections I will follow the normal [full last], [first and middle initial] format for author names, that seems to be what is used both on the wiki and in scientific papers. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Is this article relevant? If was used for File:Sauroposeidon feeding.jpg. LittleJerry (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I see no mention of B. altithorax, only B. brancai (Giraffatitan). FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
But we're already citing articles which use Giraffatitan. LittleJerry (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
To the exclusion of alithorax? FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
So the others are okay because that was before Brancai was seperated from Brachiosaurus? LittleJerry (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, normally it can be established with certainty whether or not such publications refer to Brachiosaurus altithorax. If they don't, they should only be used to make general statements about brachiosaurids — which can elucidate certain points to be made about B. altithorax.--MWAK (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, if the paper concludes that something is true for brachiosaurids and Brachiosaurus as a whole, it should be fine, but if someting is based entirely on brancai, and the article doesn't apply this info to other animals, there may be a problem. One problem could be that feeding envelopes paper. It uses brancai as a model, since that is the species with preserved neck vertebrae, and we don't know if the findings of that paper would apply entirely to altithorax. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Hallett & Wedel's The Sauropod Dinosaurs has some paleobiological info especially about B. altithorax and might fill in some gaps.--MWAK (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I made this book a new point on the list! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Incorporate useful information from "Mark Hallett, Mathew J. Wedel: The Sauropod Dinosaurs: Life in the Age of Giants".
Money is tight on my part, so I won't be able to purchase it. At least not anytime soon. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I will add the info. Very impressive book, by the way. Apart from the pages where Wedel tries to explain cladistics, fatally combining an urge to be authoritative with a desire to connect to the layman's world view :o).--MWAK (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
MWAK, how is that going? LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Whats the status guys? LittleJerry (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Though it's probably the least important part of the article, I'll take a stab at the culture section before too long. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I've inserted most of the useful parts of Hallett & Wedel (2016) with the exception of a large and very detailed reconstruction they have made of the entire air sac system of Brachiosaurus. We still lack a subchapter on the air sacs, so that might be a nice addition.--MWAK (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
So are we ready for GA? LittleJerry (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Not quite, give me a few more days to deal with other things, I would then work on the remaining issues as soon as I can! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I think everyone might want a little more time with "their" sections. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Its been over a month. Whats going on? LittleJerry (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Little, it seems :o). Perhaps I can get things moving again by some additions. I'll add a section about the air sacs, give some info about Riggs popularising Brachiosaurus, add a section about his views on terrestrial sauropods and rewrite the phylogeny.--MWAK (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I rewrote the culture section, I think it's still too thin, but there isn't really much to say about for example its JP appearances, unlike Dilophosaurus and Gallimimus. Now that there's some momentum with dinosaur FACs, could be nice to get this up and running soon. If anyone thinks the skull description I wrote is too detailed, feel free to shorten it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to help, but I don't think that I can really add much more than what everyone else has already done. Here's a helpful SV-POW link. It might be good to make sure that all relevant papers by the have been gone through. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I think we got all the sources covered, anyone have an overview of what we're missing? I just added what I think was all the relevant info from the new "Bigfoot" paper with this[9] edit. FunkMonk (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jens Lallensack:, are we ready for GA? LittleJerry (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
MWAK mentioned a section he wanted to add. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Should be complete enough for GAN even without the missing sections (as those are not central). I'm personally still very busy in real life unfortunately, and I feel I should not make promises anymore I might not be able to keep. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Since most of the regular dinosaur GA reviewers have participated in working on this article, most of them are ineligible to review I guess. So even if we nominate it soon, there should be plenty of time to work on it before we get a review, I could imagine. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I think we could proof-read it first before nominating it, what do you say, LittleJerry? So maybe after this weekend. FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As I proof read along, I'll list some issues here that I won't just downright change, since someone might have objections. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Now the size section gives no less than five weight estimates, but only a single length estimate, which seems unbalanced. Why not just give a range from the lowest to highest estimated weight, everything in between is kind of redundant. Then the most likely, recent estimate can be listed separately before maybe.
    • Ah, but what is the most likely estimate? Not those recent ones based on long bone dimensions: they were optimised for discovering evolutionary trends in very large groups, not for finding an exact and reliable estimate for Brachiosaurus alone. So we should keep the (much more realistic) ones by Paul and Taylor, while indicating that higher estimates exist.--MWAK (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Also wit the size estimates, we don't list authors and dates for the size estimates for Brachiosaurus, the subject of the article, but we give author/year for the estimates for Giraffatitan, which seems odd.
  • "but its great height indicates that the tail was taller than in Giraffatitan" I think deeper would be better here, when I first read it, I thought "tall" meant that the tail was higher on the body...
    • Then again, "deeper" is suggestive of some downwards movement, as if the chevrons were very long or the tail were lower on the body :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • We often say "Brachiosaurus holotype" in the article, but isn't it only species that have holotypes?
    • Well, under the present system no genoholotypes are recognised and the type of the genus is its type species. As Brachiosaurus is not strictly monospecific, it's best to add altithorax.--MWAK (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems odd that we translate the last part of the specific name altithorax as "breastplate, cuirass, corslet", when the word "thorax" itself is a pretty normal word in English, and would just be translated as "chest".
  • "in 1930 collected in the Tendaguru by Frederick William Hugh Migeod" Why is this needed in the description section?
I just went ahead and removed this. FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Quarry 12, which held a more promising Morosaurus skeleton." Should we specify what this genus is today? Is it Camarasaurus?
  • There seems to have been a bit of resistance to splitting of Graffatitan, should probably be discussed here.
  • "Brachiosaurids could have adapted a more horizontal posture but only for short periods of time" The idea of habitually horizontal necks in sauropods has since been disputed, which is even mentioned further down in the section, so this shouldn't be stated as fact.
Haha, whoops, I only realised my mistake now, MWAK! For some reason I thought it said the vertical posture was unlikely, so the sentence is perfectly fine as is, struck... Did you have more info to add to the biology and classification sections to add, by the way? FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Plenty :o). I'll add it the coming weekend, provided not too many new dinosaurs are named.--MWAK (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The classification and paleobiology sections are vague in giving dates and attribution to the various studies cited, unlike the former sections, would probably be best to make them consistent with the rest of the article. For example this entire passage, no dates or authors mentioned, so the context is lacking: "It is estimated that sauropods could not have breathed through their nostrils when the rest of the body was submerged, as the water pressure on the chest wall would be too great.[66][67] In addition, the hollowness of the bones would have made the sauropods buoyant."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Sauropods likely also had to drink." This seems an odd statement. Is there any doubt?
Would "drink regularly" be better? LittleJerry (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Like all sauropods, Brachiosaurus was homeothermic" Shouldn't we add "probably" here?
  • I'm done proof-reading (maybe LittleJerry will give it a go too), I think the above issues (including the ones listed at the top of this section and those mentioned by MWAK) need to be dealt with before FAC, but we can probably take it to GA now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd do corrections for the paleobiology section this week. LittleJerry (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Should we GA nominate it now then? Or wait until the rest of the issues are fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Lets do it. LittleJerry (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Done! FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, the reader will expect that the Description will provide him with some impression of how the animal is constructed. The soft tissues should certainly be part of that. Sadly, in this respect little can be said that is not trivial. The air sacs are an exception. On the other hand, Wedel indeed used B. altithorax just as an appealing example.--MWAK (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
MWAK: Thanks for the great addition! But I also think that we should move it to the paleobiology. Sure, the section is on soft-part anatomy (and thus could be placed in the description), but it is on respiration and physiology just as much. From my point of view, there is a good reason to have sections like this under paleobiology, and paleobiology as the last part in the article: Because these are high-level inferences that are not possible without the basics, namely the skeletal anatomy and the phylogeny. Also, we need to be consistent with other dinosaur FAs, and also within this article (the "growth" in on anatomical differences between juveniles and adults, which is basically description also). As there is already a brief mention of air sacs in the "general build" section, I don't think that moving it will hurt. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
There certainly is a connection with metabolism. We can insert it after that subchapter.--MWAK (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Moved it to there. I added a photo of a vertebra that shows the pleurocoel well, hope I got the caption right. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
And where do we go from here? Request a copy edit, or take it straight to FAC? It seems they are sharpening their knives at FAC and that they'll be stricter and quicker at archiving. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Here is an attempt at a FAC blurb, pinging LittleJerry, Jens Lallensack, and MWAK: "This article is about one of the most iconic dinosaurs, and the first member of its family (Brachiosauridae) to be nominated for FAC. It is also one of the most viewed dinosaur articles on Wikipedia. We believe most information published about the animal is summarised here, and the article is now a GA. The article came together as a WikiProject Dinosaurs collaboration." FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Excellent. In my experience, the added value of a special copy edit is limited :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I'll just await responses from the other nominators, then I'll initiate the nomination, and then everyone can add their names to the list of nominators. Oh, and added a sentence about it being a dino project collaboration... FunkMonk (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm ready. LittleJerry (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. And good job everyone. I would even argue that the article is outstandingly complete now, and maintains this amount of detail in all sections. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Now nominated, feel free to add your names! FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments You seem to explain in-text the simpler anatomical terms (like humerus) but gloss over the really weird ones (like diapophyses and articulating surface), I see what looks like a contradiction where you say Brachiosaurus had straighter neural spines but it had a greater incline angle, and everything you said about nostril position makes no sense to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about what you don't understand about the nostril placement? I can fix that part. The photo with the fossa demarcation and its caption might help clarify it. I have enlarged the photo and added some clarification in parenthesis in the text if that helps. FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Definitely could be nice to have them on Commons. The same caudal is shown in the drawing under Postcranial skeleton here, so I'm not sure if it would fit (the caudals aren't discussed in other sections). FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you think we should keep the list with mass estimates for Giraffatitan? Maybe this is not the place, and there is a risk of mistaking them for Brachiosaurus estimates, as I experienced myself. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I also think the weight lists are a bit confusing (as I mentioned earlier). But I do think it's nice to compare with the weight of its supposed closest relative somewhere? Maybe it can be written in a way that makes it clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The Giraffatitan estimates were a bit more prominent than the Brachiosaurus ones as they included author names and years and the Brachiosaurus ones didn't; I deleted the author names and years and think that it is clear enough now. On a different note, I tended to shorten/cut stuff without asking while copy editing. If I was to eager with some of the stuff, please just let me know, and I will restore. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the amount of detail was my concern too, so looks good. As for shortening, if we can convey the same info with less words, I'm all for it, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The following sentence is stated as fact, sourced to Riggs, but does it really hold up? "The more primitive Haplocanthosaurus however, might have been partly aquatic." Perhaps it should be rewritten or removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Brachiosaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

Pinging Slate Weasel to add source to the size comparison. Added sources to the other two. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I used Hartman's skeletal to adjust the proportions of Dinoguy's chart. I'll add this to the file description. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The important part is that it is from 1899, therefore no one can claim copyright over it (published in the US before 1923). FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk:, I think you should do this. I don't know how to format some of these. LittleJerry (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with 53. Fixed the rest; note that anything with a doi is extremely easy to add, enable the cite tools in the tool box, go to templates> journals, and paste the doi in the relevant field, then it will be filled out for you automatically. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Two fixed by bot, the last by me. Citationbot is getting good! FunkMonk (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Added link. It doesn't have a doi. LittleJerry (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
the doi is 10.1525/california/9780520246232.003.0009   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed link for 37. Can't find archived one for 38. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Anything can be found with wayback machine, here's the link for 38:[10] It doesn't seem like the source entirely supports the statement in the article, though, so another source will have to be found. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what is meant by this, I see one JSTOR link. FunkMonk (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
exactly, so if you want to provide JSTOR links, then you need to provide them for all references that have JSTOR links or none at all. More than just that ref has a JSTOR number  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It is strange this isn't added by Citationbot, I have requested the feature.[11] Not sure how to check which articles are on JSTOR or not without manually plowing through them all. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be there. FunkMonk (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it's ref no. 62 now from all the shuffling   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Added by Citationbot. FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ref no. 77 has an ISBN 978-0-253-34870-8
Seems to be there. FunkMonk (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Just ran the Citationbot, which fixed it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
A link to an entry on the Star Wars website, which is now dead but archived. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The trunk is the torso. Of course, then you might ask "What is the torso?" and we could only only answer "the trunk" :o). We cannot explain the most basic of anatomical terms; in the end we must refer the reader to a dictionary or general anatomical article.--MWAK (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay because when I see trunk I think either proboscis or neck   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Are you sure you don't wanna change trunk to torso because you eventually end up using trunk for proboscis   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll explain that in the text.--MWAK (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh I get it now, the original way it was worded made it sound like they're technically laminae but not really or something   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll explain that.--MWAK (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Is that policy? I don't think 1.01 m is more readable than 101 cm.--MWAK (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
You don't have to if you don't want to   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Almost, but as the text states "at the front of the narial fossa, the depression which extended far in front of the bony nostril towards the snout." So saying "on the snout" would be a bit misleading, as the source doesn't actually say "on the snout". FunkMonk (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Technically, they're on the snout (rostrum) but not at the tip. We can change it into "towards the snout tip". It would be useful if the image also indicates the bony nostrils. Most people take them for the eye sockets :o)--MWAK (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Probably because I wouldn't have gotten that because "extended far in front of the bony nostril" means absolutely nothing to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Though this[12] diagram has some issues, might it be a good substitute for the Witmer brachiosaur figure? A bit annoying that option a doesn't show the nostrils on the very top of the head... FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I think I will make a new diagram based on Witmer's figure. The old image there has too many issues that are hard to fix since it's a 3D model. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Made a request for said image here instead:[13] FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Changed it into "emphasized". Of course, this has the drawback that we now suggest that this claim is true, while Amphicoelias had already been discovered. We can't use "claimed" or "stated" because article titles don't really claim or state.--MWAK (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • What does "...Field Museum's first home," mean?
Changed into "first location".--MWAK (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I decided to pitch in and link all of those except Tendaguru (it's linked in the lead, although should it also be linked in the body?) and pleurocoels (plural link doesn't work, singular link redirects to pneumatization. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanlks, yeah, everything linked in the lead should also be linked at first mention in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
and if you can’t wikilink pleurocoel, you should probably explain what they are in-text like you do for some other terms   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
By being most similar to that of Giraffatitan, which was then included in Brachiosaurus, and by default, since Brachiosaurus is the only brachiosaurid known from the Morrison Formation. I added the following sentence to clarify: "They based the skull's assignment to Brachiosaurus on its similarity to that of B. brancai, later known as Giraffatitan." FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Added a comma.--MWAK (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's French.--MWAK (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I suppose that’s fair   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Added a few.--MWAK (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
What is the exact problem here?--MWAK (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
you can’t start a sentence with e.g., so it’s “...from study to study, e.g., a...”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Moved the "e.g." further-on.--MWAK (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
They're there. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Rewritten.--MWAK (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Wait, when you say the nostrils were on top of the head, do you mean at the top of the head or on the topside of the snout?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
At the top of the head. Take a look at the Felch Skull. Those large openings at the top are the bony nostrils. The fleshy nostrils would be even higher, opening upwards.--MWAK (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't the only one. LittleJerry (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Dunkleosteus77: I think we did everything. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I’ll just read the article one more time and that’ll be that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


Previous status as larger dinosaur?

Hi FunkMonk. I wonder if the "size" section should mention the fact that it was previously the biggest known dinosaur, or even land animal (or maybe it was only claimed to be so)? Pretty sure it's a big part of this dinosaur's notability among laymen. And also since when it was no longer the case? Were there specific dinosaurs which overtook its position? HaEr48 (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggested something similar in my FA review. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the "History of discovery" section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
It is mentioned both in history and in the culture section. Anyhow, I didn't have much to do with writing the size section. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, but it's still directly relevant to the topic of the size section. Brief mentions in two other places doesn't mean it shouldn't be touched on there as well, preferably with some note on when other species started to be named as more likely candidates. Additionally, I still think the size section expansion to address the different methods used to obtain the different size estimates - right now it's a list that's all over the map and explaining why it's so uncertain would be useful. Also in my FA review, I suggested the given Giraffatitan estimates be matched with the Brachiosaurus estimates from the same study so the comparison of it being lighter actually means something, and though it was considered a logical change it was no implemented. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk and Jens Lallensack: Yes I realized it's mentioned in passing in the other sections, but other than what Lusotitan says, it's also not clear whether it still has that status, and which dinosaur(s) actually exceeded it. Who would be the right person to contact about the size section? HaEr48 (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't it MWAK who wrote it? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, I should say, if nobody has the time to write it, I don't mind doing it myself if you dinosaur experts give me an appropriate source. HaEr48 (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
As was also mentioned at the FAC, writing some sort of synthesis based on different sources saying this or that dinosaur was larger is just that, WP:original synthesis, and is not allowed. Unless a source can be found that specifically makes such comparisons. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
One doesn't have to synthesize the statements, do they? If you merely mentioned its previous claim on being the largest dinosaur, sourced that, and then follow it with a sentence like "Other sauropods would later be given this title, such as..." then that's at worst synthesis by implication.Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
That's synthesis too :o). Unless a source draws an explicit comparison with Brachiosaurus, it is best avoided. And it would have to be crystal-clear it is not simply referring to Giraffatitan.--MWAK (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
We don't have to be the one doing the synthesis. Could we look for a reliable secondary source (e.g. an encyclopedia) that explain it? HaEr48 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Certainly. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, Britannica has this: Brachiosaurs were the heaviest and tallest sauropod dinosaurs for which complete skeletons exist; larger fossil bones belonging to other (and possibly related) sauropods have been found, but these specimens are incomplete. Is this information up to date? According to Britannica, its article was recently updated (Oct 16, 2018). HaEr48 (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
That's where the problem MWAK mentioned comes in; that's outdated, from back when Giraffatitan (which is much more complete) was considered a species of Brachiosaurus (or they haven't noticed or recognised the split yet). What is currently recognised as Brachiosaurus can't be said to be complete by any stretch of the imagination... FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Monotypic

I have been trying to make it immediately clear that, although the article is presented as being about a genus, it in fact only deals with one species. As the article has been, this key fact can only be concluded by the end of the introduction, when it is explained that species once thought to have been Brachiosauri are no longer thus considered, and the conclusion is never confirmed. But indicating it by simply adding the word 'monotypic' is "cluttering", and naming the only species is "unneeded information". Why is it in any way beneficial to reduce such a key basic fact to something that the reader must put the clues together for themselves to deduce? The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to give information, not hints. I really don't care if a different phrasing to mine is preferred, but let's give essential facts clearly and early. Kevin McE (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


And, surprise surprise, one of the reverters starts throwing about threats of a ban rather than presenting any meaningful explanations in editnotes, or initiating any discussion here when made aware of a problem with the article. Kevin McE (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

If you revert more than three times, you get blocked. That's not a threat, that's a simple fact. And it has been explained to you multiple times why there is no need to complicate the first sentence of the intro further, when it is already explained elsewhere in the intro that there is only one species. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to state it is monotypic in the first sentence of the intro when no other monotypic animal genus FAs do so. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I cannot believe that anyone coming to the article will find it explained clearly anywhere in the intro that it is a single species: it is not explicit, and is only arrived at by elimination. I can perceive of no way in which it is helpful to the reader to be so reluctant to spell the matter out in simple terms. If you don't consider the word 'monotypic' to be the best way of doing that, that is fine, but please explain (and I mean explain, not arrogantly assert with no reason) why you think the article is better for making the simple fact only available by deduction. And What happens elsewhere is no excuse for what is here: let's make the article we are looking at right now the best in can be regardless of how badly written other articles are. Kevin McE (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
As to your claim that "no other monotypic animal genus FAs do so", that is blatantly false: "Nothomyrmecia, also known as the dinosaur ant or dawn ant, is a rare genus of ants consisting of a single species, Nothomyrmecia macrops." FA for Dec 15th. Kevin McE (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but with personal attacks like "arrogant refusal" in the edit summary and overall aggressive speak, I cannot persuade myself to go into further discussions here. Remember, we are all doing this in our free time, and I have better things to do than participating in such unpleasant heated discussions. That was it from my part. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
So you don't have any reasoned argument for the version that you reverted to, not for the refusal to be willing to make the article clear to the reader. Good to know. And this from the very guy who said to bring it to the talk page for discussion...Kevin McE (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Just popping in to say I'm aware of the discussion, but I'm distracted with January blurbs .... I should be finished with them in a couple of days. Whatever happens at ERRORS/TFA, we can't change any of the usual admin procedures on Wikipedia, such as WP:3RR ... those matters should be referred to neutral admins in one way or another, if necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I like putting the following into the second sentence of all my articles on monotypic dinosaurs: "type and only species,[bolded binomial here]". If we wanted to re-arrange the article to make it more clear for whatever reason it'd only take an extra word or two. Doesn't need to be anything that makes things more clunky. Anyways, if we wanted to include mention, I'd recommend tacking on a short sentence to the end of the second paragraph saying that the type species is the only one currently recognized. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Middle ground

"Riggs named the dinosaur Brachiosaurus altithorax, which is the only recognized species of the genus by modern researchers..." 2001:569:782B:7A00:6981:9ED2:7238:E66A (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

In general, it is best to avoid calling a genus monotypic when in fact several species have historically been named in it. It seems to reflect a confusion between the nomenclatural and the empirical. Empirically, it is meaningless to assert that a genus contains only one species because the concept "genus" has no commonly accepted operational definition. This implies that any secondary source stating that a certain genus is monotypic in the empirical sense is incoherent and is therefore not a reliable source. In this particular case, there is also a severe POV issue as some researchers do not use the designation Giraffatitan but Brachiosaurus brancai instead. Exceedingly silly of them but it is not our place to express this... By the way, it is pretty standard for dinosaurs to have a generic name that is simply the first part of their species name (very commendable from a scientific point of view) so this can be taken for granted. Strangely, people rarely feel the urge to add "polytypic" to the exceptions :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
In addition to this, there are specimens like the Dry Mesa scapulacoracoid which are referred to Brachiosaurus sp. as opposed to B. altithorax. While it isn't wrong to say the genus is monotypic, B. altithorax is not the whole story here. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I'll keep all this in mind for this one and for future dinosaurs. I just added the word "genus" back to the blurb, just that one change. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 March 2019

Please change the size estimate from 59-69 feet to 22m (72 feet). I believe more recent and accurate size estimates for B. altithorax by Gregory S. Paul put it at 22 m (72 feet) full grown. The reference at 3 was Paul's estimate from 1988. See new size estimate published by Gregory S. Paul in The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs 2nd Edition 2016 isbn 978-0-691-16766-4. FMNH p25107 which is listed as the source for the measurement of 59 feet in reference 8 appear to be outdated. The most recent re-evaluation of FMNH p25107 by Mike Taylor also give an estimate of 22 m (72 feet). See http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/brachio/extras.html#gsc.tab=0.

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Izno (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps MWAK can answer this. FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The slightly higher upper range estimate should certainly be added. There is no need to remove the older estimates but we might indicate the sources more explicitly.--MWAK (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The Felch Quarry Skull

I've read in article The Felch Quarry skull consists of the cranium, the maxillae, the right postorbital, part of the left maxilla, the left squamosal, the dentaries, and a possible partial pterygoid.. Isn't postorbital a part of cranium? What about maxillae - both are present or part of the left one? Mpn (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe "cranium" should just be removed? FunkMonk (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
And maxillae or part of the left maxilla... Mpn (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Towards GA (dinosaur collaboration)

Following discussion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration, here are some issues with the article I think should be worked on. The main problem is of course that some of the text is based on sources that actually deal with what is now Giraffatitan, so we need to be very careful in pruning this out. For example the stuff about feeding ranges is based on the specimens in Berlin. I also think the history/species sections could benefit from being structured more like Elasmosaurus. Also, the statement "It has repeatedly been suggested, e.g. in the movie Jurassic Park" doesn't seem to be supported by the source, and it is really irrelevant outside the pop section what is shown in the film. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Clearly separating Giraffatitan from Brachiosaurus is indeed a priority. More in general, a lot of relevant information about the excavation in Brinkman's The Second Jurassic Dinosaur Rush has not been incorporated. And the Description is meagre.--MWAK (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
It isn't a bad article at this point, but the description definitely needs some work, and the organization is a little different from the standard. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 19:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The description section seems very general, there is practically no description of the shape of individual bones, only size estimations. I assume you have The Second Jurassic Dinosaur Rush book, MWAK? I would only be able to add information to the history section based on the scientific papers... FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll give it a try. It's quite a funny story, really :o).--MWAK (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Great. And I would be happy to contribute to the description section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Excellent! Don't forget the twenty-six differential traits Taylor indicates ;o).--MWAK (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

To get us started, I sent a download link around via wiki mail containing relevant papers. For participants who would like to have the link but didn't got it yet, please send me your email address per wiki mail. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Since I don't have the books that go into details about the discovery that MWAK mentioned, I think I'll write about the separation from Giraffatitan. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Great. I don't have that book either; we are lucky to have MWAK in the team! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I have a bunch of papers I can add, mostly of referred specimens, but also some on Giraffatitan etc. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 22:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmm maybe not lol that was a lot of papers. I do have some of Janensch's papers though, like the one on the Dicraeosaurus, Tornieria and Giraffatitan crania. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Very useful set of publications! I'll start editing once I've processed those four new pterosaurs :o).--MWAK (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I think we also would need a "Skull" subsection for the description part, detailing on the anatomy of the Garden Park skull as described by Carpenter and Tidwell, 1998. Although we need to stress that the affiliation of this skull with Brachiosaurus cannot be proven with certainty, I think this article would be the place to discuss it. Since that section can be worked on independently from the remainder of the description, does somebody would like to take it over? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I could do the skull, and yeah, I was thinking it could need its own section. On this note, does anyone know why the skull on the Field Museum mount doesn't seem to be based on the Felch Quarry skull? Or is it a different reconstruction based on the same material? FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems to be largely based on Giraffatitan skull material. Perhaps it predates Carpenter's reconstruction?--MWAK (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I would think so too, only that this[14] Flickr image of what appears to be a cast of the same reconstruction specifically mentions the Felch Quarry (apparently based on the museum plaque)... FunkMonk (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the caption of the picture merely reflects the expectation of its maker that a Brachiosaurus skull in an American museum would be based on finds made on American soil? A case of paleontological nationalism ;o). Carpenter (1998) — again many thanks to Jens — estimates the number of maxillary teeth in the Felch skull at fourteen and contrasts this with the number in Giraffatitan, eleven. This model has eleven teeth. If it was meant to be a reconstruction of the Felch skull, it spectacularly fails in its purpose :o).--MWAK (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Do we know when the Field Museum mount was made? Was it before 1998? FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
It was first mounted in 1994 (see: https://svpow.com/2014/05/30/brachiosaurus-altithorax-mounted-inside-the-field-museum/ ), possibly before the Felch skull had been recognised as Brachiosaurus by Jack McIntosh. Missing parts were completed using casts from Giraffatitan material (see: https://svpow.com/2013/08/30/heres-that-brachiosaurus-altithorax-skeleton-you-ordered/ ). This explains a lot, as this must have included the skull.--MWAK (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds like the most plausible explanation, so I think it's best to remove the image we have of that skull then. Or change the caption, since after all, it isn't known if the Felch Quarry skull really does belong to altithorax... By the way, Matt Wedel nicely states in your second link "I’m putting these up so they can be used. Like everything on this blog, these images are released under the CC BY license, so you can do with them what you like as long as you credit us. Go nuts!". Maybe we should! FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The image in the second link could be used in the taxobox. Those in the first link are copyrighted, of course. But many pictures in SVPOW are made by Wedel or Taylor themselves and would be very valuable additions to Wikipedia stock.--MWAK (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I've identified that the skull photo from flickr is Giraffatitan, see [15] where the skull is shown in sub-anterior view. I'm looking for other usable images of a skull right now. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Or based on it at least, it looks like a sculpt rather than a cast, I think, and it is certainly the same skull that is used on the Field Museum and O'Hare airport mounts. It appears Triebold Paleontology is distributing it, maybe they sculpted it (the caption says "our skull reconstruction"):[16][17] FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
It's undoubtedly a sculpted model. The connection with the mount confirms that it's Giraffatitan.--MWAK (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the image, since it isn't really needed when we have a good one of the Felch Quarry reconstruction already. I made a skull section and moved it there. FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll do some work on paleobiology later this week. LittleJerry (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Just to make sure I don't upload multiple copyrighted works, all the images in Riggs 1903 and 1904 are in the public domain because they are published before 1923, correct? Even though Riggs himself only died in 1963? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
They should be PD US at least (anything published before 1923). Commons goes by worldwide copyright laws, though, so we might have to upload the images locally, unless the people who took the photos/drew the diagrams (Riggs probably didn't do this himself) died more than 70 years ago. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Since the author is never stated, they should be OK at Commons right? As per the anonymous author law? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I guess it would then be assumed that Riggs created them, which we can't prove or disprove, though it was probably some other museum staff (which we can't prove either)... FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, i checked while uploading File:Brachiosaurus composite Matthew 1915.jpg and being published in the US before 1923 has a license, so I would assume that it is sufficient if that requirement is met. I'll start uploading historic images and stuff from SVPOW. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I guess I have read the PD US tag disclaimer at the bottom wrong before, all that matters is if it was first published in the US... But yeah, if SVPOW has nice colour photos of some of the same elements, they might be preferable... FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Be wary of the colour photographs. The sacrum and coracoid are photos by Phil Mannion for example. I will commence uploading once I find the best images. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if this[18] drawing is safe to use, IJReid? Knowing Bricksmash, it was probably traced after another diagram... FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
It's safe. I saw it when it was in progress, it is just very badly coloured because he normally does the diagrams traditionally. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay so I'm reading Christian (2002) and it states that stress patterns along the neck of Brachio was consistent in the first two-thirds of the neck and increased near the base. They explained that the increase at the bases could have been caused by some error. I'm not a big into physics so would consistent stress throughout the neck be stronger evidence of a vertical neck posture? LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this paper there are some points of interest:
  1. Keep in mind this is about Giraffatitan :o). Though Brachiosaurus altithorax is not expected to have been much different in this respect.
  2. The paper tries to calculate stresses on the intervertebral discs. However, today it is doubted reptiles have any such discs in the first place. Not an insurmountable objection, as virtual discs can provide a nice heuristic tool to understand stresses in the neck, but still...
  3. A perfectly uniform stress along the entire neck column is well-nigh impossible. The distal elements exert weight forces on the base. And the more vertical the neck posture, the more extreme the neck bend has to be. So increased stresses at the neck base are to be expected and do not form a refutation of a vertical neck hypothesis. It's the middle section that is decisive. Vertical neck posture predicts a combination of a thick mobile base with a thin stiff middle section. This might be shown by Giraffatitan.--MWAK (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So is my sandbox accurate? [19] LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Generally, yes. But to make it understandable to the reader, you would have to add that the stress decrease in Diplodocus and Dicraeosaurus occurs in a vertical neck posture. This immediately poses the question how these animals can even achieve such a position, given their rather stiff neck bases. And the answer is of course: by assuming a tripodal feeding stance. And that devalidates the entire comparison, so that decrease had better not been mentioned. It's best to simply state that the authors assume that the normal posture is that in which the stresses are roughly constant along the vertebral series and that this is the case in a vertical position for Giraffatitan and in a horizontal position for Diplodocus.--MWAK (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm almost done with the skull description, but now I also have a question! Carpenter & Tidwell 1998 contradict themselves in whether the maxilla is deep or low. On page 77 they say low, but in the discussion on page 82 they say deep. It is hard to judge which is correct from the pictures, since it could be meant relatively... Any suggestions on what to do here? FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

What they mean is that the maxilla is deep (or tall, or high) but that, as it is long too, it is low as well. You could express this in a more consistent way by saying that the maxilla is deep compared to total snout height but forms a low elongated element due to the snout being rather long.--MWAK (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I fear such "interpretation" might not be allowed if it isn't stated more explicitly in the source? I've just said "deep" for now. I think the skull description is pretty much done, but now I'm wondering whether the terms "maxillary fenestra" (as stated in the abstract) and "subnarial fenestra" (on page 77) refer to the same feature? FunkMonk (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Ack theropod skull features are so much simpler. The subnarial foramen is a hole that occurs on the premax-max suture, while the maxillary fenestra is entirely enclosed by the maxilla. This gets confusing when only one is present, but that is the general identification. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Are both present in the Felch Quarry skull? I only see one opening? It also seems weird that the "maxillary fenestra" is only mentioned in the abstract, nowhere else as far as I can see... I'm suspecting they're using the terms interchangeably here? FunkMonk (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
There is only one opening to be seen, the subnarial fenestra. Sometimes large vascular openings are, with sauropods, called maxillary fenestrae, but that isn't intended here. The term "maxillary fenestra" in the abstract is just an imprecision. Some diplodocoïds have an accessory anterior antorbital fenestra in roughly this position. Contrasting the vertical relative height of the maxilla with its horizontal elongation is not overly interpretative as the source itself states: "Overall, the maxilla is as dorsoventrally deep as that of the Camarasaurus grandis specimen, but is about a quarter longer, giving the reconstructed skull a longer muzzle".--MWAK (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I think I'll just remove the sentence about the maxillary fenestra then. Maybe the skull section has become a bit long, but I've already left out details that I don't think the general reader would get anything from. I will probably write about the history of the Felch Quarry skull next under assigned material. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the skull! I'm also not sure how technical the section on the postcranium should become (hope to be able to start that soon, but I am travelling the next two weeks and currently have little time), but I think we can discuss that once the article is complete and then shorten as needed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Based on the many discussions, I think the conclusion that best suits everyone is to keep the anatomical description to only include details that have measurements or comparisons to other taxa. No details that would hold no importance at all to the average reader. PS: I added more on "B. fraasi", I'll delete the info lower down to keep the chronological flow. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think only listing measurements and comparing to other taxa makes much sense. For example, if I describe the crest of Dilophosaurus or the neural spines of Amargasaurus, there isn't much comparison or measuring if any to mention from the sources, just description of the features themselves. It will always be a judgment call, and personally I try to stick to what actually distinguishes the animal first, and then pad it with the most relevant secondary information. There isn't really a one size fits all for these descriptions. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
To expand on this point: after writing Gallimimus, I ran into trouble because the original description does not bother to describe features that are similar to those of other ornithomimids. So there was no indication of the proportional size of the eye socket, no explicit mention of the animal having no teeth, or of the foot missing the hallux, since these are common features to its group. But will the average reader know any of these things? Probably not, therefore such basic facts need to be found elsewhere for the article to be readable for anyone but experts. In the case of Gallimimus, I had to dig out general features from The Dinosauria. Perhaps this is only useful for lay readers, but that is probably 90% of our readers anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I've finished the text about the history of the Felch Quarry skull, so I'll take a break from expanding the article and assist if needed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Images

SVG!

I was playing around with Matt's size comparison and discovered that it didn't really match Scott Hartman's Brachiosaurus skeletal that well. Should we try to update this image or get a new one? (I also swapped around the life restorations because NT's seemed more relevant to neck posture than DB's did.) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I definitely think it could be cleaned up and revised. But be careful with changing the unknown regions, we don't want it too similar to Scott's. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I finished changing it, but I got frustrated editing it in PNG format so I vectorized it. Should I upload the SVG, export it as a PNG and upload it over the old file, or do both? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
It might be good to upload it as its own file, since .svg are preferable for diagrams. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 19:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Done. What do you think? It came out longer than the previous one! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
As for the restorations, both show the neck held high, but the new one looks more modern, which I think would be an argument for showing it earlier in the article. The image under paleobiology doesn't necessarily have to reflect the caption I added about the upright neck, which can just be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Is there anything else that needs to be discussed or expanded for Paleobiology? LittleJerry (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Jens Lallensack or MWAK probably have a better overview of the literature, but I think the sentence mentioning Jurassic Park under feeding should be checked or reworked, since it is sourced to an article that is older than the movie and book... Perhaps there could be some refutation of the "amphibian sauropods" idea, since I think Brachiosaurus was sometimes used as an example of that. FunkMonk (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
We should replace the reference to Jurassic Park with a explicit crediting of Paul. Riggs himself used Brachiosaurus as proof that sauropods were terrestrial instead of amphibious, so an entire subchapter dedicated to this issue, including later ramifications, would not be amiss.--MWAK (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Should I replace the current size chart with the (altered) SVG version? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd think so, but perhaps Jens and MWAK should take a look too. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and add it. If you guys don't like it, just remove and tell me why below. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Nice, would be good with some source info on Commons (what the size is based on). FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I will do some more work later this week. LittleJerry (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
LittleJerry, you should definitely also take a look at the Rieppel & Brochu 1999 article Jens sent, where the decision to mount the Field Museum Brachiosaurus skeleton with its head held high is defended. I'm sure there is also other paleobiology stuff to add if you dig around in those pdfs. Good idea to move the image of that Field Museum/airport mount to that section, IJReid, as now the text will directly cover it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Speaking of images, I'm wondering if any of the restorations need corrections? The one under description seems like it could maybe need to have some of the sunken areas around the shoulder blades and pelvis smoothed out... Not sure if that stretched hind-leg is entirely correct either. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
You mean the foot should be more everted? Of course the latissimus dorsi would have smoothed the scapula border, but it would have relaxed when the left arm is extended, forming more of a pouch-like structure. Brachiosaurus might have looked quite pudgy in real life. The animal skin is shown highly textured, so it will not be easy to tweak details here :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Hehe, nothing can beat the nightmare that is correcting ankylosaur armour placement... Anyhow, if there are no real issues with the restorations, I'll let them be. By the way, that "B." nougaredi image is a bit of an eyesore, maybe the article would be better off without it. Could more garish colours have been chosen? FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Resurrect the Brachiosaurus nougaredi article and put the image there. There can be no serious doubts that this represents a separate taxon.--MWAK (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
At some point, yeah, I guess it will get another genus name. But in any case, the species should be covered briefly here (like Giraffatitan). On a related note, does anyone know what the status is of the supposed Zimbabwean Brachiosaurus remains as shown here?[20] Just indeterminate brachiosaurids or Giraffatitan? FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we can assume safely it's Giraffatitan, since the only other potential brachiosaur from there (The "Archbishop") isn't from Zimbabwe. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Such remains from the Kadsi have been referred to Brachiosaurus sp. or Brachiosauridae indeterminatae.--MWAK (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh yeah, seems it is covered at Kadsi Formation. So do we mention those bones here? FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
For the sake of completeness, we should.--MWAK (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
How would I cite the Rieppel & Brochu 1999 article? LittleJerry (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps like here:[21] FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Are there any papers which discuss the function of the crest? LittleJerry (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
You mean the arched nasal bone? I think it has been proposed as a resonating chamber, but I don't know which paper. By the way, the info you added about nostril placement is already at the end of the skull section (since it is about appearance, not function). Not sure about that image either, it doesn't have teeth and eyes... FunkMonk (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Jens Lallensack? LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Large external nares are typical for other members of Macronaria (hence the name) as well. There was the idea that they could relate to a possible proboscis (see PDF), this has also been specifically proposed for Brachiosaurus/Giraffatitan. But I can't think of any other published hypothesis on the function of large nostrils. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The link is dead. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
PDF --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Still not working. What is the article called? LittleJerry (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hm, weird, it works here … It's Knoll et al. 2006, also included in the folder I sent around. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the text about the postcranial skleleton should come before that about the skull? After all, that's all the dinosaur is definitely known from. And the skull is usually covered last in other dinosaur FAs. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I will switch the sections. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There are some free photos of the humerus in this svpow post:[22] The one with Matt Wedel lying next to it shows the bone ebst, but does anyone think it would be inappropriate to use a photo with a person posing? FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
We can just add "with sauropod expert Matt Wedel for comparison". Then the reader is not just informed what a humerus looks like. What might the present copyright status be of the Carpenter picture earlier in the post?--MWAK (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the 1905 image would be PD-US. Perhaps it is even preferable to use that? I've now uploaded the 1905 image and will add it to the article, but it would be nice if it could be found in higher resolution... FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What about maintaining a to-do list containing some tasks that still need to be done (e.g., content to be added, papers that still need to be incorporated)? It might help us to organize and distribute workload, and to see where we stand. Also, it would make it easier for editors to join our collaboration, as they could simply choose an item from the list to work on. What do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, there could maybe be a bullet point subsection for that here. And we could strike points when they are done. FunkMonk (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I give it a try. See below. Please complete! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • How do people feel about the inclusion of this photo[23] of the reconstructed "Toni" skeleton? The skull seems to be modelled on a diplodocid, as is perhaps some of the rest of the skeleton, so should it maybe be tagged as inaccurate and not be used? We do have a photo of the actual fossil anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
It can be used to exemplify the allometry. Most reconstructions are inaccurate to some extent. If it's not a complete travesty we can let it pass. And the reconstruction has some historical importance in itself.--MWAK (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Alright, at least we should mention in the caption that the skull is modelled after a diplodocid. Are there other parts of it that appear diplodocid? And maybe the photo of the actual fossil would be more relevant in the section, so the mount could be moved to the assigned material section, where it will be discussed that it was originally thought to be a diplodocid?. FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The last option seems the best one. Indeed some other parts are clearly modelled after diplodocids as well, such as the bifurcated neural spines around the neck base and the whip tail.--MWAK (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Vertebral anatomy of Brachiosaurus. Top: sixth dorsal vertebra in back and side view. Bottom: second caudal vertebra in back and side view.
Anatomy of the sacrum (top left: bottom view; top right: right side view), the right ilium in side view (bottom left), and the left coracoid in side view (bottom right).

Hi folks, I tried to create an annotated fig illustrating vertebral anatomy, to give the reader at least a chance to understand the text. Are there any suggestions/corrections/errors? I'm also not sure if we should keep this degree of anatomical detail in the article, as Brachiosaurus is of interest for the very general reader. Thoughts? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks very good to me, perhaps that pleurocoel or whatever it is on the side could be annotated too? It is also a good way to compile more images into one, so more can be included in the article... FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Added pleurocoel. And here is the second annotated anatomy fig. I will wait a bit for comments, and then add both to the article if everybody is ok with that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps add letters or numbers to make it easier to identify the elements in the captions? FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Added letters, and tried to get both files into the article. However they seem to take too much space. Should I try to combine them into one single figure? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I think they look ok, but I'd add the "upright" parameter to the vertical image. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I added the "upright" parameter to both images to have equal font size and line thicknesses in the two images, ok this way? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Should be fine, though it usually isn't used for horizontal images. By the way, why did the Giraffatitan skull go? I also think we should not show that close up of the old Field Museum mount skull under "diet", since it is entirely conjectural, and contradicts the Felch Quarry reconstruction in various ways. And it would also look nicer to use the drawing that only shows Brachiosaurus under classification, because it is obscured in the current image there, which has the old, unmodified head. I also think the old Apatosaurus skeleton photo is unnecessary now that we have many images of several Brachiosaurus holotype bones. FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure, no objections from my side. I removed three images from the description part which I thought are the less essential (though all three were good additions), simply because there was no more space. If you have an idea how to shuffle so that they fit somewhere, please add them back. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This new paper[24] has a free map (fig 10) that shows the location of brachiosaurid material found in the US, including many mentioned in this article. I guess we should add it here? I'll do it.. Also, note I placed the clear background SVPOW version of the Field Museum mount in the taxobox because it shows the skeleton better, it doesn't show the scale so well without buildings, though, does anyone have any views on what is the better taxobox image? FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Cool! Regarding the Field Museum mount, we could add a scale bar to the clear background version to avoid having the same pic twice? Hope to have time to work on this again soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The clear background image is actually based on an entirely different photo of the mount, the photo with the building is actually higher res, which is why I kept it in anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

New paper

A new paper has appeared, treating the skull, referred specimens and even implications for mass estimates: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ar.24198 --MWAK (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Nice! Should we expand the parts we worked on back during the expansion? So that I work on the aspects related to the skull and so on? FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, looking again it seems to be mainly about the skull, so might be good to split it up somehow! FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I would be in for the skull – do you want to start and I do the remaining parts, something like that? We probably should avoid letting this section get too long anyways (I think the length that the postcranium section currently has should be the absolute maximum), or else we need to have a subarticle on Brachiosaurus anatomy soon to comply with the Featured article criteria. Maybe we could move the history part up in one go, to be consistent with other newly promoted FAs? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it is probably just a matter of updating some already written parts rather than adding much new (in the description part at least)? Seems like the other sections (history and classification) will need some expansion. And yeah, if MWAK is up for it too, we could move description up. I think I'll try to start out with the lower jaw, just to keep it defined/restricted, then it can give an overview of how different the description might be from Carpenter's overall... FunkMonk (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Great, let me know when you are done, then! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
But you wanted the History up? I'm all for that :o). The article offers an awkward problem in that it claims that the Giraffatitan lectotype is simply the holotype. This to me seems so at odds with the rules, that I would advise to ignore this aspect completely.--MWAK (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll do the section move in my next edit, will take some work, because some terms are linked, presented, and explained first in the description section... FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, after reading a bit of the new paper, it turns out they remove the quadrate and dentary tooth earlier assigned to the Felch Quarry skull, with seemingly good reason. I have now clarified this in the article, as well as removed the description of that tooth, but please say if anyone disagrees with the removal. Slate Weasel should probably revise the skeletal diagrams accordingly. I have also moved the history section first, and therefore moved some links and explanatory text to their now first occurrence, but there is still a lot of work left in this area. The changes above were done with this[26] edit. I will return to expand other parts about the skull, but feel free to expand anything in the meantime, as it will probably take a while before I get to it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Is the only change needed on the quadrate (I don't have access to the new paper)? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but maybe we should see what other editors say about following the new papers conclusions. There are ways to get the paper easily, though... FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The new paper also gives very different size estimates than Carpenter & Tidwell (70 cms long vs 81 cms long), which also makes the claim that it is the longest Morrison sauropod skull less clear. So I'm a bit unsure what to do with the text here. Maybe give more in text attribution, for example saying one group of authors gave so and so estimates with so and so implications, while the others made different estimations? Any thoughts, MWAK, Jens Lallensack, and LittleJerry? FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
That seems to be the best solution.--MWAK (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I also think in the Description chapter the anatomical terms can best remain linked.--MWAK (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I really don't like the paper because it glosses over much of the important stuff about why the skull can be genuinely referred to Brachiosaurus (theres still no overlap between any specimen with crania and the holotype ...) and instead focused on why D'Emic's little Paluxysaurus lump is the proper thing to do. It adds anatomical details but I do not trust its conclusions about the referral IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 06:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it's probably best not to take anything as new fact, and just present all different views chronologically. I do think they're right in that the isolated tooth didn't belong to the skull, since they based this on CT scans of the replacement teeth, which Carpenter and Tidwell didn't do. Not as sure about the issue with the quadrate, seems more subjective. But that bone was never actually described in this article anyway, only listed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I did some updates based on what we talked about above:[27] I removed the sentence "It appears to have been most similar to and intermediate between that of Giraffatitan and Camarasaurus" because it is probably not so relevant now that more brachiosaur skulls are known. Also note that the etymology has been questioned by Wimpus[28], so it probably needs to be looked over so we can get rid of those maintenance tags. FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The etymology poses no fundamental problem. We cannot know whether Riggs derived the Brachio~ directly from the Greek or indirectly via the Latin — which is itself derived from the Greek. In any case there is a derivation from the Greek. Unless a source can be found that makes explicit the Latin, we needn't bother to mention it and so a source giving the derivation from the Greek suffices. If Ben Creisler's Dinosauria Translation and Pronunciation Guide is deemed sufficient, we can cite it.--MWAK (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
How to proceed then? Remove mention of a specific language? Just remove the tags? Where is the pronunciation guide? We also have a similar problem at Ceratosauruss.[29] FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The guide can be accessed via the Wayback Machine. This is done in Genusaurus as well. Not mentioning any language creates an omission that would have to be filled in at some point.--MWAK (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Trying to tie in the loose ends of the redescription paper here, I noticed that it says the Potter Creek humerus belogned to a skeleton, the rest of which was collected decades later. But our article states "Originally, this humerus was part of a poorly preserved partial skeleton that was not collected". So are we incorrect, or is there controversy about this? The paper even refers to the combined specimen as "BYU 9754(4744)/USNM 21903". FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
And as usual, pinging MWAK about this... FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. The 2019 article seems to assume that the additional material simply represents that original skeleton. I wonder how that could be proven. Of course, our own statement is ambiguous as it could mean "not originally collected".--MWAK (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
So maybe there's not much more we can do, or are there perhaps some sources we have overlooked? I'll ping Jens Lallensack too... FunkMonk (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the temporal range of Brachiosaurus altithorax

The Wikipedia page states Brachiosaurus to have lived 154-153 million years ago. However, there is evidence suggesting an extended temporal age, according to D'Emic & Carrano (2019).

This study suggests an earlier age of 150 million years ago, according to age estimates of BYU 9754(4744)/USNM 21903, from Potter Creek Quarry, in Montrose County, Colorado. The publication can be accessed here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31254331/

From this, my suggestion is to more accurately represent the temporal range of the genus Brachiosaurus, based on this study. SciencePublisher (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, the age currently in use is based upon the age estimates of the holotype specimen. This age does not seem to take into account the age of other material, such as BYU 9754(4744)/USNM 21903 (152-150 Ma), from the Potter Creek Quarry. Nor does it take into consideration of the age of the Felch Quarry skull, which is estimated at around 152.29 ± 0.27 Ma, which is a recalibrated date based upon it being located 47.9 metres (157 ft) above the base of the undifferentiated Morison Formation in the Garden Park outcrop. These two dates alone are 2 - 3 million years younger than than the holotype specimen. So the current age should be represented as at least 3 million years younger than what it is right now. SciencePublisher (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there would be any problems with you adjusting the article accordingly. The study is already used elsewhere in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the reply. I thought I'd explain myself before taking any actions, to avoid confusion. Thanks again. SciencePublisher (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021

}} Kevinpdfsssssssss (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2021

100.2.148.23 (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

145 feet long and 99 feet tall 156 tons Brachiosaurus

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Upadated: regarding the temporal range of Brachiosaurus altithorax

I previously made changes to as of when Brachiosaurus altithorax lived, revising the Wikipedia page to 154-150 Mya, in accordance to D'Emic & Carrano (2019). This study did not provide a definitive temporal range, but did provide an age estimate of some other individual specimens, which proved to be younger than the holotype, and I thus updated the article accordingly.

However, Taylor (2009) provides an age range 155.6-145.5 Mya, during the Latest Jurassic (Kimmerdigian-Tithonian). I suggest once again updating the temporal range accordingly.

It can be accessed here: http://doc.rero.ch/record/209496/files/PAL_E4055.pdf SciencePublisher (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

What hesitates me in editing anything is the fact that Taylor provides the exact same age range for Giraffatitan brancai. I'm not sure if the study made a meaningful distinction between the two time spans. But since the study is on the very subject of seperating the species into two different genera, it may be trustworthy. So, I'm not sure what to decide at this point. SciencePublisher (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Since the redescription is the one that is more concerned with stratigraphy, I think that's the one to use for this purpose. FunkMonk (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gonna agree on this one. Plus, Taylor's study doesn't seem to provide any age estimates of individual specimens or age estimates of the rock in which the fossil material was deposited in. So, I think that by relying on published age estimates, you can determine which specimens are dated youngest and which dated oldest, thus creating a temporal range. I cannot seem to find any specimens dated to <150 Mya, nor can I find any dated to >155 Mya, only ranges showing values with no clear references. SciencePublisher (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Absence of numerous genera within the inserted cladogram

The current cladogram that has been inserted is missing numerous genera, notably Lusotitan among a few others. The cladogram also contradicts information found elsewhere in the article, where it states that Lusotitan is a confirmed brachiosaurid but is not found in the cladogram. I suggest the citing a more updated cladogram to include the missing genera if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SciencePublisher (talk • contribs) 05:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brachiosaurus/Archive_1&oldid=1222909446"