I was very pleased, on checking my email this morning, to see that my and Matt’s new paper, The neck of Barosaurus was not only longer but also wider than those of Diplodocus and other diplodocines, is now up as a PeerJ preprint!


Taylor and Wedel (2013b: figure 6). Barosaurus lentus holotype YPM 429, Vertebra Q (C?13). Top row: left ventrolateral view. Middle row, from left to right: anterior view, with ventral to the right; ventral view; posterior view, with ventral to the left. Bottom row: right lateral view, inverted. Inset shows diapophyseal facet on right side of vertebra, indicating that the cervical ribs were unfused in this individual despite its great size. Note the broad, flat prezygapophyseal facet visible in anterior view.

I was pleased partly because of the very quick work on PeerJ’s part. I submitted the preprint at 1:22am last night, then went to bed. Almost immediately I got an automatic email from PeerJ saying:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript, “The neck of Barosaurus was not only longer but also wider than those of Diplodocus and other diplodocines” (#2013:09:838:0:0:CHECK:P) – it has now been received by PeerJ PrePrints.

Next, it will be checked by PeerJ staff, who will notify you if any alterations are required to the manuscript or accompanying files.

If the PrePrint successfully passes these checks, it will be made public.

You will receive notification by email at each stage of this process; you can also check the status of your manuscript at any time.

Lots to like here: the quickness of the response, the promise of automatic email updates, and the one-click link to check on progress (as opposed to the usual maze of Manuscript Central options to navigate).

Sure enough, a couple of hours later the next automatic email arrived, telling me that Matt had accepted PeerJ’s email invitation to be recognised as the co-author of the submission.

And one hour ago, just as I was crawling out of bed, I got the notification that the preprint is up. That simple.


Taylor and Wedel (2013b: Figure 9). Partial reconstruction of the Barosaurus lentus holotype YPM 429, cervical vertebra R, approximating its undamaged state by allowing for dorsoventral crushing, shearing and loss of some extremities. Anterior and posterior views scaled to 125% of uncorrected width and 80% of uncorrected height. Dorsal view scaled to 80% of uncorrected height; condyle moved forward and cotyle scaled to 50% of uncorrected width to allow for shearing. Lateral view scaled to 125% of uncorrected height, and sheared backwards 15 degrees. Metapophyses and postzygapophyses drawn in multiple views based on vertebrae Q and S and AMNH 6341 material.

I’m also pleased because we managed to get this baby written so quickly. It started life as our talk at SVPCA in Edinburgh (Taylor and Wedel 2013a), which we delivered 25 days ago having put it together mostly in a few days running up to the conference — so it’s zero to sixty in less than a month. Every year we promise ourselves that we’ll write up our talks, and we never seem to get around to it, but this year I started writing on the train back from Edinburgh. By the time I got home I had enough of a hunk of text to keep me working on it, and so we were able to push through in what, for us, is record time.

Now here’s what we’d like:

We want this paper’s time as a preprint to be time well spent — which means that we want to improve it. To do that, we need your reviews. Assuming we get some useful comments, we plan to release an updated version pretty soon; and after some number of iterations, we’ll submit the resulting paper as a full-fledged PeerJ paper.

So if you know anything about sauropods, about vertebra, about deformation, about ecology, or even about grammar or punctuation, please do us a favour: read the preprint, then get over to its PeerJ page and leave your feedback. You’ll be helping us to improve the scientific record. We’ll acknowledge substantial comments in the final paper, but even the pickiest comments are appreciated.

Because we want to encourage this approach to bringing papers to publication, we’d ask you please do not post comments about the paper here on SV-POW!. Please post them on the PeerJ preprint page. We’ve leaving comments here open for discussion of the preprinting processes, but not the scientific content.


  • Taylor, Michael P., and Mathew J. Wedel. 2013a. Barosaurus revisited: the concept of Barosaurus (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) is based on erroneously referred specimens. (Talk given as: Barosaurus revisited: the concept of Barosaurus (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) is not based on erroneously referred specimens.) pp. 37-38 in Stig Walsh, Nick Fraser, Stephen Brusatte, Jeff Liston and Vicen Carrió (eds.), Programme and Abstracts, 61st Symposium on Vertebrae Palaeontology and Comparative Anatomy, Edinburgh, UK, 27th-30th August 2013. 33 pp.
  • Taylor, Michael P., and Mathew J. Wedel. 2013b. The neck of Barosaurus was not only longer but also wider than those of Diplodocus and other diplodocines. PeerJ PrePrints 1:e67v1 http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.67v1


Those familiar with Lull (1919: plate II: figure 2) will recognise this as “vertebra Q” of the Barosarus lentus holotype YPM 429, in ventral view.

Stay tuned for more exciting Barosaurus-related news!


Lull, R. S. 1919. The sauropod dinosaur Barosaurus Marsh. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 6:1-42 and plates I-VII.

Every year I invest many days’ effort into preparing a 20-minute talk for SVPCA. Then I deliver it to maybe 80 people, and that’s the end — it’s over. It seems like a terrible waste of effort, and it occurred to me that I should make a video of this year’s talk, Barosaurus revisited: the concept of Barosaurus (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) is based on erroneously referred specimens (which at the last minute I retitled Barosaurus revisited: the concept of Barosaurus (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) is not based on erroneously referred specimens).

But I don’t know how to do that. What I want is a simple program, for either Ubuntu GNU/Linux or MacOS, which will record both the video of my screen (as I step through PowerPoint slides) and the audio of the microphone (as I give the talk), resulting in a single video file that I can upload to YouTube.

Can anyone recommend such a program?

Update 1

I got an almost immediate suggestion from @Stephen_Curry that I use ProfCast. I downloaded the trial version, but it insists on running official Microsoft PowerPoint, which I don’t have. (I prepare my talks using OpenOffice’s low-rent PowerPoint-alike.) Rats.

Update 2

@emckiernan13 cleverly suggested that I do a Google hangout (on air, recording to YouTube) with me as the only participant. So far I’ve not been able to get this to work. It won’t start a video hangout unless I have at least one other live person on the call; and although I can make it go in and out of capture mode, I can’t find a way to get hold of the captured stream.

Has anyone done this successfully?

Update 3

Seven years later, I finally figured out that QuickTime Player, which comes as one of the core apps on a Mac, can do this.

Wedel and Taylor 2013 bifurcation Figure 4 - classes of bifurcation

Figure 4. Cervical vertebrae of Camarasaurus supremus AMNH 5761 cervical series 1 in anterior view, showing different degrees of bifurcation of the neural spine. Modified from Osborn & Mook (1921: plate 67).

Today sees the publication of my big paper with Mike on neural spine bifurcation, which has been in the works since last April. It’s a free download here, and as usual we put the hi-res figures and other supporting info on a sidebar page.

Navel-gazing about the publication process

This paper is a departure for us, for several reasons.

For one thing, it’s a beast: a little over 13,000 words, not counting tables, figure captions, and the bibliography. I was all geared up to talk about how it’s my longest paper after the second Sauroposeidon paper (Wedel et al. 2000), but that’s not true. It’s my longest paper, period (13192 vs 12526 words), and the one with the most figures (25 vs 22).

It’s the first time we’ve written the paper in the open, on the blog, and then repackaged it for submission to a journal. I have several things to say about that. First, it was more work than I expected. It turns out that I definitely do have at least two “voices” as a writer, and the informal voice I used for the initial run of blog posts (linked here) was not going to cut it for formal publication. So although there is very little new material in the paper that was not in the blog posts, a lot of the prose is new because I had to rewrite almost the whole thing.

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, last May kinda sucked, because just about every minute that wasn’t spent eclipse chasing was spent rewriting the paper. On the other hand, as Mike has repeatedly pointed out to me, it was a pretty fast way to generate a big paper quickly, even with the rewriting. It was just over two months from the first post in the destined-to-become-a-paper series on April 5, to submission on June 14 (not June 24 as it says on the last page of the PDF), and if you leave out the 10 days in late May that I was galavanting around Arizona, the actual time spent working on the paper was a bit under two months. It would be nice to be that productive all the time (it helped that we were basically mining everything from previously published work; truly novel work usually needs more time to get up and going).

Wedel and Taylor 2013 bifurcation Figure 18 - Barosaurus and Supersaurus cervicals

Figure 18. Middle cervical vertebrae of Barosaurus AMNH 6341 (top) and Supersaurus BYU 9024 (bottom) in left lateral view, scaled to the same centrum length. The actual centrum lengths are 850 mm and 1380 mm, respectively. BYU 9024 is the longest single vertebra of any known animal.

You may fairly wonder why, if almost all the content was already available on the blog, we went to the trouble of publishing it in a journal. Especially in light of sentiments like this. For my part, it’s down to two things. First, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, what I wrote in that post was a yell, not a thought. I never intended to stop publishing in journals, I was just frustrated that traditional journals do so many stupid things that actually hurt science, like rejecting papers because of anticipated sexiness or for other BS reasons, not publishing peer reviews, etc. Happily, now there are better options.

Second, although in a sane world the quality of an argument or hypothesis would matter more than its mode of distribution, that’s not the world we live in. We’re happy enough to cite blog posts, etc. (they’re better than pers. comms., at least), but not everyone is, and the minimum bound of What Counts is controlled by people at the other end of the Overton window. So, bottom line, people are at least theoretically free to ignore stuff that is only published on blogs or other informal venues (DML, forums, etc.). If you want to force someone to engage with your ideas, you have to publish them in journals (for now). So we did.

Finally, ever since Darren’s azhdarchids-were-storks post got turned into a paper, it has bothered me that there is an icon for “Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research” (from ResearchBlogging.org), but not one (that I know of) for “Blogging Into Peer-Reviewed Research”. If you have some graphic design chops and 10 minutes to kill, you could do the world a favor by creating one.

Hey, you! Want a project?

One of the few things in the paper that is not in any of the blog posts is the table summarizing the skeletal fusions in a bunch of famous sauropod specimens, to show how little consistency there is:

Wedel and Taylor 2013 NSB Table 1 - sauropod skeletal fusions

(Yes, we know that table legends typically go above, not below; this is just how they roll at PJVP.)

I want this to not get overlooked just because it’s in a long paper on neural spine bifurcation; as far as I’m concerned, it’s the most important part of the paper. I didn’t know that these potential ontogenetic indicators were all mutually contradictory across taxa before I started this project. Not only is the order of skeletal fusions inconsistent among taxa, but it might also be inconsistent among individuals or populations, or at least that’s what the variation among the different specimens of Apatosaurus suggests.

This problem cries out for more attention. As we say at the end of the paper:

To some extent the field of sauropod paleobiology suffers from ‘monograph tunnel vision’, in which our knowledge of most taxa is derived from a handful of specimens described decades ago (e.g. Diplodocus carnegii CM 84/94). Recent work by McIntosh (2005), Upchurch et al. (2005), and Harris (2006a, b, c, 2007) is a welcome antidote to this malady, but several of the taxa discussed herein are represented by many more specimens that have not been adequately described or assessed. A comprehensive program to document skeletal fusions and body size in all known specimens of, say, Camarasaurus, or Diplodocus, could be undertaken for relatively little cost (other than travel expenses, and even these could be offset through collaboration) and would add immeasurably to our knowledge of sauropod ontogeny.

So if you’re looking for a project on sauropod paleobiology and you can get around to a bunch of museums*, here’s work that needs doing. Also, you’ll probably make lots of other publishable observations along the way.

* The more the better, but for Morrison taxa I would say minimally: Yale, AMNH, Carnegie, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Field Museum, Dinosaur National Monument, BYU, University of Utah, and University of Wyoming, plus Smithsonian, University of Kansas, OMNH, Denver Museum, Wyoming Dinosaur Center, and a few others if you can swing it. Oh, and Diplodocus hayi down in Houston. Check John Foster’s and Jack McIntosh’s publications for lists of specimens–there are a LOT more out there than most people are familiar with.


A couple of days ago, a paper by Tschopp and Mateus (2012) described and named a new diplodocine from the Morrison Formation, Kaatedocus siberi, based on a beautifully preserved specimen consisting of a complete skull and the first fourteen cervical vertebrae.

Unfortunately, the authors chose to publish their work in the Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, a paywalled journal, which means that most of you reading this will be unable to read the actual paper — at least, not unless you care enough to pay £27 for the privilege.

So you’ll just have to take my word for it when I tell you that it’s a fine, detailed piece of work, weighing in at 36 pages. It features lavish illustrations of the skull, but we won’t trouble you with those. The vertebrae are illustrated rather less comprehensively, though still better than in most papers:


Tschopp and Matteus (2012: figure 9). A, Photograph and B, drawings of the mid-cervical vertebrae of the holotype of Kaatedocus siberi (SMA 0004). Photograph in lateral view and to scale, CV 8 shown in the drawings is indicated by an asterisk. Drawings of CV 8 (B) in dorsal (1), lateral (2), ventral (3), posterior (4) and anterior (5) views. Scale bars = 4 cm.

It should be immediately apparent from these lateral views that the vertebra are rather Diplodocus-like. But the hot news is that there is a great raft of free supplementary information, including full five-orthogonal-view photos of all fourteen vertebrae!

Here is just one of them, C6, in glorious high resolution (click through for the full awesome):


Now, folks, that is how to illustrate a sauropod in 2012! The goal of a good descriptive paper is to be the closest thing possible to a proxy for the specimen itself, and you just can’t do that if you don’t illustrate every element from multiple directions. By getting this so spectacularly right, Tschopp and Matteus have made their paper the best illustrated sauropod description for 91 years. (Yes, I am talking about Osborn and Mook 1921.)

It’s just a shame that all the awe-inspiring illustrations are tucked away in supplementary information rather than in the paper itself. Had the paper been published in a PLOS journal, for example, all the goodness could have been in one place, and it would all have been open access.

Is Kaatedocus valid?

There’s a bit of a fashion these days for drive-by synonymisation of dinosaurs, and sure enough no sooner had Brian Switek written about Kaatedocus for his new National Geographic blog than comments started cropping up arguing (or in some cases just stating) that Kaatedocus is merely Barosaurus.

It’s not. I spent a lot of time with true Barosaurus cervicals at Yale this summer, and those of Kaatedocus are nothing like them. Here is Tschopp and Mateus’s supplementary figure of C14:


And here is a posterior vertebra — possibly also C14 — of the Barosaurus holotype YPM 429, in dorsal and right lateral views:



Even allowing for a certain amount of post-mortem distortion and “creative” restoration, it should be immediately apparent that (A) Barosaurus is much weirder than most people realise, and (B) Kaatedocus ain’t it.

There may be more of a case to be made that Kaatedocus is Diplodocus — but that’s the point: it there’s a case, then it needs to be actually made, which means a point-by-point response to the diagnostic characters proposed by the authors in their careful, detailed study based on months of work with the actual specimens.

There seems to be an idea abroad at the moment that it’s somehow more conservative or sober or scientific to assume everything is a ontogenomorph of everything else — possibly catalysed by the Horner lab’s ongoing “Toroceratops” initiative and subsequent cavalier treatment of Morrison sauropods — maybe even by the Amphidocobrontowaassea paper. Folks, there is no intrinsic merit in assuming less diversity. Historically, the Victorian sauropod palaeontologists of England did at least as much taxonomic damage by assumptions of synonymy (everything’s Cetiosaurus or Ornithopsiswhatever that is) as they did by raising new taxa. The thing to do is find the hypothesis best supported by evidence, not presupposing that either splitting or lumping is a priori the more virtuous course.

Sermon ends.

Morrison sauropod diversity

As we’ve pointed out a few times in our published work, sauropod diversity in the Kimmeridgian-Tithonian in general, and in the Morrison Formation in particular, was off-the-scale crazy. There’s good evidence for at least a dozen sauropod genera in the Morrison, and more than fifteen species. Kaatedocus extends this record yet further, giving us a picture of an amazing ecosystem positively abundant with numerous species of giant animals bigger than anything alive on land today.

Sometimes you’ll hear people use this observation as a working-backwards piece of evidence that Morrison sauropods are oversplit. Nuh-uh. We have to assess taxonomy on its own grounds, then see what it tells us about ecosystem. As Dave Hone’s new paper affirms (among many others), Mesozoic ecosystem were not like modern ones. We have to resist the insidious temptation to assume that what we would have seen in the Late Jurassic is somehow analogous to what we see today on the Serengeti.

Hutton’s (or Lyell’s) idea that “the present is the key to the past” may be helpful in geology. But despite its roots as a branch of the discipline, the palaeontology we do today is not geology. When we’re thinking about ancient ecosystems, we’re talking about palaeobiology, and in that field the idea that the present is the key to the past is at best unhelpful, at worst positively misleading.

Sermon ends.

But isn’t the Kaatedocus holotype privately owned?

You’ve had two sermons already, I’m sure we can all agree that’s plenty for one blog post. I will return to this subject in a subsequent post.

Sermon doesn’t even get started.


Osborn, Henry Fairfield, and Charles C. Mook. 1921. Camarasaurus, Amphicoelias and other sauropods of Cope. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, n.s. 3:247-387, and plates LX-LXXXV.

Tschopp, Emanuel, and Octávio Mateus. 2012. The skull and neck of a new flagellicaudatan sauropod from the Morrison Formation and its implication for the evolution and ontogeny of diplodocid dinosaurs. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. doi:10.1080/14772019.2012.746589

We’re off to Oxford next week for SVPCA, so things may be quiet around here for a few days. Catch you on the flip side.

Sometimes you just can’t make this stuff up.

You may recall a story from the Onion Our Dumb Century book, allegedly from 1904, about the skeleton of Satan being discovered in Wyoming. Mike used his occult powers to put together this scan from freely available online sources:

If you scrutinize the above image carefully, you’ll see that ‘Satan’ is an Allosaurus (I’m no theropod booster, but I always thought that was a little harsh on T. rex).

Why am I telling you this? Because last week Mike and I were toiling in the big bone room in the basement of the AMNH when we came across AMNH 666.

It’s an ilium. (Of course it would have to be an appendicular element. Vertebrae are from on high [or dorsal, if you prefer].)

Of Allosaurus!

The stomach-churning color here could be a manifestation of diabolical power, or just what happens when you try to photograph a pink specimen label on a yellow-orange forklift.

After this harrowing encounter, we cleansed our bodies, minds, and souls with street-vendor hot dogs and The Avengers.* That particular mode of exorcism may not be the most effective–I felt distinctly dodgy that evening. But the next day we received illumination at the Altar of Sauropod Awesomeness and were soon back to what we jokingly refer to as normal.

* The best way to see The Avengers is by going up to the observation deck of the Empire State Building shortly beforehand, so big swathes of the Manhattan skyline will still be in your mental RAM during the big final battle. I understand it’s not an option for everyone.

I’ve been thinking about Barosaurus lately.

<homer>Mmmm … Barosaurus</homer>

The best (and only, really) good recent treatment of Barosaurus is in John McIntosh’s chapter of the 2005 IUP Thunder Lizards volume.  The main weakness of that chapter is that, while a lot of material is illustrated, the figures are rather small and not particularly well reproduced — and, in the case of the two-page spread of dorsal vertebrae, monumentally confusing:

Barosaurus lentus AMNH 6341 dorsal vertebrae 1 to 9 (A-I) in anterior, left side, and posterior views. From McIntosh (2005:fig. 2.5)

Quick!  find the fourth dorsal in posterior view!  [˙ʇɟǝן ɯoʇʇoq ʇɐ s,ʇı :ɹǝʍsuɐ]

To get a better sense of the variation along the column, I scanned the two pages, loaded them into GIMP, joined them together, cleaned up the “white” of the background while retaining all the contrast I could, then moved each of the 27 illustrations to its own layer.  Then I was able to rearrange them to my liking, align them, and produce this modified version:

Barosaurus lentus AMNH 6341 dorsal vertebrae 1 to 9 in anterior (top), left lateral (middle), and posterior (bottom) views. Modified from McIntosh (2005:fig. 2.5)

So here it is for anyone else who finds it useful.

(One character that varies sequentially is of course the degree of neural spine bifurcation.  But we won’t be flogging that dead horse any more — we’re done blogging, and the paper is in prep.)


  • McIntosh, J.S. 2005. The genus Barosaurus Marsh (Sauropoda, Diplodocidae); pp. 38-77 in Virginia Tidwell and Ken Carpenter (eds.), Thunder Lizards: the Sauropodomorph Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 495 pp.

Last time, we saw why Haplocanthosaurus couldn’t be a juvenile of Apatosaurus or Diplodocus, based on osteology alone.  But there’s more:

Ontogenetic status of Haplocanthosaurus

Here is where is gets really surreal.  Woodruff and Fowler (2012) blithely assume that Haplocanthosaurus is a juvenile of something, but the type specimen of the type species — H. priscus CM 572 — is an adult.  As Hatcher (1903:3) explains:

The type No. 572 of the present genus consists of the two posterior cervicals, ten dorsals, five sacrals, nineteen caudals, both ilia, ischia and pubes, two chevrons, a femur and a nearly complete series of ribs, all in an excellent state of preservation and pertaining to an individual fully adult as is shown by the coössified neural spines and centra.

So far as I can see, Woodruff and Fowler are confused because the second species that Hatcher describes, H. utterbacki, is based on the subadult specimen CM 879.  Where possible in the previous post, I have used illustrations of the adult H. priscus, so that the comparisons are of adult with adult.  The exceptions are the two anterior cervicals and the first dorsal, which are known only from H. utterbacki.  And sure enough, if you look closely at the illustrations, you can see that in these vertebrae and only these vertebrae, Hatcher had the neurocentral junction illustrated — because it wasn’t yet fused.

Haplocanthosaurus posterior, mid and anterior cervical vertebrae, C14, C9 and C4, in right lateral view. C14 of adult H. priscus (from Hatcher 1903:plate I); C9 and C4 of H. utterbacki (from plate II). Red ellipses highlight neurocentral sutures.

As it happens, the difference in ontogenetic status between these two specimens is nicely illustrated by Wedel (2009), although he was only in it for the pneumaticity:

Neurocentral fusion in Haplocanthosaurus. A, B. Posterior cervical vertebra C?12 of sub-adult H. utterbacki holotype CM 879: A, X-ray in right lateral view; B, coronal CT slice showing separate ossificaton of centrum and neural arch. C, D. Mid-dorsal vertebra D6 of adult H. priscus holotype CM 572: X-rays in (A) right lateral and (B) anterior view, showing fully fused neural arch. Wedel (2009:fig. 6)

So H. utterbacki CM 879 certainly is an immature form of something; and that something is Haplocanthosaurus, most likely H. priscus.  (The characters which Hatcher used to separate the two species are not particularly convincing.)

With that out the way, we can move on to …

Phylogenetic analysis

A simple way to evaluate the parsimony or otherwise of a synonymy is to use a phylogenetic analysis. In their abstract, Woodruff and Fowler claim that “On the basis of shallow bifurcation of its cervical and dorsal neural spines, the small diplodocid Suuwassea is more parsimoniously interpreted as an immature specimen of an already recognized diplodocid taxon”.  Without getting into the subject of Suuwassea again — Matt pretty much wrapped that up in part 4 — the point here is that the word “parsimony” has a particular meaning in studies of evolution: it refers to minimising the number of character-state changes.  And we have tools for measuring those.

So let’s use parsimony to evaluate the hypothesis that Haplocanthosaurus is one of the previously known diplodocids.  Pretending for the moment that Haplocanthosaurus really was known only from subadults, how many additional steps would we need to account for if ontogeny were to change its position to make it group with one of the diplodocids?

You don’t need to be a cladistics wizard to do this.  (Which is handy, since I am not one.)  Here’s the method:

  • Start with an existing matrix, add constraints, re-run it, and see how the tree-length changes.  Since I am familiar with it, I started with the matrix from my 2009 paper on brachiosaurs.
  • Re-run the matrix to verify that you get the same result as in the published paper based on it.  This gives you confidence that you’re running it right.  In this case, I got a minimum tree length of 791 steps, just as in Taylor (2009).
  • Add extra instructions to the run-script defining and imposing constraints.  Note that you do not have to mess with the characters, taxa or codings to do this.
  • Run the matrix again, with the constraint in place, and see how the tree-length changes.
  • Repeat as needed with other constraints to evaluate other phylogenetric hypotheses.

(This is how we produced the part of the Brontomerus paper (Taylor et al. 2011:89) where we said “One further step is sufficient to place Brontomerus as a brachiosaurid, a basal (non−camarasauromorph) macronarian, a basal (non−diplodocid) diplodocoid or even a non−neosauropod. Three further steps are required for Brontomerus to be recovered as a saltasaurid, specifically an opisthocoelicaudiine”.  And that’s why we weren’t at all dogmatic about its position.)

Anyway, going through this exercise with Haplocanthosaurus constrained in turn to be the sister taxon to Apatosaurus, Diplodocus, etc., yielded the following results:

  • (no constraint) —  791 steps
  • Apatosaurus — 817 (26 extra)
  • Diplodocus — 825 (34 extra)
  • Barosaurus — 815 (24 extra)
  • Camarasaurus — 793 (2 extra)
  • Brachiosaurus — 797 (6 extra)

(I threw in the other well-known Morrisson-Formation sauropods Camarasaurus and Brachiosaurus, even though Woodruff and Fowler don’t mention them, just because it was easy to do and I was interested to see what would happen.  And when I say Brachiosaurus, I mean B. altithorax, not Giraffatitan.)

I hope you’re as shocked as I am to see that for Haplocanthosaurus to emerge as the sister taxon of any diplodocid needs a minimum of 24 additional steps — or an incredible 34 for it to be sister to Diplodocus.  In other words, the hypothesis is grossly unparsimonious.  Of course, that doesn’t in itself mean that it’s false: but it does render it an extraordinary claim, which means that it needs extraordinary evidence.  And while “the simple spines of Haplocanthosaurus might bifurcate when it grows up” is extraordinary evidence, it’s not in the way that Carl Sagan meant it.

In short, running this simple exercise — it took me about a hour, mostly to remember how to do constraints in PAUP* — would have given Woodruff and Fowler pause for thought before dragging Haplocanthosaurus into their paper.

Oh, and it’s ironic that placing Haplo as sister to Brachiosaurus requires only a quarter as many steps as the closest diplodocid, and as sister to Camarasaurus requires only two steps.  If you really want to synonymise Haplocanthosaurus, Camarasaurus is the place to start.  (But don’t get excited, it’s not Camarasaurus either.  It’s Haplocanthosaurus.)

[By the way, anyone who’d like to replicate this experiment for themselves is welcome: all the files are available on my web-site.  You only really need the .nex file, which you can feed to PAUP*, but I threw in the log-file, the generated tree files and the summary file, too.  Extra Credit: run this same exercise to evaluate the parsimony of Suuwassea as a subadult of one of these other genera.  Report back here when you’re done to earn SV-POW! points.]


It’s a truism that we stand on the shoulders of giants.  In the case of sauropod studies, those giants are people like J. B. Hatcher, Charles Gilmore, Osborn and Mook and — bringing it up to date — John McIntosh, Paul Upchurch, Jeff Wilson and Jerry Harris.  When Hatcher described Haplocanthosaurus as a new genus rather than a subadult Diplodocus, he wasn’t naive.  He recognised the effects of ontogeny, and he was aware that one of his two specimens was adult and the other subadult.  He was also probably more familiar with Diplodocus osteology than anyone else has ever been before or since, having written the definitive monograph on that animal just two years previously (Hatcher 1901).

By the same token, people like Upchurch and Wilson have done us all a huge favour by making the hard yards in sauropod phylogenetics.  If we’re going to go challenging the standard consensus phylogeny, it’s just good sense to go back to their work (or the more recent work of others, such as Whitlock 2011), re-run the analyses with our pet hypotheses encoded as constraints, and see what they tell us.

So in the end, my point is this: let’s not waste our giants.  Let’s take the time to get up on their shoulders and survey the landscape from up there, rather than staying down at ground level and seeing how high we can jump from a standing start.

The rest of the series

Links to all of the posts in this series:

and the post that started it all:


  • Hatcher, J.B. 1901. Diplodocus (Marsh): its osteology, taxonomy, and probable habits, with a restoration of the skeleton. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 1:1-63.
  • Hatcher, J.B. 1903. Osteology of Haplocanthosaurus with description of a new species, and remarks on the probable habits of the Sauropoda and the age and origin of the Atlantosaurus beds; additional remarks on Diplodocus. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 2:1-75.
  • Taylor, M.P. 2009. A re-evaluation of Brachiosaurus altithorax Riggs 1903 (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) and its generic separation from Giraffatitan brancai (Janensch 1914). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 29(3):787-806.
  • Taylor, M.P., Wedel, M.J. and Cifelli, R.L. 2011. A new sauropod dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Cedar Mountain Formation, Utah, USA. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 56(1):75-98. doi:10.4202/app.2010.0073
  • Wedel, M.J. 2009. Evidence for bird-like air sacs in saurischian dinosaurs. Journal of Experimental Zoology 311A:611-628.
  • Whitlock, J.A. 2011. A phylogenetic analysis of Diplodocoidea (Saurischia: Sauropoda). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 161(4):872-915. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2010.00665.x
  • Woodruff, D.C, and Fowler, D.W. 2012. Ontogenetic influence on neural spine bifurcation in Diplodocoidea (Dinosauria: Sauropoda): a critical phylogenetic character. Journal of Morphology, online ahead of print.

The discussion over the new paper by Woodruff and Fowler (2012)–see this post and the unusually energetic comment thread that follows–made me want to go back to the literature and see what was known or could be inferred about neural spine bifurcation in the Morrison sauropods before the recent paper was published.

In this post I’m mostly going to stick with the “classic” specimens–those that are reasonably complete and have been monographed.  So this is the stuff that anyone could easily have figured out for themselves–I am just gathering it here so that it’s conveniently in one place.

Cervical vertebrae

Apatosaurus louisae, CM 3018, and A. parvus, CM 563/UWGM 15556

Apatosaurus parvus CM 563/UWGM 15556 cervicals 7, 5, 4 and 3 in anterior and right lateral views, from Gilmore (1936:pl. 31)

CM 3018 is the mounted Apatosaurus at the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, which was exhaustively described by Gilmore in his 1936 monograph. In that paper Gilmore also described CM 563, which is now mounted at the University of Wyoming Geological Museum and cataloged as UWGM 15556. Gilmore referred CM 563 to A. excelsus, but in a specimen-level phylogenetic analysis Upchurch et al. (2005) found CM 563/UWGM 15556 to belong to A. parvus–hat tip to alert reader LeeB. for catching the revised specific referral. On the subject of neural spine bifurcation, Gilmore wrote (1936:195):

Unfortunately the type of A. louisae lacks most of the spine tops, only  those of cervicals eight, ten and twelve being complete; thus the point of change from single to bifid spines cannot be determined in this specimen. In specimen No. 563, C.M., identified by Hatcher as pertaining to Brontosaurus, an identification with which I concur [Apatosaurus louisae and Brontosaurus excelsus were then considered by some to be separate genera], there are nine cervical vertebrae preserved, three of which I regard as cervicals, three, four, and five. These show the spines to be single as far posteriorly as the fifth vertebra. Since C. 7 shows a well defined notch between the metapophyses, it seems to be a fair conclusion that C. 6 in Apatosaurus is the first vertebra to show a notch on the summit of the spine.

In Camarasaurus supremus Osborn and Mook make the observation that, “In C. 5, the spine has a very slight median notch.” In C. lentus [Gilmore 1925:369], however, the first notched spine is that of C. 7. From C. 6 to C. 9 inclusive, the spinal notch increases steadily in depth. From C. 9 to C. 15 inclusive the spine is completely divided into two metapophyses.  [An odd statement, since Gilmore (1925:351) says that there are twelve cervicals in C. lentus. By “C. 15” he must mean the 15th vertebra, i.e. D3.]

In CM 3018 the spine of C7 appears to be split, based on Gilmore’s Plate 24 (note that for a deeply notched spine, it is not necessary to have the spine tips preserved; the base of the trough will do), and the spine of C6 might be. Gilmore doesn’t mention it in the text, but the plate seems to show C6 with broken metapophyses (at least in posterior view, there are break lines across the metapophyses at mid-height) but with a preserved trough in the middle, which if accurate is enough to confirm that the spine of C6 was also at least partially bifid.

In CM 563/UWGM 15556, there is little doubt: C3, C4, and C5 all have single spines, and the spine of C7 is deeply split. I am happy with Gilmore’s estimates of serial position, by the way. I don’t think the putative C3 could be further back, given how small and short it is, and it’s the wrong shape for an axis. C4 and C5 fall into line in both size and morphology. There is clearly at least one missing vertebra between C5 and C7. The C7 might just possibly be a C8 but I really don’t think it could be any farther back than that, and I agree with Gilmore that it makes more sense as a C7.

The mounted apatosaurs at the Yale Peabody Museum, the AMNH, and the Field Museum are not much help.* The cervical series of all three are heavily reconstructed, and at least for the YPM and AMNH specimens it is quite difficult to tell where the bone ends and the plaster begins.

* Before some outraged curator, collections manager, docent, or museum-goer gets up in my grill about this, I’m not saying they’re bad mounts, or that the necks are entirely fictional! It’s just a sad fact that the fragile neural spine tips are easily broken off and therefore rarely preserved intact. The museums are not defrauding anyone by sculpting in replacements–but that reconstructive work does make it hard to use those specimens as data if neural spine bifurcation is the character of interest. That’s all I’m saying.

Apatosaurus ajax, NSMT-PV 20375

Apatosaurus ajax NSMT-PV 20375, cervical vertebrae 3, 6 and 7 in anterior and posterior views. Modified from Upchurch et al. (2005: plate 2)

This is the new(ish) A. ajax described by Upchurch et al. (2005). They wrote (pp. 27-28):

The neural spine is unbifurcated in C3, but strongly bifurcated from C6 onwards; this seems to be the typical location for the onset of spine bifurcation in Apatosaurus, since it also occurs in this manner in CM 3018 and UWGM 15556.

Note that the intervening vertebrae are missing from that specimen, so we can’t tell exactly where the bifurcation began, but it is perfectly consistent with CM 563/UWGM 15556.

Diplodocus carnegii, CM 84/94

Diplodocus carnegii cervicals 2-15 in posterior view, from Hatcher (1901:pl. 6). Note that the bifid spines in C3-C5 are sculptures; there is no evidence that these spines were bifurcated when the vertebrae were intact.

Hatcher (1901:20-21; emphasis added):

Cervicals Three, Four, and Five.–All of these vertebrae are more or less injured. The neural spines and transverse processes especially are not well preserved. […] Commencing with C. 3 the neural spines of these vertebrae have been restored as bifid both anteriorly and posteriorly, each spine consisting of a broad thin plate of bone formed by the union of the pre- and postzygapophyseal laminae of their respective sides. These are made to appear free anteriorly and posteriorly, but united, except at their apices, throughout the inner sides; conditions which prevail in the succeeding cervicals.

Cervicals Six, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten.–These vertebrae differ so little in their more important characters that they may be very conveniently described together. They are all fairly well preserved and show certain characters which are gradually more emphasized in the succeeding vertebrae of the series. Commencing with C. 6 they  regularly increase in length posteriorly. The neural spines become more completely bifid, resulting in a pair of transversely placed perfectly free spines on the tenth cervical consisting of  triangular plates of bone diverging superiorly and terminating at the summit in a rather blunt, rounded process.

Unfortunately Hatcher’s plates do not show which areas have been reconstructed and which have not–a very common failing in these classic monographs, and one which Upchurch et al. (2005) happily did not duplicate. Hatcher says that certain characters are more emphasized in more posterior vertebrae, and that by C10 the metapophyses are “perfectly free”, which suggests that they might have been less than perfectly free before. The spines of C3-C5 have been reconstructed as bifid, but that was to make them consistent with the succeeding vertebrae. So CM 84/94 is like its neighbor in the Carnegie dinosaur hall, CM 3018, in that in both specimens we know that the spines are bifid by some point but we don’t know what was going on in C3-C5.

Barosaurus lentus, AMNH 6341

A. Barosaurus lentus AMNH 6431 cervical vertebra 8 in anterior, left side, and posterior views. B. Diplodocus carnegii CM 84 cervical 8 in anterior, left side and posterior views (from Hatcher 1901). (McIntosh 2005:fig. 2.2)

This is the mostly-complete skeleton famously mounted in a rearing pose in the AMNH rotunda. McIntosh (2005:47-48):

The neural spine of cervical 8 is flat across the top, and that of 9 shows the first trace of a divided spine (Fig. 2.2A). This division increases gradually in sequential vertebrae, being moderately developed in cervicals 12 and 13, and as a deep V-shape in cervicals 15 and 16. This development is in sharp contrast to Diplodocus, where cervical 3 already shows the first trace of division, and where the division is already quite deep in cervical 7 (Fig. 2.2B). By cervical 11 it is as well developed as cervical 16 of Barosaurus (AMNH 6341; Fig. 2.3A). In the spines, a further difference is that those of the last two cervicals (14 and 15) of Diplodocus project anterodorsally, whereas those of Barosaurus are all directed dorsally (Fig. 2.3B).

(McIntosh’s reference in the text to cervical 7 of Diplodocus carnegii is partly in error; the neural spine cleft is fairly deep in C7 but the vertebra shown in the figure is C8, as correctly noted in the figure caption.)

Suuwassea emilieae, ANS 21122

Suuwassea emilieae C6 in anterior, left lateral, and posterior views, from Harris (2006:Text-fig. 7A-C)

Harris (2006) on C2 (p. 1096, Text-fig. 4):

The spine gradually widens mediolaterally toward the distal end, which is rendered heart-shaped by a 12-mm-deep, sagittal, parabolic notch.

C3 (Text-fig. 5) is missing the end of its spine, enough remains to show that if it was bifid the cleft could not have been very deep.

C4 is missing.

C5 (p. 1099, Text-fig. 6):

The spinous process expands mediolaterally toward its apex, attaining maximal width just proximal to its terminus. A long, narrow crack at the distal end gives the appearance of bifurcation, but the collinear dorsal margin indicates that no true split was present.

C6 (p. 1101, Text-fig. 7, above):

The distal end of the spine is cleft by a parabolic, 11.8-mm-deep intraspinous sulcus, marking the initial stage of bifurcation.

Camarasaurus lewisi, BYU 9047, C. supremus AMNH 5761, C. lentus CM 11338 and YPM 1910

Camarasaurus supremus AMNH 5761, C2-C7 in anterior, left lateral, and poster views, from Osborn and Mook (1921:pl. 67)

McIntosh, Miller, et al. (1996:76) on Camarasaurus (= “Cathetosaurus“) lewisi:

The spines are placed well back on the arches and rise higher than in C. grandis, C. lentus, or C. supremus. The cleft in the bifid spine is much deeper and narrower than in any of those species. The cleft in cervical 3 of C. grandis (YPM 1905) is barely perceptible, very modest in numbers 4 and 5, and distinct in 6.

The metapophyses are transversely broad. If the arrangement portrayed by Osborn and Mook (1921) for the large adult C. supremus (AMNH 5761) is correct, the notch between them first appears in cervical 7, the same position reported by Gilmore (1925) for the juvenile C. lentus (CM 11338). However, a small depression is present in cervical 5 of the holotype (YPM 1910) of the latter species. In C. lewisi (BYU 9047) a narrow, deep, sharp cleft is already present in cervical 3 (Jensen, 1988). The depth continues to increase greatly to cervical 8, the last cervical in which reliable measurements of this feature can be taken, where it appears as a very steep, V-shaped notch. This feature appears to be unique to C. lewisi.

McIntosh’s comments here perfectly match the descriptions provided by Osborn and Mook (1921) and Gilmore (1925) so I have not bothered pasting in the relevant sections of those papers (though I did reread them to make sure everything matched).

Camarasaurus grandis, GMNH-PV 101 (WPL 1995) and YPM 1905

McIntosh, Miles, et al. (1996:11-12):

As in C. grandis YPM 1905, the bifurcation of the spine begins as an incipient notch on cervical 3, but it is not until cervical 5 that one observes the fully developed U-shaped trough, and even then the cleft is not nearly as prominent as in the cervicals of the diplodocids. In this respect GMNH-PV 101 Camarasaurus, and most of the other specimens of the genus, differ from the deep, narrow bifurcation seen in C. lewisi BYU 9047 (see Table C).

However, this description does not match the illustrations. While fig. 25 does show a very subtle notch in C3, fig. 26 shows no bifurcation whatsoever in C4 which has a distinctly convex neurapophysis. Subtle bifurcation returns in C5, and deepens slightly in C6, C7 and C8.

Inferences on bifurcation in cervicals

Remember that here I am not trying to either support or challenge the work of Woodruff and Fowler (2012), I’m just looking at what had been published previously and seeing what inferences could be drawn from that evidence only.

1. There is no evidence in any of the North American diplodocoids of a bifid spine farther forward than C6. The bifid spines in the mounted skeleton of D. carnegii are sculptures; Hatcher was doing his best with imperfect fossils and limited information. The appearance of a split spine in C5 of Suuwassea is caused by a vertical crack and a small amount of missing bone. In the very large AMNH 6341 Barosaurus, the first partially split spine is on C9.

2. Adult sauropods can show unbifurcated spines, partially bifurcated spines, and fully bifurcated spines serially in the same individual. This is true even in very large individuals (e.g., Apatosaurus parvus CM 563/UWGM 15556, Barosaurus lentus AMNH 6341, Camarasaurus supremus AMNH 5761), so it is unlikely to be an artifact of ontogeny. Therefore single spines do not always indicate juveniles, bifid spines do not always indicate adults, and incompletely bifid spines did not always become fully bifid–in all of the specimens listed above, the most anterior bifid spines are only shallowly divided. We should probably describe vertebrae with shallow splits as ‘incompletely’ bifid rather than ‘incipiently’ bifid; the latter term implies that the bifurcation was going to deepen with time, which did not always happen depending on serial position.

3. The evidence from Camarasaurus is consistent with an ontogenetic increase in bifurcation. The juvenile C. lentus described by Gilmore (1925) has the first incipiently bifurcated spine at C7, whereas the larger, presumably adult individual of the same species represented by YPM 1910 has the first split at C5, as do the individuals that make up C. supremus AMNH 5761. In C. lewisi BYU 9047 and C. grandis YPM 1905, and arguably in C. grandis GMNH-PV 101 the first spine to be partially split is C3. It is tempting to interpret the difference between adult C. lentus and C. supremus on one hand (first split at C5) and C. lewisi and C. grandis on the other (first split at C3) as interspecific variation, but it might be individual variation considering that we are dealing with usually just one individual from each species (for neural spine bifurcation in adults; I am aware that there are other individuals not mentioned here).

Dorsal vertebrae

I’m going to report the results here in a more compact form than I did for the cervicals. My convention of convenience will be: spines that are split over more than half the distance from the tips to either the postzygapophyses or transverse processes (whichever are higher) are described as deeply bifid, and those split over less than half that distance, including very shallow dorsal indentations, are described as shallowly bifid. The expected dorsal counts are 10 in Apatosaurus and Diplodocus, 9 in Barosaurus, and 12 in Camarasaurus.

Apatosaurus louisae CM 3018 (Gilmore 1936): Deeply bifid  in D1-D3, shallowly bifid in D4-D6, unsplit in D7-D9, D10 spine missing.

Apatosaurus parvus CM 563/UWGM 15556 (Gilmore 1936): Deeply bifid in D1-D3, shallowly bifid in D4, D5-D10 spines missing.

Apatosaurus ajax NMST-PV 20375 (Upchurch et al. 2005): Deeply bifid in D1-D4, shallowly bifid in D5-D6, unsplit in D7-D10.

Diplodocus carnegii CM 84/94 (Hatcher 1901): Deeply bifid in D1-D5, shallowly bifid in D6-D9, unsplit in D10.

Diplodocus longus USNM 10865 (Gilmore 1932): Deeply bifid in D1-D5, shallowly bifid in D6-D8, unsplit in D9-D10.

Barosaurus lentus YPM 429 (Lull 1919): Deeply bifid in D1, D4, and D5, unsplit in D6-D9 (NB: Lull interpreted the latter as D7-D10 on the expectation of 10 dorsals, based on Diplodocus).

Barosaurus lentus AMNH 6341 (McIntosh 2005): Deeply bifid in D1-D3, shallowly bifid in D4-D8, unsplit in D9.

Camarasaurus lentus CM 11338 (Gilmore 1925): Deeply bifid in D1-D3, shallowly bifid in D4-D6, unsplit in D7-D12.

Camarasaurus supremus AMNH 5761 (Osborn and Mook 1921): Deeply bifid in D1-D6, shallowly bifid in D7-D8, unsplit in D9-D12 (NB: a bit of guesswork here, since Osborn and Mook were working with disarticulated material and interpreted Camarasaurus has having 10 or 11 dorsals).

Camarasaurus lewisi BYU 9047 (McIntosh, Miller, et al. 1996): Deeply bifid in D1-D8, shallowly bifid in D9-D12.

Inferences on bifurcations in dorsals

1. As with the cervicals, most adult sauropods have deeply bifid, shallowly bifid, and unsplit spines in serially adjacent vertebrae. In the diplodocids, the spines of D6-D10 (or D9 in Barosaurus) are always either unsplit or very shallowly indented at the tips.

2. The diplodocid genera show some interesting differences. In Apatosaurus the last four dorsals are always unsplit. In Diplodocus the spines are at least shallowly indented as far back as D8 or D9. Barosaurus goes both ways, with YPM 429 having unsplit spines in the four most posterior dorsals, and AMNH 6341 having an entirely unsplit spine only in the last dorsal.

3. In the diplodocids, deep splits are always confined to the first half of the dorsal series (D1-D5), and these are usually followed by a long run of vertebrae with very shallowly notched spine tips. The exception is Barosaurus YPM 429, which–if the vertebrae are truly consecutive (the series is missing at least two)–has a deep split in D5 and unsplit spines in D6-D9.

4. As with the cervicals, the evidence from Camarasaurus does not rule out an ontogenetic increase in bifurcation. In the juvenile C. lentus CM 11338, the spines are  only bifid as far back as D6; in the adult C. supremus AMNH 5761 to D7; and in the old C. lewisi BYU 9047 to D12. If these differences represent ontogenetic changes rather than interspecific differences (which also cannot be ruled out at this point), it is interesting that there is a bigger difference between the adult C. supremus and the old C. lewisi than between the juvenile C. lentus and the adult C. supremus: in other words, the greatest changes took place after adulthood was attained.

The rest of the series

Links to all of the posts in this series:

and the post that started it all:


  • Gilmore, C.W. 1925. A nearly complete articulated skeleton of Camarasaurus, a saurischian dinosaur from the Dinosaur National Monument. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 10:347-384.
  • Gilmore, C. W. 1932. On a newly mounted skeleton of Diplodocus in the United States National Museum. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 81:1-21.
  • Gilmore, C.W. 1936. Osteology of Apatosaurus with special reference to specimens in the Carnegie Museum. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 11:175-300.
  • Harris, J.D. 2006. The axial skeleton of the dinosaur Suuwassea emilieae (Sauropoda: Flagellicaudata) from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Montana, USA. Palaeontology 49:1091-1121.
  • Hatcher, J.B. 1901. Diplodocus (Marsh): its osteology, taxonomy, and probable habits, with a restoration of the skeleton. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 1:1-63.
  • Lull, R.S. 1919. The sauropod dinosaur Barosaurus Marsh. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 6:1-42.
  • McIntosh, J.S. 2005. The genus Barosaurus Marsh (Sauropoda, Diplodocidae); pp. 38-77 in Virginia Tidwell and Ken Carpenter (eds.), Thunder Lizards: the Sauropodomorph Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 495 pp.
  • McIntosh, J.S., Miles, C.A., Cloward, K.C., and Parker, J.R. 1996. A new nearly complete skeleton of Camarasaurus. Bulletin of the Gunma Museum of Natural History 1:1-87.
  • McIntosh, J.S., Miller, W.E., Stadtman, K.L., and Gillette, D.D. 1996. The osteology of Camarasaurus lewisi (Jensen, 1988). BYU Geology Studies 41:73-115.
  • Osborn, H.F. and Mook, C.C. 1921. Camarasaurus, Amphicoelias, and other sauropods of Cope. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History 3:247-287.
  • Upchurch, P., Tomida, Y., and Barrett, P.M. 2005. A new specimen of Apatosaurus ajax (Sauropoda: Diplodocidae) from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Wyoming, USA. National Science Museum Monographs No. 26. Tokyo. ISSN 1342-9574.
  • Woodruff, D.C, and Fowler, D.W. 2012. Ontogenetic influence on neural spine bifurcation in Diplodocoidea (Dinosauria: Sauropoda): a critical phylogenetic character. Journal of Morphology, online ahead of print.