34 Responses to “Taylor, Wedel and Cifelli (2011) on Brontomerus”

1. Anyone have print coverage of Brontomerus? « Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week Says:

   
   February 24, 2011 at 5:07 pm

   […] ask whether anyone has any printed (as opposed to online) newspaper copy on Brontomerus?  Although TV, radio and online coverage has been pretty good, I had the impression that it hardly made a dent in print at all, and in fact the only article […]
2. Adam Baig Says:

   
   April 9, 2011 at 11:03 pm

   In regards to “Brontomerus mcintoshi”, and that it is generally accepted that this species is a camarasauromorph, I would like to postulate something on behalf of camarasauromorph behavior. Should what I am about to say have already been postulated, my apologies for I did not know.

   The early-Cretaceous “Brontomerus” had large and powerful hips, which allowed abductor-muscle-powered laterial kicking for defense and courtship display. I postulate that late-Jurassic camarasaurids and brachiosaurids also had resorted to using their hindlimbs in lateral movement for defense against predators and for courtship display, as well as for simple stomping to intimidate predators before they could ready themselves for attack. However, since–unlike “Brontomerus”–the camarasauromorphs of the late-Jurassic did not have the specialized hip size and structure for effective lateral hindlimb movement for kicking, then the effective lateral hindlimb kicking may have been an evolutionary fulfilment with the early-Cretaceous “Brotomerus”.
3. Mike Taylor Says:

   
   April 10, 2011 at 1:23 am

   “I postulate that late-Jurassic camarasaurids and brachiosaurids also had resorted to using their hindlimbs in lateral movement for defense against predators and for courtship display.”

   Why?

   I’m not disagreeing, I just want to know what your evidence is.
4. Adam Baig Says:

   
   April 11, 2011 at 1:27 am

   If one observes an accurate cast skeleton of a “Brachiosaurus altithorax” (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago), the outer sides of the femurs are positioned well past the outer sides of the ilia. In other words, this species has a narrow ilium. Also, the socket of the ilium, ischium and the pubis provide ample space for the balls of the femurs. This would allow both free lateral movements of the hindlimbs as well as plenty of room for abductor muscles to raise the hindlimbs laterally. With both brachiosaurids and camarasaurids having forelimbs either longer than or almost as long as their hindlimbs respectively, and with species of both families having bulky reinforcing scapulae, it is plausible to reason that individuals of both families could support themselves on three limbs with the fourth raised to the side. Observing a picture of a “Camarasaurus lentus” and a “Giraffatitan brancai” also provides the appearance that they too have narrow ilia, further proposing that species of these two sauropod families have the ability to raise their hindlimbs laterally. The pelvic structure of the “Brachiosaurus altithorax” differed from that of an actual skeleton of an “Apatosaurus excelsus” (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago). The outer sides of the ilia of the “Apatosaurus” were almost as wide as the outer sides of the femurs. Also, the socket of the pelvis of the “Apatosaurus” was less spacious than that of the “Brachiosaurus”. This also provides evidence that diplodocids were not able to raise their hindlimbs laterally or at least not able to raise laterally their hindlimbs as well as camarasaurids and brachiosaurids. Also, it is plausible that diplodocids did not resort to laterally raising their hindlimbs for any purpose.

   Thus, this is my evidence that camarasaurids and brachiosaurids were able to raise laterally their hindlimbs, which would provide both defenses for themselves and their young. Also, individuals of species of both families could use this trait for mating rights (wrestling as a show of greater strength between two suitors). This trait would have evolved to an optimal degree in “Brontomerus mcintoshi”.
5. Mike Taylor Says:

   
   April 11, 2011 at 8:42 am

   Hi, Adam, thanks for that. It’s great to know that you’ve thought this through. There are a few problems, though. To deal with the trivial one first, there is no such thing as an accurate cast skeleton of Brachiosaurus altithorax: that species is known only from seven dorsal vertebrae, sacrum, and one and a half caudal vertebrae, a humerus, femur, coracoid and ilium. In particular, the pubis and ischium are completely unknown. The Chicago mount does include casts of these elements, but also some casts of Giraffatitan material and some sculptures. So, while it’s a fine piece of work, it’s not a good basis for scientific analysis.

   But never mind that: your observations about Brachiosaurus pretty much apply to Giraffatitan, which is known from a pretty much complete skeleton.

   As to those observations: I would not have said that brachiosaurs have particularly “narrow” ilia, although I am not 100% sure I know what you mean by that. On the other hand, you do seem to be right that the acetabulum (hip socket) in Giraffatitan is much larger than necessary to accomodate the head of the femur: I once used a photo of this region in the Berlin mount as part of a slideshot, to show that massive amounts of cartilage were involved in that joint. I wonder whether you could be right that this indicates increased flexibility of the joint? To support (or reject) that hypothesis, it would be necessary to perform comparative dissections of some extant animals, comparing the joint anatomy with the observed range of motion in life. That would be an interesting research project: if you were to undertake it, there could well be a paper in it.

   All sauropods could of course stand briefly on three limbs: they had to do at least this, and probably even stand on two limbs, as part of their normal stride cycle. However, it seems likely that brachiosaurs would be the least able of all sauropods to support their weight on two forelimb and a hindlimb while exerting additional forces, because their humeri were the least robust of any sauropod — see Taylor (2009:796).

   And as for the femora of brachiosaurids projecting further laterally beyond the extent of the ilia in brachiosaurs than in diplodocids: that is an interesting observation, and one that I will try to corroborate for myself. But it’s far from clear to me that this would make brachiosaurs more capable of rapid and powerful hindlinb protraction. Other things being equal, I’d have thought that a broad, spreading ilium that projects outwards above the femoral head would allow the attachment of more protraction musculature, enabling a stronger lateral kick. (This by the way is a reason to hold very lightly the idea that Brontomerus was a strong lateral kicker: one of the unique feature of its ilium is the near total lack of lateral flaring of the anterior margin.

   So all in all, the evidence you’ve advanced for your claim of lateral kicking in basal macronarians is equivocal at best. But don’t be downhearted: there are some interesting lines of thought there; and, more important, they can be tested in extant animals by performance observation and dissection.
6. Adam Baig Says:

   
   April 12, 2011 at 3:04 am

   Hi Mike,

   I have a quick question for now. What estimate percentage of body weight were in the forequarters of Brachiosaurus (or Griaffatitan) and Camarasaurus? Even a very rough estimate is sufficient for me. This is for my next evidence to advance my hypothesis of which is currently in the works. Of course, I will get back to you, when ready to present.

   Also, please always remember that I am not trying to formulate debates. Although I am attempting to formulate a theory, I also want to maintain a healthy and hearty conversation with you too.

   Thank you.
7. Mike Taylor Says:

   
   April 12, 2011 at 8:14 am

   Adam, Alexander (1989:53-55) measured the proportion of mass carried on the forelimbs for seven quadrupeds, using scale models. Subject to all the usual caveats — inaccuracy of models, uneven density of live-animal body parts, measurement error, etc. — the results are:

   Indian elephant: 58%
   Horse: 59%
   Diplodocus: 22%
   Apatosaurus: 30%
   “Brachiosaurus” (i.e. Giraffatitan): 48%
   Triceratops: 54%
   Stegosaurus: 18%

   So those are ballpark figures, and you can read Camarasaurus as being somewhere between Apatosaurus and Giraffatitan — to split the difference, if you need an actual number, 39%.

   I am suspicious of these numbers, but as far as I know they are the only ones that have been published for sauropods. Hope they help.

   And, please, debate all you want: that is a healthy and hearty conversation. No scientist has a problem with that. No need to apologise!
8. Adam Baig Says:

   
   April 12, 2011 at 5:31 pm

   Hi Mike,

   I figured that in order to advance my theory that brachiosaurids and camarasaurids could laterally kick with one hindlimb, I considered going to very basic levels in which I should determine if these sauropods were even capable of supporting their hindquarters with the other leg, while kicking. That way I would know that I would not be on a wild goose chase. I have used your forequarter weight percentages. Thank you. I know that they may not be the most reliable; but I needed to work with something. I have calculated the amount of stress that a “Giraffatitan brancai” (G) and a “Camarasaurus supremus” (C) would have to endure on one femur, while the other participated in a lateral kick. I also obtained other given measurements from other sources (available upon request) for my calculations. I know that there is computer technology that can easily and quickly perform this; but I could only do these manual calculations (and I am glad to have done it this way too). I will ask you if you could verify my calculations and hopefully agree with my drawn conclusion please.

   -The maximum compressive strength of bone is 160MPa. If G and C could stand on their two forelimbs and one hindlimb during a lateral kick of the other hindlimb, then we must determine if the femur of the supporting hindlimb can support the hindquarter weight. The compressive stress on the femur cannot exceed the maximum compressive strength of bone. Stress = Force/Area.
   -Weight
   G: 37 tonnes
   C: 47 tonnes
   -Weight Percentage in Hindquarters
   G: 52%
   C: 61%
   -Weight Percentage Supported by Each Hindlimb
   G: 26%
   C: 30.5%
   -Thus, the amount of weight supported on one hindlimb, during a lateral kick would be:
   G: 37(0.26) = 9.62 tonnes = 94339.973N
   C: 47(0.305) = 14.335 tonnes = 140578.328N
   -Minimum Circumference of Femur
   G: 0.73m
   C: 0.64m
   -Thus, the radius of each femur is (using C = 2*pi*r)
   G: 0.116m
   C: 0.101m
   -Thus, the area of each femur is (using A = pi*r^2)
   G: 0.042m^2
   C: 0.032m^2
   -Thus, the compressive stress applied to each femur during a lateral kick would be:
   G: Stress = 94339.973 / 0.042 = 2246189 N/m^2 = 2.246MPa
   C: Stress = 140578.328/ 0.032 = 4393072 N/m^2 = 4.393MPa

   With the applied compressive stress applied to one femur of G and C, not exceeding the maximum compressive strength of bone, it is concluded that the supporting hindlimb can indeed support the hindquarter weight of each sauropods, during a lateral kicking process of the other hindlimb. Bone is renowned for being able to withstand a lot of compression force (though tensile stress and shear stress is different); yet it is viable to fully verify with these large sauropods.

   Now, the next step is for me to analyze the exact and likely pelvic structures and musculatures of brachiosaurids and camarasaurids, comparing to living animals to further the theory that brachiosaurids and camarasaurids can indeed laterally kick with one of their hindlimbs.
9. Adam Baig Says:

   
   April 12, 2011 at 6:52 pm

   Mike,

   I made a slight error. I am glad I was able to mention this, prior to your receiving of the prior message. The supporting hindlimb has to support the entire sauropod hindquarter weight. So, the stress is actually double than what I first showed you.

   Thus,
   G: Stress = 4.492MPa
   C: Stress = 8.786MPa

   Thankfully, my end result is still the same.
10. Mike Taylor Says:

    
    April 13, 2011 at 10:10 am

    Hi, Adam. Nice attempt at quantification, but I’m afraid there are a lot more factors to take into account.

    – Where did you get a mass estimate of 47 tonnes for Camarasaurus? Your 37 tonnes for Giraffatitan is not unreasonable, though at the top end of credible modern estimates, but I’ve never seen anything close to 47 tonnes for Cam. Paul (1988:11) got a mass of 22-26 tonnes for a large individual, and 14.2 tonnes for CM 11393 (1997:152); Christiansen (1997:67) got 8.8 tonnes. There are other estimates in the literature but these bracket them.

    – I’m not sure where you got the minimum circumferences for the femora (always include citations of this kind of thing!) but you can’t back-calculate the radius, because femora are eccentric — especially those of brachiosaurs.

    More importantly, even the highest stress value you obtained, using the corrected calculation for carrying all of the hind mass on one limb, and calculated using a super-fat Camarasaurus, gives a compressive stress of only 8.786 MPa, which is less than one eighteenth of the compressive strength of bone. That should tell you that you’re looking at the wrong thing: compressing bone is not an important limiting factor on sauropod locomotion. (That’s true even when you bear in mind that stess during locomotion is typically 2-4 times greater than when standing.)

    Instead, the compressive strength of the articular cartilage in the limb joints is a more important factor, as sketched out in this 2005 Progressive Palaeontology talk which, shamefully, I have not yet finished off and written up. (It’s worth flipping throug those slides if only to get a sense of how much uncertainty surrounds these kinds of questions.)

    Hope this helps.
11. Adam Baig Says:

    
    April 15, 2011 at 3:11 am

    Hi Mike,

    Your presentation surely did help. Although I previously looked at the strength of bone, which was wrong, I will admit; I did feel good to at least have the right idea and proceed in the right direction.

    So, please let me try again with determining if brachiosaurids and camarasaurids were even capable at all of laterally kicking with one hindleg, while supporting the rest of their hindquarter weight on the other hindleg. Of course, there will be many factors that would have determined this, but to start, I will base these calculations off of the strength of the sauropods’ articular cartilage as well to fulfill my first hypothesis.

    First, the given values:
    Weight of “Giraffatitan brancai” (G): 40 tonnes (Paul, 2010:201)
    Weight of “Camarasaurus supremus” (C): 23 tonnes (Paul, 2010:197)
    These are equivalent to 392000N and 225400N respectively.
    Then, I will use the ballpark figures you have given me from sources and estimations (thanks again) for hindquarter weight percentages:
    G: 52% (becomes 392000N*0.52=203840N)
    C: 61% (becomes 225400N*0.61=137494N)
    Then, I will use the compressive strength of hyaline articular cartilage, mentioned from your presentation: 5MPa (Spahn & Wittig, 2003).
    Finally, this is where right now, I can only work with “Giraffatitan brancai” because I only have this information from one sauropod, and that is the pelvic-femoral articular cartilage area: 0.1025m^2 (Taylor, 2005).

    Next, I will mention an assumption. G (and C) laterally kicked (for defense of themselves or of their young) against predators, while standing only, and not while in motion. An Asian elephant (“Elephas maximus”) of today can laterally kick with one hindleg, while supporting the hindquarter weight on the other hindleg, but again by standing only. (I have personally seen this too.)

    Therefore, the compressive stress on the hyaline articular cartilage of the pelvic-femoral region of one hindleg is:
    G: 203840N/0.1025m^2=1.989MPa
    Taking this into account, since this stress value is less than 5MPa, then a “Giraffatitan brancai” is indeed capable of supporting its hindquarter weight on one hindleg, while laterally kicking with the other. Although, considering the stress value, the kicking sauropod would likely feel this pressure; and probably use this defense mechanism only if necessary. From this, I will also rescind my earlier postulation that brachiosaurids and camarasaurids may have leg-wrestled for mating rights.

    As you mentioned, there are many more uncertainties involved in determining if brachiosaurids and camarasaurids can laterally kick. Yet, with these calculations, I am comfortable in saying that it is possible at least. So, I would like to continue in formulating an actual theory of lateral hindleg-kicking brachiosaurids and camarasaurids for defense; and I would like to continue working with you on this theory.

    Are there any pointers you can give me for my next hypothesis within my formulating theory? Should I begin factoring more forces upon the supporting hindleg’s articular cartilage with the other laterally kicking hindleg against an adult “Allosaurus fragilis” perhaps? I would like to calculate forces against the opposite humerus from the laterally kicking hindleg.
12. Adam Baig Says:

    
    April 16, 2011 at 4:49 am

    Mike,

    After performing the calculations on static load for “Giraffatitan”, and after seeing your presentation, I can now see (as you mentioned) that there are many uncertainties that must be considered before my theory can come to fruition.

    Yet for now, I would like to “downgrade” my developing theory in which brachiosaurids and camarasaurids defended themselves and their young from predators with lateral hindlimb kicking. Instead, I would like to formulate a newly revised theory that brachiosaurids and camarasaurids defended themselves and their young from predators with lateral hindlimb pushing. This pushing force will lead to stress caused by dynamic load without impact. I understand that dynamic loads including impact (from a kick to a predator) would result in a noticeably higher stress level to the hyaline articular cartilage. However, focusing on dynamic load without impact, it would be easier to provide an educated determination for brachiosaurids and camarasaurids fending off an “Allosaurus” species, weighing 3 tonnes (Paul:2010:96) by lateral hindlimb pushing. You will see these calculations within the next two days, but not later that that.
13. Adam Baig Says:

    
    April 16, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    Mike,

    Okay, I am privileged to present my dynamic load analysis on behalf of my developing theory in which brachiosaurids and camarasaurids can laterally push predators with their hindlimbs for defense. Although, once again, I can only work with “Giraffatitan brancai” for now.

    First, how about a scenario, so we can paint a picture in our minds please? A juvenile “Giraffatitan” leaves the browsing herd for an opportunity for more vegetation at its head level. Suddently an 11m “Rajasaurus” crashes out of the brush and persues the panic-stricken juvenile “Giraffatitan”. The juvenile’s mother, trumpets, and heads to the aid of her child. The juvenile runs behind its mother. Then, the mother keeps her side towards the now-hesitant “Rajasaurus”. The predatory dinosaur would not attempt to go around the front of the mother “Giraffatitan” because she could trample. The predator would not go behind the mother “Giraffatitan’ because though her tail is not long (as in a diplodocid), she could still provide a strong whack. The predator would not attack the mother “Giraffatitan” by going for her exposed side due to her immense size and that her powerful lateral push from her hindleg can inflict serious injury. The “Rajasaurus” retreats.

    I know that “Rajasaurus narmadensis” lived in the early-Cretaceous and not the late-Jurassic. However, this species was found in India, which was in close proximity to southern Africa at the time, where “Giraffatitan” was first found. So perhaps, an ancestral species may have prayed upon juvenile “Giraffatitan”s at the time and place. Also, I wanted to use this species because in order to advance my theory, I wanted to use “worst-case scenarios” in terms of predatory dinosaur weight to contend with. (Mechanical engineers test like this all the time). “Rajasaurus narmadensis” weighed 4 tonnes (Paul:2010:80), which is the heaviest I could find at the rough time and place.

    Okay, so let us see if adding dynamic load from a lateral hindleg push from a “Giraffatitan” to a “Rajasaurus” will still render the theory possible, despite extra stress on the “Giraffatitan”‘s articular cartilage in addition to the static-load stress I had caluclated prior. In this case, I will factor in the stresses from the opposite humerus as well as the opposite femur from the pushing hindleg.

    First, the given values:
    Weight of “Giraffatitan brancai” (G): 40 tonnes (Paul:2010:201) = 392000N
    Weight of “Rajasaurus narmadensis” (R): 4 tonnes (Paul:2010:80) = 39200N
    Forequarter Percentage Weight of G: 48% (Alexander:1989:53-55), which leads to one forelimb carrying 24% of the overall weight and one hindlimb carrying 26% of the overall weight.
    Area of Hyaline Articular Cartilage (Femur): 0.1025m^2 (Taylor:2005)
    Area of Hyaline Articular Cartilage (Humerus): 0.1021m^2 (Taylor:2005)
    Compressive Strength of Hyaline Articular Cartilage: 5MPa (Spahn & Wittig:2003)

    Now, let us caluculate the static-load stress on the articular cartilage on one “Giraffatitan” forelimb.
    G: 392000N(0.24)/0.1021m^2=0.922MPa
    Of course, for static load, with one laterally pushing hindlimb, both forelimbs would still be on the ground. Now, if a “Giraffatitan” would laterally push with a hindlimb, then it would push on an angle. What is the maxiumum angle? I would assume that it is overall speculative; but I have seen video footage (available upon request online) of an Asian elephant, laterally raising his hindleg to kick a football at an angle of more than 60 degrees! (It is that obviously so.) Checking comparisons between musculature between “Elephas” and “Giraffatitan” would be the next step; but how about if we use 45 degrees for our analysis for now.

    So in the analysis with “Giraffatitan”, we will calculate the dynamic load of one hindleg carrying a 39200N “Rajasaurus” at an angle of 45 degrees. And then, we will calculate the added compressive stress of the opposite hyaline articular cartilage on both the humerus and the femur. “Carrying” the entire weight of the 4 tonne “Rajasaurus” would constitute a “worst-case scenario” for stress calculations, even though that would not happen it real life. The “Rajasaurus” would crash down in pain after contact with the “Giraffatitan”‘s raised foot.

    The extra dynamic load is simply: 39200N*sin45°=27718.6N (weight downward)
    Therefore, the dynamic stress on the hyaline articular cartilage for “Giraffatitan” is:
    27718.6N/0.1025m^2=0.270MPa for the femur and
    27718.6N/0.1021m^2=0.272Mpa for the humerus.

    Thus, we have a total stress for the humerus and the femur of a “Giraffatitan”, laterally raising one of its hindlegs 45°, carrying a 4 tonne “Rajasaurus”.
    0.922MPa+0.272MPa=1.194MPa for the opposite humerus and 1.989MPa+0.270MPa=2.259MPa for the opposite femur. From this, since both values are not as high as 5MPa, even with this “worst-case scenario”, the compressive stress does not reach half the compressive strength of the hyaline articular cartilage.

    There is also the lateral force applied to the “Giraffatitan”‘s body from carrying a “Rajasaurus” 45°, which would be 39200N*cos45°=27718.6N. However, I would postulate that reactionary muscles of the “Giraffatitan” would be able to counter this force without difficulty.

    I hereby conclude that again, although very likely able to be felt by the “Giraffatitan”, a brachiosaurid can laterally apply a pushing force against a threatening predator with one hindlimb for defense.

    My next step is to compare the best known musculature of “Giraffatitan” with the well-known musculature of “Elephas”.
14. Mike Taylor Says:

    
    April 18, 2011 at 8:07 am

    Adam, I can’t immediately see anything wrong in your working here, but I have to say that the whole approach worries me. To get a numerical result, you are piling unknown on unknown, and I don’t have any confidence that your final numbers bear much relation to reality. As I noted in my own 2005 talk (slide #86), “my figures are correct within a factor of 756”.
15. Adam Baig Says:

    
    April 19, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    Dr. Taylor,

    In my attempts to look at some paleoichnology to advance my theory that brachiosaurids and camarasaurids can laterally raise their hindlimbs, I have to ask a question. Did brachiosaurids walk through water, while using only its forefeet for propulsion against the waterbed (manus-only)?
16. Mike Taylor Says:

    
    April 20, 2011 at 1:18 am

    No.
17. Adam Baig Says:

    
    April 20, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    Dr. Taylor,

    I want to show you this mechanical analysis. Do not get me wrong, please. This time, I am not concluding that we have all the biomechanical feasibilities in order for my theory. I was wrong to say that, last time. I just want to mention that my theory cannot yet be rendered impossible, at least for now.

    This analysis is to show (with only the given knowns) that a “Giraffatitan brancai” can support one half of the hindquarter weight on one forelimb in addition to one half of the forequarter weight, while the corresponding hindlimb is laterally raised, with an extra 4 tonnes to bear. Last analysis showed (again with only the given knowns) that this sauropod could support all hindquarter weight on the supporting hindlimb.

    Given Knowns:
    Weight of “Giraffatitan brancai” (G): 40 tonnes (Paul:2010:201) = 392000N, which leads to one forelimb bearing 20 tonnes = 196200N
    Area of Hyaline Articular Cartilage (Scapular-Humeral): 0.1021m^2 (Taylor:2005)
    Compressive Strength of Hyaline Articular Cartilage: 5MPa (Spahn & Wittig:2003)
    The “Giraffatitan” is bearing 4 tonnes on its laterally raised hindleg 45°=27718.6N

    So, with these given knowns, the compressive stress is (196200N+27718.6N)/.1021m^2=2.194Mpa <5MPa

    All I will say is that though there are many more unknowns to factor in the biomechanical feasibilities in my attempted theory, these calculations do not render the theory impossible just yet.

    Thank you (again) for you time, Dr. Taylor.

    Regards,
    Adam
18. Adam Baig Says:

    
    May 22, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Dr. Taylor,

    For the reference by Alexander (Alexander (1989:53-55) on sauropod body/weight proportions, would you be so kind as to let me know the full name of the paper?

    Thank you,
    Adam B.
19. Mike Taylor Says:

    
    May 22, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    Hi, Adam. This is a book — a short and very approachable book that I’d recommend anyone to read:

    Alexander, R. McNeill. 1989. Dynamics of Dinosaurs and Other Extinct Giants. Columbia University Press, New York. 167 pp.
20. More Brontomerus artwork, from Highlights magazine « Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week Says:

    
    November 14, 2011 at 2:55 am

    […] delighted to have the opportunity to exhibit some more Brontomerus artwork.  Once more, as with National Geographic and indeed the original life restoration in the […]
21. Tutorial 17: preparing illustrations. Part 1: use colour « Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week #AcademicSpring Says:

    
    March 3, 2012 at 11:08 am

    […] we were pretty happy with that.  But by the time we came to submit the Brontomerus description a couple of years later, we’d had a rather obvious (in retrospect) thought: just because we […]
22. Neural spine bifurcation in sauropods, Part 6: more reasons why Haplocanthosaurus is not a juvenile of a known diplodocid « Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week #AcademicSpring Says:

    
    April 15, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    […] 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 […]
23. Posting palaeo papers on arXiv « Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week #AcademicSpring Says:

    
    September 28, 2012 at 8:22 am

    […] until we’re done arguing it through), he suggested to me that we couldn’t have put the Brontomerus paper on arXiv, because that would have leaked the name, creating a nomen nudum. My initial reaction was […]
24. Tutorial 19c: Open Access definitions and clarifications, part 3: a brief note on Platinum/Diamond « Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week #AcademicSpring Says:

    
    November 18, 2012 at 9:35 am

    […] Polonica — this is one of the reasons that I have published there twice (neck posture, Brontomerus) and Matt has three other APP papers as well as being co-author on those two. Another is […]
25. Personal milestones: publishing the Ph.D « Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week #AcademicSpring Says:

    
    February 19, 2013 at 10:16 am

    […] revision) was in JVP; chapter 3 (the Xenoposeidon description) was in Palaeontology; chapter 4 (the Brontomerus description) was in Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, and now chapter 5 (neck anatomy) is in PeerJ. I’m […]
26. Can PeerJ really be only a year old? | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week Says:

    
    February 12, 2014 at 9:53 am

    […] bar has been raised, and now I’m scrambling to catch up. Certainly the illustrations even in our 2011 description of Brontomerus are starting to look a bit […]
27. Update on search-terms leading to SV-POW! | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week Says:

    
    March 7, 2014 at 8:58 am

    […] Brachiosaurus up there at the top: a proper sauropod, and possibly my favourite (not counting the two that I’ve named myself, and which I have an obvious special affection for). But then you have […]
28. You can predict how rabbits run by looking at their skulls (using this one weird trick!) | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week Says:

    
    March 17, 2015 at 2:11 pm

    […] across the country and taking his first tenure-track job in this interval, and I was helping birth a sauropod) we brought in Brian’s graduate student, Nick Bumacod, to do most of it. Later on the three […]
29. Welcome back, Brontosaurus! And other first thoughts on Tschopp et al. (2015) | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week Says:

    
    April 7, 2015 at 9:37 pm

    […] build on it. Getting Brontosaurus back is just gravy. Although, being pro-brontosaur enough to have named a dinosaur in honor of Brontosaurus, I’m also pretty happy about that. If you need a quick guide to […]
30. Moral dimensions of Open, part 2: “the public paid for it, so the public should have access” | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week Says:

    
    April 7, 2016 at 8:32 am

    […] is the research. For me, as a palaeontologist, for example, when I recognise and characterise a new dinosaur, the output is a paper containing the description and illustrations. So in many cases, the […]
31. My collection of sauropod-themed mugs (or at least five sixths of it) | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week Says:

    
    June 4, 2017 at 1:52 pm

    […] pictured: the Brontomerus mug. I made three of these: one each for the three authors of the paper. I’m not sure where mine has gone — I don’t think I’ve seen it for a long […]
32. Interview in Christianity magazine (January 2012) | Evolution for Christians Says:

    
    October 1, 2018 at 8:46 pm

    […] History Museum for 113 years before someone paid it the attention it deserved. The second one, Brontomerus (“Thunder thighs”) is in a museum on Oklahoma. It had been there ten years: the museum […]
33. Tutorial 34: How to document a specimen | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week Says:

    
    March 4, 2019 at 5:39 pm

    […] Brontomerus specimen: during the three-day 2007 visit when I did much of the descriptive work for the paper. Idiotically, although I was there with three colleagues (Matt, Randy Irmis and Sarah Werning), I […]
34. Supersaurus, Ultrasaurus and Dystylosaurus in 2019, part 6: what happens to Supersaurus now? | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week Says:

    
    July 2, 2019 at 10:54 pm

    […] and I are of course primarily vertebra jockies. We are not above studying the occasional taxon based on appendicular material, but out expertise lies in the domain of the axial. It’s perfectly possible that someone who […]

Leave a Reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.