The paper
Unofficial Supplementary Information
SV-POW! posts
The eight posts that made up Xenoposeidon Week in November 2007 (nine if you include Day 8, which came fifteens months later) are:
- Day 1: introducing Xeno
- Day 1-and-a-half: the media
- Day 2: imagining the whole thing
- Day 3: the basic beast inside
- Day 4: the question everyone is asking … how big was it?
- Day 5: the quest for glory
- Day 6: so what is a “family” anyway?
- Day 7: school’s out
- Day 8 (somewhat belatedly): those wrinkles
And subsequent Xenoposeidon posts:
… and see also …
The followup paper, ten years later: “Xenoposeidon is the earliest known rebbachisaurid sauropod dinosaur” (Taylor 2018).
Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week 
November 6, 2008 at 3:00 pm
[…] of these elements are too bashed up to be diagnostic (with the Xenoposeidon holotype R2095 being an honourable exception). But there are one or two that are much better preserved, and […]
November 15, 2008 at 7:01 am
[…] much more of Xeno, see Xenoposeidon week. Posted by Mike Taylor Filed in Wealden, Xenoposeidon, book review, fame, goofy, […]
February 17, 2009 at 4:27 pm
[…] For anyone who’s not up to speed, a super-brief resumé: Xeno is an indeterminate neosauropod which Darren and I named in 2007 on the basis of a single element, a superbly preserved partial dorsal vertebra loaded with distinctive features that make it very clearly distinct from any other named taxon. For anyone who wants more background, the original paper is freely available, as is a page summarising the story for the media, some unnofficial supplementary information, and a whole week’s worth of SV-POW! posts. […]
May 28, 2009 at 5:09 pm
[…] there’s been a little less interest than we were able to rustle up for Xenoposeidon, but we nevertheless got a live TV interview on Channel 4 News, plus radio interviews on BBC Radio […]
June 1, 2009 at 9:08 pm
[…] When we started blogging our recent neck-posture paper (Taylor et al. 2009, for those of you who’ve been chatting in the back row and not paying attention), we expected to make two posts, maybe three. Yet here we are in post six, and I know Matt has another up the barrel for tomorrow, so it looks like we’re going to end up having written a whole week’s worth of daily posts, just as we did for Xenoposeidon. […]
September 12, 2009 at 1:26 am
[…] when the Xenoposeidon paper came out, we suggested that Xeno could be the first repesentative of a new sauropod […]
February 26, 2010 at 2:36 am
[…] as I tried to describe the weird morphology of the as-yet-unpublished vertebra that we now know as Xenoposeidon. At an advanced age — I don’t know exactly how old he is, but you can get some idea […]
October 11, 2010 at 5:00 pm
[…] Chapter 3. An unusual new neosauropod dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Hastings Beds Group of East Sussex, England — published in Palaeontology […]
February 23, 2011 at 12:03 am
[…] representing about 10% of a skeleton — not much, admittedly, but about 9% more than for Xenoposeidon. Oddly enough, for this blog, the two most informative elements are appendicular: a nearly complete […]
July 6, 2011 at 11:46 am
[…] a fairly hardcore descriptive paper like the Xenoposeidon description (Taylor and Naish 2007, natch), you’re more limited in how much of a story you can tell, and […]
October 17, 2011 at 11:36 am
[…] going to say “never”. For example, suppose someone found a more complete specimen of Xenoposeidon and submitted the description to Cretaceous Research, a non-open Elsevier journal that is actually […]
October 31, 2011 at 11:15 am
[…] when Darren and I did the Xenoposeidon description, we were young and foolish, and only illustrated the holotype vertebra NHM R2095 in four aspects: […]
February 19, 2013 at 10:16 am
[…] Society dinosaur-history volume; chapter 2 (the Brachiosaurus revision) was in JVP; chapter 3 (the Xenoposeidon description) was in Palaeontology; chapter 4 (the Brontomerus description) was in Acta Palaeontologica […]
March 7, 2014 at 8:58 am
[…] old 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 […]
April 22, 2014 at 8:29 am
[…] first met Mike Taylor at the SVP meeting in Bristol in 2009. He had done that paper on that weird vertebra with Darren a couple of years before. We got together over a few pints and discovered that we had a […]
October 21, 2014 at 7:39 am
[…] since it doesn’t name the new dinosaur (which was of course Xenoposeidon). I was young and stupid back then, and just followed convention. In mitigation, it does at least […]
July 14, 2015 at 8:36 am
[…] I briefly discussed on Twitter, seeing this made me think of my baby, Xenoposeidon. Now that specimen, beautiful though it is, preserves only the lower one third of the vertebra. But […]
September 15, 2015 at 8:25 am
[…] Google Scholar, this humble little taxonomic note has racked up 28 citations: only two fewer than the Xenoposeidon description. It’s handily outperforming other papers that I’d have considered much more […]
December 14, 2015 at 9:13 am
[…] Jack was fascinated by what I was working on. At that time, the Xenoposeidon paper was in press — no-one had seen it but Darren (my co-author), the handling editor and three […]
November 15, 2017 at 11:56 pm
[…] just time before midnight strikes to wish Xenoposeidon a very happy tenth birthday. It came along just a month and a half after SV-POW! itself — in […]
August 28, 2018 at 1:05 am
[…] slopes anteriorly 30°–35° relative to the vertical”. (This same character was also in the original Xenoposeidon paper (Taylor and Naish 2007), in the slightly more assertive form “neural arch slopes anteriorly […]
November 19, 2018 at 10:47 am
[…] attention to a bizarre fact: despite 17 separate posts about Xenoposeidon on this blog (linked from here and here), we’ve never shown a decent scan of Lydekker’s (1893) original illustration […]
March 9, 2021 at 2:06 pm
[…] reviewed papers. Thinking back across all my publications, most have been reviewed by two people; the original Xenoposeidon description was reviewed by three; the same was true of my reassessment of Xenoposeidon as a rebbachisaur, and […]