Fun With Nomen or: The Taxonomist's Migraine

Taxonomy, the study of naming life scientifically, is an immensely complicated and confusing science, easily confounding enough to baffle any taxonomist, let alone hapless non-scientists who wonder what all the Latin words mean. This is evidenced by the number of names which have been left behind in the proverbial dust over the years.

A nomen dubium (pl. nomina dubia) is a scientific name based off of insufficient evidence to make it a valid name. There are a plethora of these in the scientific archives, more than enough to fill up a thick volume. A nomen nudum (pl. nomina nuda) is a word that sounds like a scientific name, and may indeed have been intended as one, but was never officially published, and as such holds little to no scientific value. A nomen oblitum (pl. nomina oblita) is a name which has not been used scientifically since 1899, after which any junior synonyms take its place.

Below are some of my favorites in that confusing world of dubious, stripped, and forgotten names, and the stories of how they came to be.

*Aachenosaurus - This dinosaur was discovered in the borderland between Belgium and Germany in 1888, and classified as a hadrosaur. Unfortunately for the reputation of its discoverer, Aachenosaurus turned out to be based upon specimens of petrified wood.

*Apatodon - "Deceptive tooth". The label couldn't fit better! When the backbone of this synonym for Allosaurus was found by Othniel Charles Marsh, he thought it was the tooth of a pig.

*Succinodon - Discovered by von Huene in 1941 near Warsaw, Poland, this fossil was attributed to the jaw bone of a titanosaur. However, later studies showed that it was - surprise - petrified wood.

*"Unicerosaurus" - "Unicerosaurus" was the nomen nudum given to a y-shaped bone from Texas, which was used for display at a Creation museum.

*Dynamosaurus, Manospondylus, Stygivenator, Dinotyrannus - All cool-sounding synonyms for Tyrannosaurus. Dynamosaurus, Stygivenator, and Dinotyrannus are all junior synonyms, by Manospondylus was named before Tyrannosaurus. However, since it hasn't been used since 1892, it's a nomen oblitum.

And there's plenty more where that came from. The point being, taxonomy is very complicated, and you should count yourself lucky that you don't have to deal with them more than you do! (Pictured is a nomen dubium, Agathaumas.)

DinoBlag: Giraffatitan

Two DinoBlags in a day? Blasphemy! However, I felt that I should make at least one other update before I logged off. So to that effect, this is the DinoBlag for the huge Giraffatitan brancai. Giraffatitan is known from several specimens which were found in the early 20th Century in Tanzania. It was named Brachiosaurus brancai by Janensch in 1914, but was set apart as a distinct genus by Gregory S. Paul in 1988.

It was somewhat more gracile than the American Brachiosaurus, but still measured at a whopping 82 feet (25 meters) long, 43 feet (13 meters) tall, and weighed around 25 tons (23 tonnes). It lived during the Upper Jurassic, about 145 million years ago, and was an herbivore, grazing from the tallest trees. Though its reclassification has been disputed, a recent study by Michael Taylor showed that almost every bone that was compared was different in some way or another from Brachiosaurus'.

Interestingly enough, most reconstructions of Brachiosaurus are based off of Giraffatitan skull material, giving us the classic high-crested look we're all used to. However, a skull found in the US in 1998 has been shown to belong to a North American Brachiosaurus, and is much more similar to that of the Camarasaurus than of Giraffatitan.

DinoBlag: Megistotherium

The subject of our latest DinoBlag is an animal which is argued to be the largest mammalian land predator of all time, Megistotherium osteothlastes. Megistotherium is known from several specimens from Libya and Egypt, which date back to the Eocene epoch, 24 million years ago.

Megistotherium is a hyaenodontid, a family of the creodonts, which were a group of large, mammalian carnivores, most with builds similar to those of modern dogs and wolves. Megistotherium was named by Robert Savage in 1973; its full name means, "greatest, bone-crushing beast". It grew up to a staggering 13 feet (4 meters) in length, 6 feet (1.8 meters) tall, and weighed around 1.5 tons. Its teeth were designed for shearing and cutting meat.

Even scarier, mastodon bones found not too far off were found with tooth-marks from Megistotherium, suggesting that the beasts killed and ate the mastodons.

CryptoBlag: Mothman

I was just reading through some of my older articles, and realized that I'd promised some cryptozoology stuff on the blog. To that effect, I've added the CryptoBlag as a sister to DinoBlag. For those who don't know, cryptozoology is the study of animals whose existence is, as of yet, unproven by science. Examples include Bigfoot, Nessie, and the Yeti.

The Mothman was spotted between November 1966 and December 1967 in the town of Point Pleasant, WV, which is just across the Ohio River from Gallipolis, OH. It was described as a man-sized creature, shrouded in shadows, with a pair of large wings and two, red eyes, which are usually described as being on its chest. It is described in witness accounts as being capable of swift flight (keeping pace with speeding cars), and only rarely moving while on the ground.

The first sighting of the creature was on November 15, 1966, near an abandoned WW2 munitions plant outside of Point Pleasant. It was seen by a pair of married couples, who were terrified by its appearance and fled back to town. It was sighted again and again up until December 15, 1967, when the bridge over the Ohio from Point Pleastant to Gallipolis collapsed, kiling 47 people. Curiously, sightings dropped off after the tragedy on the Ohio, and since then very few sightings have taken place.

It's worth noting that by several eyewitnesses, after spotting Mothman, were visited by the infamous Men In Black, tanned government agents with a bent for covering up alien sightings (or so the stories go).

Mission: Opossible

Didelphids, the family of marsupials of which the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) is the only living member, are the only marsupials left in North America. However, recent studies show that North America was once the hub of marsupial activity. In fact, the paradectids, a sister group to the didelphids, are now thought to have been the root of all living marsupials.

Compared with other mammals (except maybe monotremes such as the platypus), marsupials are remarkably primitive. They bear their undeveloped young in pouches, where the infants nurse until they are able to fend for themselves. Even their appearance is prehistoric, as any American with a trashcan can tell you from experience. They almost look as though they belong in the Mesozoic, rather than the modern day.

The news that these primitive mammals originated in North America has been decided based on a skull found in the Eocene Bighorn Basin of Wyoming, USA. Analysis of the skull, and two 30-million-year-old skeletons, shows that the split between opossums and all other marsupials on the planet occurred about 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous, in North America.

It is presently thought that marsupials migrated from North to South America until the end of the Cretaceous, when the two continents split (until the Pliocene, at least), and marsupials made their way through Antarctica to Australia, as the southern continent, much warmer in those days, is thought to have connected South America and Australia.

Venom!

Surprise, surprise! Recent studies show similarities between the mouth structures of small feathered dinosaurs, such as Sinornithosaurus and others, and those of venomous snakes such as vipers and rattlesnakes. What does this mean? We're not sure yet, but it would seem to suggest that maybe the furry little things weren't so cuddly as you'd think.

If the scientists are to be believed, small predatory dinosaurs like these may have been venomous. Which means that Velociraptor and others would have not only had killer claws, but also a killer bite. (Though, recent studies show, the "killing" claw would have been more suited for climbing than slicing) See also the May, '09 article about venomous Komodos.

DinoBlag: Dryptosaurus

Introducing the brand new segment, DinoBlag which will be replacing the Critter of the segment. The first creature feature (hehe) is the first theropod to be discovered on the North American continent, Dryptosaurus aquilunguis, which was a primitive tyrannosaur.

Dryptosaurus was discovered and named in 1866 by Edward Drinker cope as Laelaps aquilunguis, referring to the Laelaps, a dog of ancient Greek myth. However, it was soon discovered that the name was, as often happens, taken by a genus of mite. It was the first dinosaur to lose its name to a bug, but it certainly was not the last. It was renamed as Dryptosaurus by Othniel C. Marsh in 1877, and the name has, so far, proved valid.

It is thought that Dryptosaurus, one of the dinosaurs endemic to New Jersey, USA, was related to the Early Cretaceous tyrannosaur, Eotyrannus, from England, and it has three fingers on two relatively long front limbs. It is thought that it would have primarily preyed upon the contemporary Hadrosaurus, which was the first dinosaur discovered in the US. Though, due to the rarity of east coast dinosaurs, it is difficult to get a complete picture of Dryptosaurus' diet.

Dryptosaurus was about 20 feet (6.5 meters) long and 6 feet (1.8 meters) tall. It probably weighed a bit over a ton, and was somewhat more gracile than Tyrannosaurus and company. It lived about 70 million years before the present, in the Maastrichtian age of the late Cretaceous.

So, uh...

I'm lazy when it comes to these things, really! Worry not, 3 or 4 fans. I'll get more updates onto the blog here soon.

Scientific Names as Common Names (or Ranting is Fun)

I've decided to resume updating my blog, and the first new addition is this subject which has been on my mind for a while. I'm sure we've all heard of the "Brontosaurus" (explained in an older post here), one of the most popular dinosaurs for a period of decades. Sadly, despite its (admittedly) awesome name, it is not proper for use in scientific circles. Does this, however, mean that it shouldn't be used outside of scientific circles?
Consider this: Despite the fact that we refer to Puma concolor outside of science more often as a mountain lion (or depending on where you live, cougar, catamount, etc.), mountain lion is still acceptable as a common name. Because of this, perhaps 'brontosaur' could be adopted as a common name for sauropods, the long-necked dinosaurs. Indeed, this could extend even farther, to generalizing the term 'dinosaur'. To my other paleo-stricken friends out there, I'm sure that an innocent ichthyosaur or mosasaur being slapped with the term 'dinosaur' is like nails on a chalkboard as, in the strictest manner, they do not belong to the Dinosauria. However! I believe it's possible that 'dinosaur' could be accepted as a common name (like how we call certain animals by names of other creatures today, despite their not being closely related). If this were the context of the word, then perhaps Ichthyosaurus, Mosasaurus, Plesiosaurus, and Pteranodon could all be considered 'dinosaurs'; if not for being part of Dinosauria, then at least for resembling them. Just some food for thought!

Ohaithar

After a lenghthy string of week-long events, computer issues, and general laziness, I have returned to update my paleo blog. Rejoice!

Central Ohio Mineral, Fossil, Gem & Jewelry Show

I paid a visit today to the COMFGJS (That is, Central Ohio Mineral, Fossil, Gem & Jewelry Show), and purchased several new fossils for my small collection, including a few Cretaceous shark teeth, a fragment of Glyptodon armor, and a real Spinosaurus tooth (a similar tooth shown above). All in all, an exciting and delightful experience. I recommend this show for anyone in Ohio or, indeed, anywhere else who is interested in such things.

Coo-coo!

In keeping up with all the missing-link hubbub of recent days, I'd like to announce the discovery of the missing link between a man and a loon. Ever heard of initial bipedalism? No? How about the AAH, or aquatic ape hypothesis? Didn't think so. However, Francois de Sarre, a French paleontologist, seems rather convinced. According to his theories, he believes that all tetrapods are descended from a proto-water-ape that lived millions of years ago. Understandably, his theory isn't extremely popular with the scientific community, but it is fun to read about.

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/03/initial_bipedalism.php

"Dangerous Bacteria" My Rear!

Scientists have recently taken a closer look at the mouths of Komodo dragons, and boy, were they surprised! As it turns out, the hypothesis about bacteria killing the dragons' prey was nothing but a "fairy tale". Scientists discovered that the Komodo dragons in fact have a primitive venom-delivery system, akin to that of the only formerly-known to be venomous lizard, the Gila monster. This discovery implies that the dragons' close relative, the "Megalania" prisca, might also have had the same venom, which would make it the largest venomous animal known to science. Photo courtesy of National Geographic.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090518-komodo-dragon-venom.html

http://dml.cmnh.org/2009May/msg00151.html

Sauropods - Not So Stiff, After All

As it turns out, sauropod dinosaurs may not have had necks as stiff as recent studies have hypothesized. This has added fuel to the old theories about sauropods browsing in the trees like oversized, saurian giraffes. The above picture is by Mark Witton.

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/05/sauropods_held_necks_erect.php

Dinosaurs Might Have Dug Cheese

Erm, well... okay. That might be a bit of a stretch in the title. But recent discoveries have uncovered the first Mesozoic fossils from my birth state, Wisconsin. Samples inclue crocodile teeth and leaves dating back to the Cretaceous period. Regrettably, those pesky glaciers seem to have carried away any evidence of dinosaurs themselves, but we can only hope that one day they may be found.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/44755302.html

Eeew. But, Cool!

http://dml.cmnh.org/2009May/msg00079.html

As it turns out, aquatic snails may have used dino dung as shelter upon land. I'm not sure if I should be disgusted or astounded.

Dinosaurs May Have Survived After Impact

New evidence from rock strata in Utah and Wyoming suggests that some species of dinosaurs might have dwindled on for as many as 500,000 years after the Chicxulub impact event supposedly wiped them out. Though this may not mean much, it does offer credence to theories of extant dinosaurs throughout the world.

Holy Smokes!

Too much came out in one week. Curse my laziness. I'll have to cram all the new info into a few short posts, so bear with me as I attempt to tackle all the important news that came out over the past week.

Critter of the Week, 5/29/09: Schinderhannes

No, not the German criminal. Schinderhannes bartelsi may soon prove to be one of the more important fossil discoveries in arthropod science. Schinderhannes might be no different from any other anomalocarid - if it hadn't lived 100 million years after its close relatives had supposedly died out. While it was presumed for some time that the Anomalocarididae had gone extinct at the end of the Cambrian, about 510 or so million years ago, the 390 million-year-old Schinderhannes dates from the end of the Devonian. Additionally, it offers some odd clues to arthropod evolution - it seems to be transitional between anomalocarids and true arthropods. Though scientists still don't know quite what to make of this, it remains an interesting species nonetheless. As seen in the picture above, this genera has a body similar to that of trilobites and other early arthropods, but a head and mouth almost identical to those of Anomalocaris, as well as hard protrusions similar to those of Hurdia, another Cambrian anomalocarid.

Le Gasp! 'Ida' Shocks Scientists

If you're wondering, 'Ida', whose skeleton is shown at the right, is a 47 million-year-old Darwinius masillae, a species of primitive primate. It is considered by many scientists to be one of many 'missing links'; they believe that Darwinius lived some time near when more primitive primates such as lemurs and lorises branched off from more advanced primates, including monkeys, great apes, and, by extension, us. Does that mean anything? Probably not. But it gives us an excuse to hype up the media and gape at the wonderfully-preserved specimen from the Messel Shale (see right).

Critter of the Week, 5/20/09: Deltadromeus

Why am I replacing Critter of the Day with this segment? I'm a slacker. The very first Critter of the Week is Deltadromeus agilis, a medium-sized carnivore from the Cretaceous of North Africa. Deltadromeus is a member of a little-known family of ceratosaurs known as the Noasauridae. This family is characterized by their slender builds, which differentiate them from their abelisaurid cousins. Though Deltadromeus' skull has never been found, it is known from a few, relatively complete skeletons. It may have been a swift runner, and certainly would have to have been, to avoid its larger contemporary, Carcharodontosaurus. It was first described by Sereno et. al in 1996, and may be a junior synonym of the mysterious Bahariasaurus.

Critter of the Day, 5/14/09: Yangchuanosaurus

Yangchuanosaurus shangyouensis is an oddly-named theropod with an equally odd historical taxonomy. Like many other large carnivores, it was once thought to have been a megalosaurid (theropods more closely related to Megalosaurus than to spinosaurids), but was later assigned to the Sinraptoridae, a family of primarily Chinese carnosaurs which also includes Sinraptor, Metriacanthosaurus, and possibly Gasosaurus. It is believed to have filled a niche similar to that of its American cousin Allosaurus, which lived at the same time. If this is the case, it would have hunted down sauropods, possibly in small packs, occasionally running forward and inflicting large cuts, forcing its victims to bleed to death. It could have grown up to 35 feet (10 meters) long, and could have weighed as much as almost four tons. It was named in 1978 by Dong, et. al.

Critter of the day, 5/13/09: Daspletosaurus

Today's creature seems at first to be so close to Tyrannosaurus, that some scientists have hypothesized that it may be rexy's direct ancestor: Daspletosaurus torosus. This large tyrannosaurid lived between 80 and 73 million years ago. It was relatively robust, with a thick skull and stout legs. It coexisted with the smaller tyrannosaur Gorgosaurus libratus, and so it is currently believed that they occupied different dietary niches. It's known that Gorgosaurus probably fed mostly on hadrosaurs (duck-bills) like Parasaurolophus and Edmontosaurus, but it is still unclear at present exactly what Daspletosaurus's diet was. It was a relatively large tyrannosaur, at over 30 feet (9 meters) long. It was described by Russell in 1970.

Critter of the Day, 5/12/09: Gigantoraptor

Gigantoraptor erlianensis is one of the odder discoveries of recent years, both the largest oviraptorosaur (oviraptors) known to science, and the largest dinosaur currently thought to have posessed feathers in any significant number. Like other members of its family, Gigantoraptor would have been omnivorous, feeding on both plant matter and smaller animals. At a whopping 26 feet (8 meters), it is one of the larger theropods to have come from the Upper Cretaceous of Mongolia and China. It was described by Xu, et. al in 2007, and the above picture is by Luis V. Rey.

Critter of the Day, 5/11/09: Mapusaurus

Mapusaurus roseae was a large carcharodontosaurid (carnosaurs which include Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus) which dates from the Late Cretaceous, about 80 million or so years before the present. This is one of several varieties of large, carnivorous dinosaur which have been found in bone beds; the presence of individuals of several growth stages in the same place both gives us a more complete image of this genus, as well as a hint that it may have hunted in packs. It's speculated that, like other carcharodontosaurs, it may have charged in at sauropods to take a bite or slash, retreated, and repeated the process until its prey died of shock or blood loss. It was described in 2006 by Rudolfo Coria and Phillip Currie.

Trilobites - Not Exactly Tiny!

A recent discovery in a Portuguese quarry has given us many new specimens of large trilobites, including the species Ogyginus forteyi and Hungeoides bohemicus, which indicate that more trilobites than we'd previously thought grew up to large sizes. Though throughout much of the region the average size of trilobites is only 10 centimeters, the average trilobite in the quarry is estimated at an unverified 30 centimeters long. The 2000 Isotelus rex specimen from Canada still has the crown for the largest trilobite currently verified, at 28 centimeters, but several specimens from the quarry are at least two centimeters long, and fragments have been found of what could prove to be a 90 centimeter specimen, which would be the largest trilobite on earth. The fossils date from around 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician period, when Portugal was near the South Pole.

Critter of the Day, 5/10/09: Tupuxuara

Two pterosaurs in as many days? For shame, I know. I can't help it if these guys are really interesting. The spotlight critter today is Tupuxuara longicristatus. Like its distant relative Tapejara, which was made famous in Walking With Dinosaurs, Tupuxuara lived in Brazil during the early Cretaceous. Its most distinguishing feature is its odd, swept-back crest. Its closest relatives are the azdarchids, the family of pterosaurs which includes Quetzalcoatlus and Hatzegopteryx. The first specimen was identified by Kellner & Campos in 1988.

Critter of the Day, 5/9/09: Nyctosaurus

Gracing my page with its wonderfully odd crest today is Nyctosaurus, a pterosaur closely related to the more famous Pteranodon. Even though it was named by O. C. Marsh way back in 1876, it was not recognized as posessing its large crest until quite recently. The function of the crest is unknown, but it may have been used either for display or steering. This flying reptile lived at the very end of the Cretaceous, 65 million years ago, throughout the Western Interior Seaway which ran through North America.

Critter of the Day, 5/8/09: Alamosaurus

Scientists currently consider it very unlikely that Alamosaurus sanjuanensis will be host to a battle between Texan soldiers and the Mexican Army, so visiting a mounted skeleton in a museum is probably perfectly safe. In all seriousness, though, this Upper Cretaceous titanosaur (southern long-necks; last known sauropods) was actually not named after the Alamo in San Antonio, but after the Ojo Alamo Formation in New Mexico. Confusing, huh? This sauropod is the only known titanosaur to have occured in North America, as most members of that group of sauropods are known only from localities which were once part of the southern supercontinent of Gondwana, such as South America, Africa, India, Madagascar, and southern Europe, though some forms have also been found in Asia. This dinosaur was named by Gilmore in 1922, and played a confusing game of taxonomical hopscotch before finally being placed with the titanosaurs.

Critter of the Day, 5/7/09: Nedoceratops

A strange name for a strange dinosaur - Nedoceratops hatcheri, formerly "Diceratops hatcheri", was renamed in 2007 by Ukrainsky, the former name having been coined by Richard Swan Lull. This poor ceratopsian (Triceratops and its ilk) was yet another incident of a dinosaur's name being changed, the name having been occupied by a bug (yes, a bug. See also, Dryptosaurus, Mononykus), in this case those pesky hymenoptera (assorted oddball bugs including bees and ants). Though on first inspection it is quite similar to its close cousin Triceratops (in fact, some scientists think that Nedoceratops is the closest relative of the more famous ceratopsid), this species differs from its larger, more popular relative by the fact that rather than a nose horn, it has a rounded lump similar to that found on the primitive ceratopsian Zuniceratops.

Critter of the Day, 5/6/09: Appalachiosaurus

Today's featured critter: a little beastie called Appalachiosaurus montgomeriensis from the Upper Cretaceous of Alabama. This tyrannosaurid (T. rex's dysfunctional, extended family) is one of the most complete dinosaurs known from the American South. This 23-foot (7 metres, for our cousins across the pond and every other country on the planet) tyrannosaur was named by Thomas Carr (et. al) in 2005, and probably preyed upon and ate hadrosaurs and other herbivores, probably stopping to scavenge some dinosaur corpses along the way. Considering that it lived near the coast, there's also the possibility it could have taken to a seafood diet, maybe scavenging beached mosasaurs of plesiosaurs (not exactly fine cuisine).

Critter of the Day, 5/5/09: Gojirasaurus

No, this dinosaur has never been known to raid Tokyo. No, it probably would not take an Oxygen Destroyer to kill. But that certainly is the image that Kenneth Carpenter wanted to elicit when he named this dinosaur in 1997; Gojirasaurus quayi named for the big G himself, is the largest coelophysid (early, primitive theropod) currently known to science (don't confuse with largest coelophysoid, Dilophosaurus). This 18-foot dinosaur probably wasn't as fast as its smaller cousin Coelophysis, but it was still probably a rather fast, formidable hunter.... No, no atomic beams, either.

Critter of the Day, 5/4/09: Olorotitan

Weird-looking guy here, huh? I'll say! Olorotitan arharensis is quite the odd hadrosaur (duckbilled dinosaur); discovered in the Amur region of Russia, and described in 2003 by Pascal Godefroit (et al.). It is the most complete lambeosaurine (crested hadrosaur) known at present from outside of North America. Some of its more famous relatives include Parasaurolophus, Corythosaurus, and Lambeosaurus. Its most distinguishing feature is its crest, which takes on a shape unlike that of any other lambeosaur, and its strange appearance has caused scientists to wonder just how diverse the hadrosaurs really were.

Critter of the Day, 5/3/09: Uintatherium

Thought I only had a dinosaur fetish? Don't think I'd forget our Cenozoic buddies, the extinct mammals. I love those guys! This one in particular: Uintatherium anceps. This dinoceratian (a group of large, extinct mammals, presumably hairless) mammal lived during the middle of the Eocene Epoch in the Paleogene Period (formerly the Tertiary) of North America. This big guy was first discovered at Fort Bridger, Wyoming, and was named by famed paleontologist Joseph Leidy in 1872. Its six horns were apparently used as a display to the opposite sex, and the tusks in its mouth would have been useful for detering hyaenodont predators, a variety of carnivorous mammals from the same time and locality. The above picture was painted around 1920 by Heinrich Harder.

Critter of the Day, 5/2/09: Acrocanthosaurus

Today's daily critter: the mighty Acrocanthosaurus atokensis! This 40-foot carnivorous carnosaur (check up on the new definition - any dinosaur more closely related to Allosaurus than birds. It no longer means just any large carnivore) sported what is presumed by most to be a flashy sail (some guys think it supported a bison-like hump. Crazy bovinophiles). No one can seem to agree on whether this carnosaur was a very late Allosaurid or a northern Carcharodontosaurid (huge, southern theropods and voracious hunters of sauropods, or so our current understanding is), but the fact remains that it was quite a dangerous-looking beastie. The original specimen was found in Atoka County, Oklahoma, from which its species name was derived, and was then named in 1950 by J. Willis Stovall and Wann Langston, Jr. Due to its large dorsal spine, it was classified for some time with the spinosaurids. Additionally, the above picture (I think it's by Dmitry Bogdanov, but Wikipedia may have lied to me) is supremely kickass.

Guess Who's Back? Bronto's Back (Maybe)!

For you laymen out there who wonder what "Brontosaurus" would be brought back from, it's probably worth noting that, despite its frequent use in popular culture, the name "Brontosaurus" was merged into the name Apatosaurus way back in 1903 (you heard me. Still in use 106 years after it was 'deleted' from taxonomy books). The reason lies with the famous Bone Wars of the late 19th Century, between famed paleontologists Edward Drinker Cope and Othniel Charles Marsh. These two bitter rivals raced throughout the American West, going to extreme lengths (shoot-outs, stealing fossils, breaking said fossils, etc.) to name more species of dinosaur than each other. In 1877, Marsh named Apatosaurus ajax, the type species of the new genus Apatosaurus. Two years later, in 1879, he named another new species, "Brontosaurus" excelsus. Marsh could never have known that this second genus would soon become the bane of every paleontologist's existence. In 1903, 24 years later, Elmer Riggs pointed out the obvious similarities between the two, and put out buddy "Brontosaurus" into the earlier genus, christening it Apatosaurus excelsus. Obviously, the public was not told about this development. As of May 2009, there are four accepted species of Apatosaurus: A. ajax, A. louisae, A. excelsus, and A. parvus (formerly Elosaurus) In this frame of time, the Diplodocidae family of dinosaurs (the family that includes Apatosaurus and Diplodocus) has continued to cause massive headaches for dinosaur scientists (See Amphicoelias, Eobrontosaurus, etc.). And they aren't finished yet! Recent studies have shown that another diplodocid long-neck, Supersaurus, is more closely related with A. ajax and A. louisae than either are to A. excelsus (Bronto). By ICZN regulations, this should mean that A. ajax and A. louisae and A. excelsus should be placed in separate genera; and by the same ICZN rules of naming priority, "Brontosaurus" would be the name used for a new genus. I realize that as a chronic 'splitter', I may be a bit biased, but it does seem that the taxonomical rules obligate that "Brontosaurus" be brought back as a genus name. Feel free to discuss this, argue with it, or support it in the comments. I'm open for ideas here. xD

Despots, Ornithos, and Heteros. Oh, my!

The world of paleontology is abuzz these couple of months over several discoveries from the rich fossil beds of China - three new genera of Lower Cretaceous dinosaurs have been uncovered: Xiongguanlong, Beishanlong, and Tianyulong (what's up with all the longs, any way?); a tyrannosauroid, ornithomimosaur, and heterodontosaur, respectively. These three are quite important in modern dinosaur science, for reasons explained here. Firstly, Xiongguanlong is yet another of that important branch of dinosaurs which eventually led up to the great Tyrant himself, the fabled T. rex. This long-snouted primitive tyrannosaur has garnered the coining of a new 'main-stream' nickname for the early rex wannabes: "despots", just one step below a proper tyrant. Secondly, an interesting, though regrettably incomplete, skeleton has been found of Beishanlong, a large ornithomimosaur. Though known only from arms and a few fragments, it is estimated to be the largest ornithomimosaur found to date, excluding possibly Deinocheirus, the mysterious theropod known only from a pair of six-foot arms. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, is Tianyulong, a heterodontosaur which has (gasp!) feathery body coverings. You heard me! Feather science as we know it has been turned on its head by this discovery, which could possibly mean that the common ancestor of ornithischian (bird-hips, e.g. Triceratops, Parasaurolophus, Ankylosaurus, Stegosaurus) and saurischian (lizard-hips, e.g. Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, Plateosaurus, Apatosaurus) dinosaurs had feathers, which, by extension, puts forward the possibility that most, if not all dinosaurs, would have had at least some feathers on their bodies at some point in their lives. Though hints of this were heard when the ceratopsian Psittacosaurus was found with feather-like bristles a few years back, only now are we starting to get clues that dinos were a bit fuzzier than we previously thought. Keep your eyes peeled in the coming years for downy brachiosaurs and fluffy stegosaurs.

Startup

Hello all, and welcome to my brand-new paleo blog. Here, I'll host paleontology and cryptozoology-related news, theories, and mad rants. Feel free to post your ideas here, but be warned: if you're just here to post bull or make fun, go away. :p