Nandomas Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) 'Thunder-Thighs' Dinosaur Discovered: Brontomerus May Have Used Powerful Thigh Muscles to Kick Predators http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110223071203.htm Edited February 24, 2011 by Nandomas Erosion... will be my epitaph! http://www.paleonature.org/ https://fossilnews.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I don't want to take anything away from the find, nor the study, but that illustration got me laughing (with tears and all) "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I don't want to take anything away from the paper either, but I checked it out, and the material is pretty craptacular. I don't know much about sauropods, but I do know that that is not sufficient to designate as a holotype specimen. Otherwise, they admit that the most distinctive bone (the ilium) is from a juvenile! Paleontologists should not be designating juvenile specimens as holotypes. Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpc Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I looked at the pdf... yes it is available online right away. I did not digest it like Bobby did, but Fig. 1 made me laugh. The Scale guy in his business suit on his office chair. Its on page 79. OK, I did read a bit below the fun illustration and I was shocked by this... They found the bones in one quarry, yet they thinkthey come form two individuals of different sizes. If you have two individuals of different sizes, how can you say they belong to the same species? What bothers me here is that they don't have that many bones of this new species. They even suggest that thebones may come from as many as three new species... yet they go ahead and describe them all as one... Is anyone else scratching their heads. I want to see more, and apparelntly they do too. Seems they will keep working on this quarry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 OK, I did read a bit below the fun illustration and I was shocked by this... They found the bones in one quarry, yet they thinkthey come form two individuals of different sizes. If you have two individuals of different sizes, how can you say they belong to the same species? What bothers me here is that they don't have that many bones of this new species. They even suggest that thebones may come from as many as three new species... yet they go ahead and describe them all as one... Is anyone else scratching their heads. Faulty logic like this has been pervading dino paleo for a while. Thanks to many of the monospecific dinosaur bonebeds from the Two Medicine Formation of Montana and other rock units, there's been this idea that all dino bonebeds are monospecific. So, this (and other papers) either assume a priori that the assemblage is monospecific OR they use circular reasoning, stating that "since it's a monospecific bonebed, we know these bones all represent the same species" and then "because all these bones represent one species, the bonebed is monospecific". Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 The other problem here is that the site was looted by comercial fossil hunters, here's the BBC link on the story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12542664 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azure Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 "This taxon is based on a collection of elements all from the same quarry, all of them consistent with assignment to a sin− gle taxon (Fig. 1). However, the elements were not found ar− ticulated, and their differing sizes do not permit interpreta− tion as belonging to a single individual." They say in the conclusion it is from two specimens, an adult and juvenille. It will be interesting to see what further excavations yield to their theory. (but the pics are so funny, especially the guy lounging in the chair beside it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpc Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 "This taxon is based on a collection of elements all from the same quarry, all of them consistent with assignment to a sin− gle taxon (Fig. 1). However, the elements were not found ar− ticulated, and their differing sizes do not permit interpreta− tion as belonging to a single individual." They say in the conclusion it is from two specimens, an adult and juvenille. It will be interesting to see what further excavations yield to their theory. (but the pics are so funny, especially the guy lounging in the chair beside it) Yes, two specimens, two animals, but there is no reason to assume they are two animlas of the same species. There are no distinctive bones from both the big and the small animal. There are very few bones to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diplotomodon Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Ah, thunder thighs. I read the paper, and Mike Taylor's comments on his blog (http://svpow.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/please-welcome-brontomerus-mcintoshi-2/). I have to say his comments on third paragraph had me on the floor till around 3 in the morning. But an amazing dinosaur, and clearly the talk of the paleotown so far this year. What a wonderful menagerie! Who would believe that such as register lay buried in the strata? To open the leaves, to unroll the papyrus, has been an intensely interesting though difficult work, having all the excitement and marvelous development of a romance. And yet the volume is only partly read. Many a new page I fancy will yet be opened. -- Edward Hitchcock, 1858 Formerly known on the forum as Crimsonraptor @Diplotomodon on Twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 It's really not an amazing dinosaur, though, is it? It's a couple of bones that may or may not belong to the same taxon and may or may not be from juveniles which may or may not even be diagnostic. The bones that are preserved aren't even complete or well preserved at that: All this has going for it is a funny artist's reconstruction of a sauropod kicking a theropod. Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamalama Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 The real question is... does he qualify to kick field goals for BYU? -Dave __________________________________________________ Geologists on the whole are inconsistent drivers. When a roadcut presents itself, they tend to lurch and weave. To them, the roadcut is a portal, a fragment of a regional story, a proscenium arch that leads their imaginations into the earth and through the surrounding terrain. - John McPheeIf I'm going to drive safely, I can't do geology. - John McPheeCheck out my Blog for more fossils I've found: http://viewsofthemahantango.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now