Talk:Brachiosaurus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Dinosaurs This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Brachiosaurus is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Maybe the Jurassic Park snapshot should be placed further down the page and an illustrative drawing could take its place. Doesn't this break copyright restrictions by using a screenshot from a film, on a page not relating to the film itself?

Yes, we need a replacement. John.Conway 09:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. John.Conway 09:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
B. brancai is currently on a seperate page under Giraffatitan... Maybe it should be included in the taxobox species list with a question mark or something as well.Dinoguy2 13:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not that up on sauropods, but how well accepted is Giraffititan brancai? Looks to me like the conservative scientific consensus is with Brachiosaurus brancai - John.Conway 03:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Im not that intrested in sauropods that much but this article is on a seperate from the Giraffatitan. Maybe we should probaly put a sighn on Giraffatitan on the dinosaurs list. These could have been the same dinosaurs. --408.965.879.065.765.216.519.296.848.4 22:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Cite sources of new research!

The more dramatic and/or controversial the research, the more important it is to cite it with a link. There have been edits made that claimed highly dubious research. I removed them after a cursory search for sources.

[edit] Massive copyedits and article cleanup

Worked on this today. Unfortunately, there's not a lot I can do about citations -- those need serious work if this article is to be brought up to featured status. Killdevil 23:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I removed two of the three external links because they didn't seem to be working. If they come back online, feel free to re-insert them. Matt Deres 01:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] picture?

Why picture has so extremely broadened neck?

To make room for all the muscles and guts that had to fit in there. The neck wasn't just bone ya know :) Dinoguy2 16:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the creature on the left just looks absolutely huge, I mean, almost unearthly; it dwarfs the brachiosaurus on the right.
The neck is restored with air sacs, as opposed to with empty hollows as became fashionable a few years back. And the animal on the right is a juvenile! John.Conway 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I just want to say that I think this is the most badass picture of a Brachiosaurus I've ever seen. :) -- 67.183.218.185 05:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

it looks like it would topple over —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.171.115 (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Good thing the air sacs mentioned above were filled with air and not lead ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reorganizing into headings

Tricky here - usually nice to have a bit of an intro but this one is quite long. Also, heading 'paleobiology is used elsewhere.... Cas Liber 03:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that brachiosaurus was a warm-blooded animal like with anyother dinosaur because it grew fast, and not even gigantotherming helped them grow to full adult size in 10 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslan10000 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brachiosaurus nougaredi

im not sure about the dates for Brachio nougaredi (100 to 110mya) Ive been reading a peper by LAPPARENT (THE DINOSAURS OF THE “CONTINENTAL INTERCALAIRE” OF THE CENTRAL SAHARA)where he talks about it being in the jurassic? It was written in 1960 so maybe more evidence has come to light?

Quotes form the paper 'The genus Brachiosaurus is only known up to now from the Upper Jurassic(Lusitanian-Kimmeridgian-Portlandian). However, it is to this level that the layers where it was found should undoubtedly be referred: they are stratigraphically older than the In Akhamil series attributed to the Lower Cretaceous, and they have revealed a Jurassic flora [Boureau and Gaillon, 1958].'

'The discovery of Brachiosaurus in the Taouratine beds, which it seems must well be attributed to the Jurassic, evokes the dinosaur discoveries made at Tendaguru in the Upper Jurassic. Unfortunately, for the moment we do not have other elements from the Taouratine series to make comparisons.'Steveoc 86 22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This site http://www.users.qwest.net/~jstweet1/sauropoda.htm puts it in the Albian-early Cenomanian like in the artical, and http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Jun/msg00382.html sais a similar time, am i misreading the paper?? Steveoc 86 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaur

  • Don't you think we should include a notice that there was a Brachiosaurus named Emma in Dinosaur? Pahrak bionicle lover 06:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Now done, in Extinct animals in popular culture#Brachiosaurus. Anthony Appleyard 07:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Whoops, not Emma, huh? Sorry! Pahrak bionicle lover 02:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

um the brach in the dino movie is named bailine

[edit] Size comparison

I guess I must have missed this if it was on Image Review, but the size comparison is way too large. With it's neck in that position, Brach should only be about 12m tall. This one looks over 14. I think the problem is that the length of 25 m was applied to a reconstruction with the neck in an upward position--if I'm not mistaken, the 25m is the total length if the neck were to be outstreatched completely forward. For that pose, I'd scale it by height rather than length. Dinoguy2 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the silhouette either. -- John.Conway 13:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
im not happy with the neck pose, i dont know of a study that sais what brachiosaurus raised neck limmit is,(due to imcomplete vertebra?) however there is one this one that sais is neutral pose [1]. Steveoc 86 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

-the problem with the scale picture is that the brachiosaur is not actually 82 feet in that picture....its actually closer to 65 feet. Thus the scale is off.

[edit] Pop culture section

The pop culture section of this article is pretty poor. It's neither informative nor structured very well. I removed it once already, but it's been re-added. I think until something properly structured can be written, it should be left out. — John.Conway 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have it left in. Whenever the dinosaur collaboration team chooses Brachiosaurus for improving in preparation for FA, it would be nice to have a popular culture text to work from, instead of having to write every word from scratch. Even if the section contains material of a trivial nature, it's better to at least have a section that can be improved an expanded upon than no section at all; additionally, this pop culture section is written in a more formal tone than it would be once some anon IP notices there's no pop culture section and starts listing all the Brachiosaurus appearances on The Transformers. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

the problem with the scale picture is that the brachiosaur is not actually 82 feet in that picture....its actually closer to 65 feet. The scale is off thus.

Is that the length or the height, and, if the length, is that taking into account the neck and other "up" parts of the animal? J. Spencer 18:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)