Talk:Camarasaurus

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.
Camarasaurus 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.

Contents

[edit] Question

I have a question. In the behavior section, it mentions adults and children traveling together. It then states that they likely did NOT care for their young. Did this mean to state that they DID? I don't know the fact, which is why I'm checking if this is accurate or a misstatement. It seems incongruous to think a herd species with adults and children together did not invariably end up aiding the children, at least by virtue of the herd working together. 72.192.237.134 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Ismail

I don't know off hand. I suspect it might be confusion over the word "young". In otherwords, adults and subadults of various sizes lived in herds, but not babies, which had to fend for themselves until large enough to join a herd. That whole section is badly in need of a rewrite and sources, though.Dinoguy2 18:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for such a prompt reply. Since I'm not familiar with this particular type of dinosaur, I'll have to leave this to someone who is to confirm. At least I've called attention to the possible issue. 72.192.237.134 16:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Ismail
I've 'had a go' at a rewrite - does this do it or is more required? Good thing this thing came up! - Ballista 17:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't know the dinosaur... assuming the rewrite is accurate, then I don't see the problematic statement any more. Do you know the dinosaur in question? Since I don't, someone else will have to vouch for this :P. Thanks, though! 72.192.237.134 20:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Ismail

[edit] Cite, please (hundred-year life span)

"It is suggested by some paleontologists that Camarasaurus may have lived for up to a hundred years." - WP:WEASEL. Cite for this? -- Writtenonsand 00:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Average in size?

Assuming 28-31 tons is accurate, it sounds pretty bug to me, even for a sauropod. It's twice the size of Diplodocus, and bigger than heaps of diplodocids, dicraeosaurs, shunosaurs, euhelopods and others . While it would be below the median, surely it's more than the mode and the mean. Anyone think we should re-word? John.Conway 11:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Woah, woah. No way 28-31 tons is accurate. More like 18. Just did a quick Google search, also not coming up with anything but 18 tons or equiv. Anything larger is gonna need a cite to stay.Dinoguy2 17:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So only humans can be obese? Dinosaurs can't? Humans can be obese by as much as three times an average weight of 80 kilos. So why cant a dinosaur weigh a little less than twice the average?

[edit] gastroliths

This article states that Camarasaurus probably used gastroliths to help break down their food, but the gastroliths article states that they are almost never associated with sauropods and that it is not feasible for them to have used them to grind their food. So... which is it? Mloren 04:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split apart?

Split off Camarasauridae? See e.g. Aragosaurus. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Dysmorodrepanis. I think it's a good suggestion: unlike many families, the name is actually still in use (by Upchurch et al., 2004, for Camarasaurus and Haplocanthosaurus). Another option would be to spin part of this article off to Camarasauramorpha or move it to Macronaria. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Taylor's research

Ok, I know it's not exactly encyclopedic, but I'm very tempted to use this as a reference somewhere... he even got it peer reviewed! [1] Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Classic! It would be foolish for Wikipedia not to include research from a prominent author such as Danny Taylor. His work isn’t exactly ”ridiculously unknown to our planet,” Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)