Talk:Sauropoda
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
Contents |
[edit] Some laid eggs?
"At least some of them laid eggs, like the camarasaurs and titanosaurs"
Does this imply that some Sauropods (may have) reproduced in other methods? It seems to... If there's a reason to believe that these dinosaurs reproduced in other ways, it'd be great to elaborate on what these ways are, and why it's a possibility. I've never heard of dinosaurs reproducing in any other way, though I suppose in something so large, live birth wouldn't be impossible... but at the same time, as stated, I've never heard of any possibilities of dinosaurs doing anything but laying eggs.
Sorry if this isn't edited correctly. I'm not wiki-savvy... but felt this was important to mention. It's either an ill-worded sentence, or the introduction of an idea that is not common knowledge and shouldn't be treated as such... 72.147.110.213 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's probably a reference to an older idea that sauropods had live births (this was before their eggs were well-known). J. Spencer 14:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Gotcha. Thank you :) I hadn't actually heard of that idea before. Perhaps it should be mentioned to be as such? "Some researchers held the idea that sauropods gave birth to live young; however, more recent discoveries of fossilized nests of eggs for many species has put this idea largely to rest." or some such. Evolution of an idea is as important as the idea it's self. Especially when there's not really any way to determine what 'the truth' really was. but anyway.. I'd make a change, but my dinosaur knowledge is pretty limited-- I'll let someone who knows more on the topic determine if this should be altered, edited, or left alone. :) But thank you very much for the very quick answer! 72.147.120.159 22:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's one of those things that should be addressed. I don't know if he was the first to propose it, but Bob Bakker was the most recent popularizer of the idea (in the 1980s), if I recall correctly. J. Spencer 02:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Thank you :) I hadn't actually heard of that idea before. Perhaps it should be mentioned to be as such? "Some researchers held the idea that sauropods gave birth to live young; however, more recent discoveries of fossilized nests of eggs for many species has put this idea largely to rest." or some such. Evolution of an idea is as important as the idea it's self. Especially when there's not really any way to determine what 'the truth' really was. but anyway.. I'd make a change, but my dinosaur knowledge is pretty limited-- I'll let someone who knows more on the topic determine if this should be altered, edited, or left alone. :) But thank you very much for the very quick answer! 72.147.120.159 22:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Posture?
There is more debate to the posture of the Sauropods then is currently indicated in this article. One study (or possibly more then one study I can't remember) was made that showed that the heart couldn't have been strong enough to pump blood into the head if the head was raised high, to say nothing of the rearing up on legs. One theory is that they were 'vacuum cleaners', keeping their huge bodies in one place on a plains environment to save energy while sweeping their long necks in wide arcs feeding on ground plants. Saw an article recently that took this for granted saying that the idea of Sauropods eating like giraffes was outdated as they being swamp dwellers using their long necks heads as snorkels. There are problems with this, like the peg teeth that are perfect for eating evergreen needles. And there is huge debate, but I was surprised no mention is made of this hypothesis.
Also rather surprising is no mention of the now out of favor theory that they were lake/swamp dwelling, the water buoying up the heavy weight, and their long necks acting as snorkels. Considered 'wrong' now, I feel it should still be mentioned for history and completeness sake.
Also there is some evidence, at least according to Bob Bakker, that some species may have had trunks like elephants.
Sorry I have no references for any of this. This is in fact my first post on Wikipedia... Although I believe most of it was in "Dinosaur Heresies" by Bakker.
Riftmann 05:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cetiosauridae
Why redirct to the same page? Enlil Ninlil 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I dunno. There's doubtless a better place for it, but it's generally avoided in recent literature as a historic wastebasket family. J. Spencer 01:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] First Sauropods
Maybe someone can put in the first recognised genera of sauropod, the articles can be expanded a lot as well. Enlil Ninlil 03:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mislabeled and forgotten?
The Guardian reports today on a bone being rediscovered at the Natural history museum. Xenoposeidon proneneukus, anyone? Andycjp 04:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder if this is the same as "Angloposeidon", which was a Naish brachiosaurid. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, this is something else, based on a posterior dorsal, though Naish was in on the description. J. Spencer 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just figured that out. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Odd that Naish declined to name "Angloposeidon" despite fully describing it, but decided to name this one vert and suggest a new family could be erected around it... has nobody learned the lesson of Titanosaurus? ;) Dinoguy2 01:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just figured that out. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, this is something else, based on a posterior dorsal, though Naish was in on the description. J. Spencer 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
