Talk:Seismosaurus

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.

Hey, you beat me. I just finished Gillette's book, and was going to throw an article up. I've got a question, though: Where did you get the data on the second species in the taxobox, S. gillette? As far as I know, there is only one species in the genus. Now, the genus is properly called "Seismosaurus Gillette, 1991" — but that's not a new species. 68.81.231.127 23:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


A lot of my information comes from some paleo sites or news articles. Occasionally I read the Dinosaur Mailing List, but the load is too much for me these days. I can't site exactly where the info came from. I stumbled across the second species on the web somewhere. I have the book but haven't read it yet. Hope to have time over the holidays. What did you think of it? Nodosaurus

It wasn't bad. I'm currently reading Walking on Eggs, by Chiappe et al., and it makes an interesting contrast. Gillette comes across as more of a small-town paleontologist, while Chiappe comes across as a big-city professional. The experiments Gillette talked the scientists from Los Alamos into conducting are interesting, especially the ones on the composition of fossilized bones — though I'd like to see some verification before I trust their conclusions.
Anyway, since the Dinosauricon and DinoData don't have it, and a search doesn't turn up anything, I guess we should nuke it as unverfiable the next time we work on the article. 68.81.231.127 04:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
if you stick S. hallorum into google you come up with many references including:
* Dinodata (Gillette 1991)
* DML discussion discusses placing S. hallorum in Diplodicus (based on unpublished evidence: see note 3)
* Geological Society of America article
Nodosaurus 18:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And if you do it with S. gillette, you come up with nothing ;) 68.81.231.127 01:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Egads, you're right. I wonder if I misinterpreted something I saw somewhere??? I'll check around a bit more, then remove it if I can't find a link... Nodosaurus 16:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Length

How long was it, really? Some books I read list it as being up to 52 m tall. Jerkov 11:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A new study still in press shows that the initial gigantic estimates were way off base. At most, Seismosaurus was 110-115 ft long.Dinoguy2 14:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First discovered 1991?

Is 1991 the year when the first bones were found? The article should note this. It's relevant to the Diplodocus article, where Seismo is discussed as a possible subspecies. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It was formally described in 1991 (not quite the same thing).--Firsfron of Ronchester 15:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's the ref for that: David Lambert. The Ultimate Dinosaur Book. New York: Doring Kindersley. ISBN 156458304X.
Then it's pretty safe to say the bones were actually found a few years before 1991, as remains that size would take a while to prep.Dinoguy2 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to put this genus out of it's misery?

With the publication of Lucas et al.s paper and official synonymization of Seismosaurus and Diplocodocus, and Scott Hartman et al.'s upcoming expected synonymization of D. hallorum with D. longus, I think it's time to discuss whether we should move all this content to the history section of Diplodocus or not. There is precedence for keeping seperate pages for junior synonyms like Brontosaurus, and we haven't always followed published synonymy. Baryonyx and Suchomimus have been synonymized, for example, though I'm not sure how widely accepted this is. I am starting to get the impression that nobody considers Seismosaurus a valid genus anymore (shame, it was my favorite for a while as a kid ;) ). Any comments? Dinoguy2 18:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to just say "keep it", but there isn't a whole lot in this article (and it's missing the interesting "Gastrolith or not?" "Choked or not?" aspect). On the other hand, it makes a teachable moment as its own article, because it shows how paleontology can work, and it's an interesting story in its own right, with all of the popular attention and speculation attached to it. If it can be beefed up, and the article makes it clear that sauropod workers are rejecting it as its own genus, I say keep it. J. Spencer 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I believe it should be kept. You never know, in the future the genus could be resurrected (as the synoymy is recent and my not be held-up if rigorously tested). In addition, under ICZN rules it still technically exists (next available name). So, in a nut shell i'm an advocate for retention, although I second "beefing-up" the article. Mark t young 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good (though it's been thought of as probably synonymous informally for years, if I recall correctly). The main reason for the generic distinction originally was much larger size (now shown to be about the same size as Diplodocus) and the distinctive hook on the ischium (later thought to be a pathology when a new specimen didn't have it, now apparently shown to be an atifact of preservation). Hartman's upcoming paper looksl ike it will build a pretty strong case that it's D. longus. But I agree that it has a lot of publicity and a lot of unique info, so if we are keeping Brontosaurus, we can certainly keep this page, at least for now. I do think we should figure out some kind of Wikiproject policy on pages about subjective junior synonyms. Dinoguy2 00:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Such a synonymy cannot be tested at all. This is not a scientific issue but a taxonomic one. As the question whether or not this species "belongs" to Diplodocus is meaningless, it can in principle never be resolved. As long as some scientists keep using the name, the article should certainly be kept. This would be different, could it be shown it isn't even a distinct species--MWAK (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gastroliths

"The supposed 240 gastroliths of Seismosaurus have been revealed to be highly polished quartzite pebbles that lack an unambiguous skeletal association; they are stream-deposited cobbles of a channel-lag deposit." http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004AM/finalprogram/abstract_77727.htm So changing that part in the article...