Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, there has been a study which completely rearranges the Dinosaur Family Tree.

http://www.nature.com/news/dinosaur-family-tree-poised-for-colossal-shake-up-1.21681?WT.mc_id=FBK_NatureNews



The Childhood-ruining part is that this will spawn arguments for Sauropods (Brontosaurus et al) to no longer be defined as dinosaurs (Since they are not descended from the last common ancestor of Iguanadon, Hylaeosaurus, and Megalosaurus). Now, this isn't what the article is saying, and the article shouldn't be accepted as true until it has gained a bit more support, but it is something that will be argued in the future.

Brontosaurus lives on Pluto.

Did they bring back the name Brontosaurus? I've heard reasonably well informed people use it recently instead of Apatosaurus, so what's up with that?

Brontosaurus defeats Apatosaurus handily in a Rule of Cool contest.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Did they bring back the name Brontosaurus? I've heard reasonably well informed people use it recently instead of Apatosaurus, so what's up with that?

Yes and no. There's a study (from 2015, I'll see if I can find it later) which places the Brontosaurus specimens in a (Small) monophyletic group that is a sister clade to Apatosaurus. Most alleged Brontosaurus specimens are still Apatosaurus, and they still got the skull wrong in the early specimens. Still, genera have been established on flimsier evidence.

Here's a little article on the Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-brontosaurus-is-back1/

And mneh. I suppose we correct history all the time I suppose.

 feeder wrote:
Brontosaurus defeats Apatosaurus handily in a Rule of Cool contest.

Have to agree there.

Here we go again.

Yes, but none of this answers why Noah didn't put any on his boat.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
So, there has been a study which completely rearranges the Dinosaur Family Tree.

http://www.nature.com/news/dinosaur-family-tree-poised-for-colossal-shake-up-1.21681?WT.mc_id=FBK_NatureNews



The Childhood-ruining part is that this will spawn arguments for Sauropods (Brontosaurus et al) to no longer be defined as dinosaurs (Since they are not descended from the last common ancestor of Iguanadon, Hylaeosaurus, and Megalosaurus). Now, this isn't what the article is saying, and the article shouldn't be accepted as true until it has gained a bit more support, but it is something that will be argued in the future.

They're still dinosaurs they just got lizard hips while other types got bird hips, doesn't make them less dinosaur though.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Yes, but none of this answers why Noah didn't put any on his boat.

Because Satan hid the fossils to test our faith.

Duh.

When I was four years old, the very first book I began reading was a dinosaur book. I read for the other children at my daycare or whatever you strange people call it. Since that day I read tons of those books (albeit it has been many years since I moved on).

Now this. My life is a lie.

The reasoning behind this study, explained -

Cant really say if this will ruin my particular childhood until I know how it affects the Dinobots and Zoids.