# Brontosaurus **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [January 13, 2003, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290 "2003-01-13T13:58:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/21 "2003-01-14T03:25:36Z")
Actually, the following three species were all described by Marsh in 1877: _Apatosaurus ajax_, _Atlantosaurus ajax_ and _Brontosaurus ajax_. All three have since been rendered synonymous, though Bakker had attempted to resurrect _B. ajax_ in 1986, and Steel attempted the same with _Atlantosaurus ajax_ in 1970. However, since there isn’t sufficient reason to separate the latter two from _Apatosaurus_, both attempts failed. It should be noted, however, that things could well have been different: when Riggs re-examined _Apatosaurus_, and its type species _A. ajax_, the _A. ajax_ specimens were too young and fragmentary to allow for a reliable species designation. He could well have used this information to argue against _Apatosaurus_ as a valid genus and used _Brontosaurus_ as the valid taxon, instead. Incidently, when Marsh first described _Brontosaurus excelsus_ and _Apatosaurus ajax_, he recognized them as closely related. However, he fell victim to a very low sample size: the differences he noted (number of fused sacral vertebrae) turned out to be due to age (the _A. ajax_ specimens were juveniles), not differences between genera - something that’s difficult to tell when you’ve only got two or three specimens total between the two supposed genera. Also, the fact that Marsh did not officially describe the genus _Brontosaurus_ until 1879 (with _B. excelsus_ as the type, rather than _B. ajax_) established a definite priority for _Apatosaurus_ (though, as noted above, Riggs could have argued that _Apatosaurus_ was not valid). And, as yet another side note, Marsh described _Brontosaurus montanus_ in 1877 as well. This fellow, based on fragmentary material, was later referred to the genus _Atlantosaurus_. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/22 "2003-01-14T13:22:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Since hoi is Greek for “the” ( nominative singular), Nominative masculine plural ---
**Author:** ![Jabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@Jabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jabba)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/23 "2003-01-14T19:16:59Z")
**JWK** : I noticed that as soon as I’d posted. “How could ‘people’ be singular?” I shouted to myself. I was hoping no-one would notice. ---
**Author:** ![seal\_cleaner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@seal\_cleaner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/seal_cleaner)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/24 "2003-01-14T19:40:18Z")
When my son was younger, he was a big dinosaur freak, always corrected people who said “bronotosaurus.” Until he heard it used by leading paleontolgists Stepen J. Gould Jim Kirkland Jim Bakker Not sure of first name - the guy with the crushes straw hat) "Nuf said. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/25 "2003-01-14T20:37:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by seal\_clubber \* > **Jim Bakker Not sure of first name - the guy with the crushes straw hat)** That would Robert “Bob” Bakker. ---
**Author:** ![seal\_cleaner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@seal\_cleaner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/seal_cleaner)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2003, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/26 "2003-01-14T22:11:29Z")
Thanks - Jim Baker, I now remember, was a VERY DIFFERENT PERSON.:smack: ---
**Author:** ![Sauroposeidon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@Sauroposeidon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauroposeidon)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/27 "2003-01-15T00:16:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually, the following three species were all described by Marsh in 1877: _Apatosaurus ajax_, _Atlantosaurus ajax_ and _Brontosaurus ajax_. That’s because they are all based on the same specimen (YPM 1860). “_Atlantosaurus ajax_” and “_Brontosaurus ajax_” are junior objective synonyms of _Apatosaurus ajax_. > [@](#): > > All three have since been rendered synonymous, though Bakker had attempted to resurrect _B. ajax_ in 1986, and Steel attempted the same with _Atlantosaurus ajax_ in 1970. However, since there isn’t sufficient reason to separate the latter two from _Apatosaurus_, both attempts failed. What was Steel’s reason for resurrecting _Atlantosaurus_? > [@](#): > > And, as yet another side note, Marsh described _Brontosaurus montanus_ in 1877 as well. This fellow, based on fragmentary material, was later referred to the genus _Atlantosaurus_. “_B. montanus_” was originally “_Titanosaurus montanus_”. It became the type species of _Atlantosaurus_ when Marsh learned the name _Titanosaurus_ was preoccupied by an Indian sauropod. Who put this species in _Brontosaurus_? ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/28 "2003-01-15T02:45:02Z")
The information presented [here](http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/dinos/de_4/5a7f156.htm) certainly seems to imply that _Atlantosaurus ajax_ was originally described by Marsh as a separate species from _Apatosaurus ajax_. Similarly, [this page](http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/dinos/de_4/5a7f80e.htm) implies the same for _Brontosaurus ajax_. And, [here](http://www.dinodata.net/Dd/Namelist/PAL/Marsh.htm), one can find a list of all species/genera named and described by O. C. Marsh. Note that each of the species I mentioned in my previous post exist as separate entries (even though many later became synonyms). If a genus is found to be a junior synonym, all species under the new genus are not retroactively assigned as synonyms under the old genus. That is, unless _B. ajax_ existed as a taxon prior to _Brontosaurus_ being referred to _Apatosaurus_, there would be no reason for the name _Brontosaurus ajax_ to exist at all. That _B. excelsus_ became _A. excelsus_ would not mean that _A. ajax_ automatically becomes synonymous with a non-existent _B. ajax_. You have to have pre-existing material with a pre-existing name for them to become synonyms. If the above is not the case, then it would seem that I am more confused than I thought! Further, synonyms for the _Apatosaurus ajax_ type specimen, YPM 1860, (that I could find) are only _Apatosaurus laticollis_ and _Atlantosaurus immanis_. Could you perhaps direct me to sources which might clarify the status of all the _ajax_ names? ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/29 "2003-01-15T03:56:32Z")
The confusion here is simply resolved. The most famous Aptosaurus’ **first** name was “Brontosaurus.” His mother, Pricillus Aptosaurus, named him after her grandfather, so he was acutally Brontosaurus Aptosaurus Jr. His father (Ajax) abandoned him, and ran off with a Tricerotops named Trixi who danced at the local bar on Saturday nights. His friends called him “Bronty” but paleontologists, who tend to be more formal, called him “Mr Aptosaurus”. I hope this clears this up. Please note: Cecil was asked whether brontosaurus had two brains, he was not asked whether brontosauruses actually existed. And, I’m not sure of the date of this column, but it may pre-date the point at which paleontology decided that there was no brontosaurus. Cecil is never wrong, he said so himself. ---
**Author:** ![Sauroposeidon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@Sauroposeidon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauroposeidon)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/30 "2003-01-15T03:57:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > **The information presented [here](http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/dinos/de_4/5a7f156.htm) certainly seems to imply that _Atlantosaurus ajax_ was originally described by Marsh as a separate species from _Apatosaurus ajax_.** “(Marsh, 1877/Steel, 1970)” means Marsh 1877 gets credit for describing the species (as _Apatosaurus ajax_), and Steel 1970 gets credit for referring the species to the genus _Atlantosaurus_. If Marsh had been using “_Atlantosaurus ajax_” in 1877, what did Steel do that deserves mention? > [@](#): > > **And, [here](http://www.dinodata.net/Dd/Namelist/PAL/Marsh.htm), one can find a list of all species/genera named and described by O. C. Marsh. Note that each of the species I mentioned in my previous post exist as separate entries (even though many later became synonyms).** The intent of that list appears to be to list all names ever used for species Marsh described, not just the names that Marsh used himself. If Marsh originally created “_Atlantosaurus ajax_” and “_Brontosaurus ajax_” separate from _Apatosaurus ajax_, what are the type specimens of the former two species? > [@](#): > > **If a genus is found to be a junior synonym, all species under the new genus are not retroactively assigned as synonyms under the old genus.** I have to admit I don’t understand this sentence. > [@](#): > > **That is, unless _B. ajax_ existed as a taxon prior to _Brontosaurus_ being referred to _Apatosaurus_, there would be no reason for the name _Brontosaurus ajax_ to exist at all.** It didn’t. The combination “_Brontosaurus ajax_” was first used by Bakker in 1986. Riggs synonymized _Apatosaurus_ and _Brontosaurus_ in 1903. According to the ICZN, there is no reason for the name “_Brontosaurus ajax_” to exist. Bakker’s defence: > [@](#): > > I use _Brontosaurus_ instead of _Apatosaurus_ even though, according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the latter is the legal name. Al Romer used to complain that “rules of nomenclature should serve the cause of science, not the other way round.” The same man–Yale’s Professor Marsh–coined both _Apatosaurus_ and _Brontosaurus_; the former name is just a bit older, but the latter is much, much better known by the public at large. Science should take every opportunity to divest itself of unnescessary obscurantism, and so I will use _Brontosaurus_. The type specimen (the specimen used first to define the genus) of _Brontosaurus_ is the wonderfully complete skeleton mounted at Yale, and I’m sure that Marsh’s ghost won’t mind a bit when I use _Brontosaurus_ in preference to _Apatosaurus_. The nomenclatural Law of Priority–the rule that says the legal name is the oldest based on an adequate type specimen–was originally developed to honor the first discoverer of a species or genus and to stabilize the system of names. Using _Brontosaurus_ honors Marsh, who discovered the genus, and certainly reduces confusion when scientists communicate to the public. Bakker only uses “_Brontosaurus ajax_” because he doesn’t use _Apatosaurus_ at all. All species of _Apatosaurus_, including the type species, were treated by Bakker as species of _Brontosaurus_. > [@](#): > > **That _B. excelsus_ became _A. excelsus_ would not mean that _A. ajax_ automatically becomes synonymous with a non-existent _B. ajax_.** I never meant to imply that it would. > [@](#): > > **Further, synonyms for the _Apatosaurus ajax_ type specimen, YPM 1860, (that I could find) are only _Apatosaurus laticollis_ and _Atlantosaurus immanis_.** “_Apatosaurus laticollis_” and “_Atlantosaurus immanis_” do come from the same quarry as YPM 1860, and are indistinguishable from _A. ajax_, but they each had distinct type specimens. Remember, Marsh liked to name just about every fossil he could find. > [@](#): > > \*\*Could you perhaps direct me to sources which might clarify the status of all the _ajax_ names? \*\* Donald Glut’s _Dinosaurs: The Enclcyclopedia_ (1997) is a good source for looking up the history of a species in the dinosaur literature. I also checked John McIntosh’s reviews of sauropod species in _Dinosaur Systematics: Approaches and Perspectives_ (Carpenter & Currie, eds., 1990) and _The Dinosauria_ (Weishampel, Dodson, & Osmolska, eds., 1990). ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/31 "2003-01-15T06:33:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sauroposeidon \* > \*\*Donald Glut’s _Dinosaurs: The Enclcyclopedia_ (1997) is a good source for looking up the history of a species in the dinosaur literature. I also checked John McIntosh’s reviews of sauropod species in _Dinosaur Systematics: Approaches and Perspectives_ (Carpenter & Currie, eds., 1990) and _The Dinosauria_ (Weishampel, Dodson, & Osmolska, eds., 1990). \*\* Oddly enough, I have two out of the three (I don’t have Glut’s book; I have _a_ book by Glut, but not that one) - I just forgot I had them. Especially _Dinosaur Systematics_, since it’s been ages since I read it. You learn somethin’ new every day! I have reading to do… ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/32 "2003-01-15T07:02:14Z")
And I just ordered _Dinosaurs: the Encyclopedia_. With both supplements. Ouch. Thanks for info, **Sauroposeidon**. ---
**Author:** ![Wikkit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c0e974/32.png) [@Wikkit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wikkit)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/33 "2003-01-15T13:51:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Speaker for the Dead \* > **I’m afraid Wikkit isn’t a dinosaur.** No, not a literal dinosaur, but I do have two brains. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/34 "2003-01-16T17:00:04Z")
**CalMeacham** said: > [@](#): > > And how about the Dolphin/Mahi-Mahi confusion? Nobody ever claims that “Mahi Mahi is the proper name” – they just use it without comment. What? Mahi-mahi is dolphin?! I thought it was a type of _tuna_? [http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr\_seafoodwatch/sfw\_factsheet.asp?gid=11](http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/sfw_factsheet.asp?gid=11) > [@](#): > > The **dolphinfish** is known by many names throughout the world’s oceans, but you’ll see the Hawaiian name “mahi-mahi” on your restaurant menu. I guess I misunderstood your statement. Mahi-mahi is the _dolphinfish_, not the _dolphin_. ---
**Author:** ![Wikkit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c0e974/32.png) [@Wikkit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wikkit)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/35 "2003-01-16T17:12:00Z")
It is dolphin, but dolphin the fish (_Coryphaena hippurus_) rather than dolphin the mammal. It is called dolphinfish and mahi-mahi, but it is just called dolphin as well. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/36 "2003-01-20T03:08:08Z")
> [@](#): > > We call dogs “dogs”. It is not incorrect if you fail to call them canis domesticus (or whatever). Not to be nitpicky, but it’s actually _canis familiarus_. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2003, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/37 "2003-01-20T03:56:16Z")
And to be _really_ nitpicky, it’s currently [_Canis lupus familiaris_](http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/canis/c._lupus_familiaris.html). ---
**Author:** ![Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Speaker_for_the_Dead)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/38 "2003-01-27T15:20:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wikkit \* > \*\*No, not a literal dinosaur, but I do have two brains. \*\* One below the waist, I assume? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![hyjyljyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/0ea827/32.png) [@hyjyljyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hyjyljyj)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2003, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/39 "2003-02-05T04:47:22Z")
Is the lupus (sorry, still don’t know how to italicize in this BB program) name meant to infer that familiaris is a sub-species of wolf? Or further that the DNA of common dogs is virtually indistinguishable from that of wolves, as a zoologist I saw on TV remarked pointedly? ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2003, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290/40 "2003-02-05T16:41:07Z")
Dogs _are_ a subspecies of wolf, just as the domestic cat is a subspecies of the kaffir cat. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brontosaurus/148290.md?page=3)