JoshuaZ comments on Open thread, November 2011 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Oscar_Cunningham 02 November 2011 06:19PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (209)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 07 November 2011 02:07:46AM 0 points [-]

Camarasaurus is a close relative, the use of it as a model for reconstructing the skull was deliberate. (Moreover, modern data shows that it was in fact quite a good reconstruction.) The water thing did turn out to be just wrong, but that's not any different than about the scale of change that has happened with a lot of dinosaurs (for example the changing understanding of how T-Rex hunted.) There's certainly been a lot of changes (although most of the brontosaurus stuff was known a very long time ago and just took a lot of time to filter through to popular culture), but none of it amounts to "brontosaurus" not existing.

Comment author: wedrifid 07 November 2011 02:27:35AM *  0 points [-]

Moreover, modern data shows that it was in fact quite a good reconstruction.

What? No it doesn't. It was found to be the totally wrong sauropod to pretend was a brontosourus head. Did you read the line in wikipedia backwards? (The wording could be a little more explicit, at a stretch there is ambiguity. The actual journal article is more clear.) Or did you just make that up as a plausible assumption? It should be based off the diplodocus.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 07 November 2011 02:40:33AM 0 points [-]

Hmm, now looking per your suggestion at the Wikipedia article. They emphasize the degree of difference more than I remember it turning out to be an issue. The source they are using is here (may be a paywall). I don't know enough paleontology to understand all the details of that paper. However, I suspect that to most laypeople a skull that resembles a diplodocus would be close to that of a camarasaurus so the issue may be a function of what one means by a good reconstruction. (I suspect that many 10 year olds could probably see the differences between a diplodocus skull and a torasaurus skull, but it would take more effort to point out the difference between diplodocus and camarasaurus.)

Comment author: wedrifid 07 November 2011 02:44:48AM *  0 points [-]

I suspect that many 10 year olds could probably see the differences between a diplodocus skull and a torasaurus skull, but it would take more effort to point out the difference between diplodocus and camarasaurus.

I could totally tell the difference between a camarasaurus and a raptor. That's about my limit. And I know about raptors because they are cool. Also, they feature in fictional math tests.

However, I suspect that to most laypeople a skull that resembles a diplodocus would be close to that of a camarasaurus

They wouldn't be able to describe the difference (or know either of those dinosours) but the difference when you look at a new apatosaurus compared to an old picture of a 'brontosourus' is rather stark. ie. The new one looks like a pussy.