First Pluto and now this?

Posted: March 9, 2011 by veeshir in Uncategorized

Now this pisses me off.

I was talking to a friend last night and he told me there’s no such thing as brontosaurus.

I almost punched him, the lying sack of shit. And now I find out he was right. I’m still not apologizing.

First, Othniel Charles Marsh, the distinguished paleontologist who discovered the so-called brontosaurus, somehow managed to get the heads mixed up. Second, what he thought was a new species in reality was just another specimen of a previously discovered lizard called the apatosaurus. Since the name that comes first gets priority, apatosaurus stayed, and brontosaurus got the hook. Thus, officially speaking, there is no such thing as a brontosaurus, and what’s worse, what you thought was a brontosaurus actually doesn’t look like what you thought it looked like.

Would it have been such a problem to name something similar “brontosaurus”?
Bastids.

Of course this makes me wonder what’s coming next.
If they mess with the triceratops or ankylosaurs, I’m going to have something to say to somebody.

Comments
  1. Sockless Joe says:

    Uh, about that Triceratops…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torosaurus

    “In 2010, research on dinosaur ontogeny (growth and development of individuals over the life span) concluded that Torosaurus may not represent a distinct genus at all, but a mature form of Triceratops.”

  2. alexthechick says:

    Fuck that shit. Pluto is a planet and the brontosaurus is totally real.

  3. Mitchell says:

    Well that ain’t right! All my dinosaur coloring books had brontosaurusses! Why would they do such a cruel hoax?

  4. Sean M. says:

    Next, they’ll tell us that Unicorns aren’t real.

    (Confidential to Barry in DC–I’m still waiting on that delivery. Love and kisses, SM.)

  5. MikeD says:

    Now now, before we all get torches and storm the castle… the term brontosaurid (or brontosauroid) is viable for multple species of apatosaurs. It’s kind of like calling lions and tigers and panthers “big cats”. “Big cat” is not a specific animal, but a rough grouping. Thus we can group a bunch of different but similar apatosaurs together.

    As for the Triceratops thing, I don’t buy it. You’ve got a pair of paleontologists looking to shake up the community writing ONE paper that has already been countered by another. And even if you were to accept their premise that Torosaurs represented “more mature” Triceratops (and based on bones, I think that’d be like saying tigers are more mature lions), then the Torosaur, as the later discovery, should be eliminated and folded into Triceratops.

  6. SmithinMich says:

    What disturbs me even more than the brontosaurus not being real is what they’ve done with the Dromaeosauids (smaller bipedal carnivores like Velociraptor). Science now tells me that these guys had feathers. So, Velociraptor has gone from looking totally badass in those artists rendering to looking utterly ridiculous.

  7. Velociraptor says:

    …looking utterly ridiculous.
    No we don’t!! We look FAAAABULOUS!!!
    *swishes tail*

  8. Veeshir says:

    So Raptors are related to peacocks?

  9. joh says:

    So, Velociraptor has gone from looking totally badass in those artists rendering to looking utterly ridiculous.

    T-Rex with feathers = awesome!

    http://tinyurl.com/2cg6d8k

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s