Talk:Galeamopus

AMNH 969

As far as I can see, AMNH 969 is referred to as Diplodocus sp. in the new paper, not Galeamopus? FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It's actually referred to Galeamopus sp. in their summary of taxonomic referrals on p. 199, with discussion of the specimen on p. 219. Earlier refs as Diplodocus are in historical context. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah right, didn't see the table, that complicates things! FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• On this note, isn't this "Diplodocus"[1] cast in Brussels actually Galeamopus (or Kaatedocus)? This post[2] says it is a cats of a Sauriermuseum Aathal specimen... Looking further, it seems to be either "H.Q. Eins" or "H.Q. Zwei"... And here's another SMA Diplodocus I'm not sure what is:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Brussels mount looks like "Misty", which was recently sold to the Zoological Museum in Copenhagen[4], wonder what its original SMA specimen number was (if its the same)... FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

MWAK, you seem to have had a pretty good overview of SMA specimens (perhaps also HMallison?), know which is which? My OCD won't be satisfied before they are properly identified! FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It does look like "Misty" doesn't it :o)? But Misty was only found in 2009, years after the Brussels mount was bought. As I understand it, the discovery of Misty happened before the formal involvement of the SMA with the Dana Quarry, so the specimen was never officially part of their collection. It probably had some field designation like "DQ-M" or so. The Brussels cast is of Kaatedocus and the same is true of the upright-standing "diplodocus" in the SMA stair hall — which, frankly, I hadn't recognised from the picture!--MWAK (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool, do you know what the specimen nu,bers of the SMA specimens are? And I should probably go and grab some photos of Misty, it's in my city after all... Ashamed to say I haven't seen it yet, but there's not much else to see in that museum right now... FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Misty travelled via my country :o). The SMA also has "Fritsch", "Toni" and "Arapahoe" but these have no published inventory numbers I'm aware of.--MWAK (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"Toni" appears to be "SMA 0009", which is why I placed it here:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I see. I tried to find an appropriate juvenile among the diplodocids :o).--MWAK (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I had completely forgotten about Carballido, J.L., Marpman J.S., Schwarz-Wings, D., Pabst, B. (2012). New information on a juvenile sauropod specimen from the Morrison Formation and the reassessment of its systematic position. Palaeontology 55, though having added it to the Dutch Brachiosaurus page at the time...--MWAK (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Just too bad the museum placed a fake diplodocid skull next to the real specimen! FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Toni had no skull, it seems. But I feel it is supposed to resemble a juvenile brachiosaurid skull in view of the rounded wide snout and the bulging nares. Toni having been tentatively referred to Brachiosaurus altithorax, they apparently let themselves be inspired by the rather elongated Felch Skull, instead of Giraffatitan, what one normally would expect.--MWAK (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Brussel is, as far as I can tell, NOT Misty. Can't tell, though, from my photos of the labels, if it is H.Q.1 or H.Q.2.

Toni's fake skull is older than the paper. I think it was already there when Takehito Ikejiri gave his wonderful "however" talk at SVP long ago, where he showed that genus level determination was, by the looks of it, different whichever bone you looked at. --HMallison (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Misty probably isn't Diplodocus then? Wonder whether the museum would had shelled out 8 million if they knew it might be reclassified as a much lesser known (as in popularly) genus so shortly after... FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe they paid about four million DKK for the exemplar as such? That's only half a million euros, so that's a bargain ;o). But Misty seems to be a genuine diplodocus if you look at the ilium height and the backward position of the middle-posterior tail transition. It's evidently not Seismosaurus/Diplodocus hallorum. Foot and fibula look like D. carnegii to me.--MWAK (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't say anything :( but I can recommend that you all quit speculating about Misty. Wait for the scientific reports, please. HMallison (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, good to know that work will be done, after some specimens seem to have ended up in ridiculous places. The comments here also suggest upcoming work on the Dana Quarry specimens: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2015/04/24/that-brontosaurus-thing/ FunkMonk (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Not speculating is a wise advice. I, for one, should not have made my previous remark without actually comparing detailed pictures :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I've now uploaded a photo of Misty[6], quite hard to photograph, as it is in a very narrow room. It is labelled as simply "Diplodeocus sp." at the museum. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

As for speculating, I just noticed that Mike Taylor did just that in the last comment of this 2014 blog-post:[7] I won't add anything... FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)