{.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-3370 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“3370” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2011/03/04/friday-follies-raiders-of-the-lost-scap/brontomerus-scap-1500x2000/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/brontomerus-scap-1500x2000.png” orig-size=“1200,2024” comments-opened=“1”

After a couple of relatively hardcore posts on ilial osteology, we though it would be good to look at something lighter this time.  If you’re interested in dinosaurs, or indeed alive, you will hardly have been able to avoid seeing Francisco Gascó’s glorious life restoration of Brontomerus .

Let’s look a bit more closely at the holotype element of Brontomerus mcintoshi , which as we all remember is the juvenile left ilium OMNH 66430.  Much of what we’ve said about Brontomerus is based on the shape of that ilium, so it’s important to get right.

Sorry for the very short post. We have some longer stuff planned, but we’ve been too busy to kick it out this week, and I wanted to leave you with something cool to ponder over the weekend. Here’s the ilium of Giraffatitan overlaid on that of Brontomerus , scaled to the same acetabulum diameter ( Giraffatitan is HMN J1, left ilium, modified from Janensch 1961: pl. E, fig.

Introduction Many people in the paleontological community have probably seen the comments about our work on Brontomerus by Jim Kirkland. Most of these comments have been posted on Facebook or sent around by email. We have held off until now in responding to them because we wanted to have everything–both the criticisms and our responses–publicly available to everyone, not in the walled garden of Facebook.

Matt or I will probably post properly later today, but I just wanted to post a quick note to ask whether anyone has any printed (as opposed to online) newspaper copy on Brontomerus ?

Today is the culmination of a project that I and Matt, and our co-author Rich Cifelli, are very proud of: the publication of the new sauropod, Brontomerus mcintoshi . Go and read the paper — it’s open access, thanks to the good folks at Acta Palaeontologica Polonica . {.size-full .wp-image-3503 aria-describedby=“caption-attachment-3503” loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“3503” permalink=“http://svpow.com/?attachment_id=3503”

{.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-3366 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“3366” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2011/02/22/onward/onward/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/onward.jpg” orig-size=“2272,1704” comments-opened=“1”

Earlier this evening, while I was editing an SV-POW! article that we plan to release on Wednesday, I (Mike) inadvertently hit the Publish button rather than Save Draft as I’d intended.  I was able to quickly undo the posting, but it’s possible that some of you may have seen Wednesday’s article prematurely, especially if you use an RSS reader that happened to cache that page during the brief period that it was available.

(This is sort of a riff on the recent post, Tutorial 12: How to find problems to work on, which you might want to read first if you haven’t already.) Something that has been much on my mind lately is the idea that if you don’t go too far, you don’t know how far you should have gone.

I have just made a series of fairly major edits to the in-progress Checklist for new zoological genera and species, and wanted to explain what’s changed and why. The important change is that the Checklist no longer attempts to encompass the creation of families, nor of all genus-group and species-group names — only genera and species.