In the last post I pointed out some similarities between Davide Bonadonna’s new Spinosaurus painting and Brian Engh’s Spinosaurus *painting from 2010.

UPDATE the next day: Since I published this post, it’s become clear that the similarities in the two images are in fact convergence. Davide Bonadonna got in touch with Mike and me, and he has been very gracious and conciliatory. In fact, he volunteered to let us post the making-of images for his painting, which I will do shortly.

In a comment on the last post, on the mass of Dreadnoughtus , Asier Larramendi wrote: So I did. The table of measurements in the supplementary material is admirably complete. For all of the available dorsal vertebrae except D9, which I suppose must have been too poorly preserved to measure the difference, Lacovara et al. list both the total centrum length and the centrum length minus the anterior condyle.

{.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-10735 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“10735” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2014/09/11/how-massive-was-dreadnoughtus/dreadnoughtus-published-body-outline-lacovara-et-al-2014-fig-2/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/dreadnoughtus-published-body-outline-lacovara-et-al-2014-fig-2.png” orig-size=“946,268” comments-opened=“1”

I am just back from SVPCA, where I saw fifty 20-minute talks in three days. (I try to avoid missing any talks at all if I can avoid it, and this year I did.) As always, there was lots of fascinating stuff, and much of it not about the topics that I would necessarily have expected to enjoy.

I just read Mark Witton’s piece on the new new titanosaur Rukwatitan (as opposed to the old new titanosaur Dreadnoughtus ). I was going to write something about it, but I realised that Mark has already said everything I would have, but better. So get yourselves over to his piece and enjoy the titanosaurianness of it all!

{.size-full .wp-image-10714 aria-describedby=“caption-attachment-10714” loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“10714” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2014/09/05/brief-thoughts-on-dreadnoughtus/lacovara-et-al-figure-3-phylogeny/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/dreadnoughtus-vertebrae-lacovara-et-al-2014-fig-1.jpg” orig-size=“946,907” comments-opened=“1”

A couple of weeks ago, more than hundred scientists sent an open letter to the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) about their new open-access journal Science Advances , which is deficient in various ways — not least the absurdly inflated article-processing charge.

I’m scrambling to get everything done before I leave for England and SVPCA this weekend, so no time for a substantive post. Instead, some goodies from old papers I’ve been reading. Explanations will have to come in the comments, if at all.

{.aligncenter .size-large .wp-image-10690 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“10690” permalink=“http://svpow.com/bipedal-diplodocus-usnm-10865-modified-from-gilmore-1932-pl-6-v2/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/bipedal-diplodocus-usnm-10865-modified-from-gilmore-1932-pl-6-v2.jpg” orig-size=“2616,1199” comments-opened=“1”

Dear  AAAS, This is an open letter concerning the recent launch of the new open access journal, Science Advances. In addition to the welcome diversification in journal choices for authors looking for open access venues, there are many positive aspects of Science Advances: its broad STEM scope, its interest in cross-disciplinary research, and the offering of fee waivers.