The Brontosaurus Is Back

Authored by scientificamerican.com and submitted by marmorset

Some of the largest animals to ever walk on Earth were the long-necked, long-tailed dinosaurs known as the sauropods—and the most famous of these giants is probably Brontosaurus, the "thunder lizard." Deeply rooted as this titan is in the popular imagination, however, for more than a century scientists thought it never existed.

The first of the Brontosaurus genus was named in 1879 by famed paleontologist Othniel Charles Marsh. The specimen still stands on display in the Great Hall of Yale's Peabody Museum of Natural History. In 1903, however, paleontologist Elmer Riggs found that Brontosaurus was apparently the same as the genus Apatosaurus, which Marsh had first described in 1877. In such cases the rules of scientific nomenclature state that the oldest name has priority, dooming Brontosaurus to another extinction.

Now a new study suggests resurrecting Brontosaurus. It turns out the original Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus fossils appear different enough to belong to separate groups after all. "Generally, Brontosaurus can be distinguished from Apatosaurus most easily by its neck, which is higher and less wide," says lead study author Emanuel Tschopp, a vertebrate paleontologist at the New University of Lisbon in Portugal. "So although both are very massive and robust animals, Apatosaurus is even more extreme than Brontosaurus."

The nearly 300-page study analyzed 477 different physical features of 81 sauropod specimens, involving five years of research and numerous visits to museum collections in Europe and the U.S. The initial goal of the research was to clarify the relationships among the species making up the family of sauropods known as the diplodocids, which includes Diplodocus, Apatosaurus and now Brontosaurus.

The scientists conclude that three known species of Brontosaurus exist: Brontosaurus excelsus, the first discovered, as well as B. parvus and B. yahnahpin. Tschopp and his colleagues Octávio Mateus and Roger Benson detailed their findings online April 7 in PeerJ. "We're delighted that Brontosaurus is back," says Jacques Gauthier, curator of vertebrate paleontology and vertebrate zoology at Peabody, who did not participate in this study. "I grew up knowing about Brontosaurus—what a great name, 'thunder lizard'—and never did like that it sank into Apatosaurus."

For vertebrate paleontologist Mike Taylor at the University of Bristol in England, who did not take part in this research, the most exciting thing about this study is "the magnificent comprehensiveness of the work this group has done, the beautifully detailed and informative illustrations and the degree of care taken to make all their work reproducible and verifiable. It really sets a new standard. I am in awe of the authors," he says. Vertebrate paleontologist Mathew Wedel at Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, Calif., who also did not collaborate on this paper, agrees, saying "the incredible amount of work here is what other research is going to be building on for decades."

Tschopp notes their research would have been impossible at this level of detail 15 or more years ago. It was only with many recent findings of dinosaurs similar to Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus that it became possible to reexamine how different they actually were and breathe new life into Brontosaurus, he says.

Although while Kenneth Carpenter, director and curator of paleontology at Utah State University Eastern's Prehistoric Museum, finds this study impressive, he notes the fossil on which Apatosaurus is based has never been described in detail, and suggests the researchers should have done so if they wanted to compare it with Brontosaurus. "So is Brontosaurus valid after all?" he asks. "Maybe. But I think the verdict is still out."

All in all, these findings emphasize "that sauropods were much more diverse and fascinating than we've realized," Taylor says. Indeed, the recognition of Brontosaurus as separate from Apatosaurus is "only the tip of the iceberg," he adds. "The big mounted apatosaur at the American Museum of Natural History is probably something different again, yet to be named. Yet another nice complete apatosaur, which is in a museum in Tokyo, is probably yet another new and distinct dinosaur."

This sauropod diversity emphasizes "that the Late Jurassic [period] of North America in which they lived may have been a weird time," Wedel says. "You basically had an explosion of these things in what could be harsh environments, which raises the question of how they could have found enough food to have supported them all." In other words, research that helped resurrect Brontosaurus may have birthed new mysteries as well.

pgm123 on March 30th, 2020 at 17:17 UTC »

So, this needs a clarification. They were always considered two different animals (species) even when Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus were viewed as the same. To understand what this means, we need to go a bit into how animals get scientific names.

In taxonomic naming, animals get two names: a genus and a species. For humans, this is Homo (genus) and sapiens (species). There's only one species in the genus Homo (right now), so it's not at all confusing. But there have been some in the past, so you couldn't simply refer to all anatomically modern humans without using the full name--homo sapiens. Another modern example is the Panther. In most cases, the term Panther refers to either Jaguars or Leopards. However, if we use the Latin Panthera, you would have to include Lions (Panthera leo), Leopards (P. pardus), Tigers (P. tigris), Jaguars (P. onca), and Snow Leopards (P. uncia). We differentiate them by the common name or species name, because they're all the same genus and the genus name doesn't help us differentiate them.

So how does this work for Dinosaurs? With Dinosaurs, we typically just use the genus name. We say Velociraptor and not Velociraptor mongoliensis. We say Allosaurus, not Allosaurus fragilis, Allosaurus europaeus, or Allosaurus jimmadseni. Even when we do include the species, it tends to be included only with the whole name. The most famous example is Tyrannosaurus rex. (There are no other known species of the genus Tyrannosaurus yet.) So, with Dinosaurs, even if you had two different kinds of animals, you'd likely call closely-related animals the same name.

What's the deal with Brontosaurus? In 1877, O. Charles Marsh discovered an incomplete juvenile Sauropod and named it Apatosaurus ajax (Genus = Apatosaurus, Species = ajax). Later in 1879, he discovered a fully grown (and more complete) Sauropod that was even bigger (because it was fully grown) and named it Brontosaurus excelsus (Genus = Brontosaurus, Species = excelsus). The head was missing, but he thought since this was the biggest and most robust animal ever discovered, it needed a really strong head, so he modeled one off of a Camarasaurus. In 1903, Elmer Riggs realized that the Apatosaurus wasn't even fully grown and he decided that Apatosaurus ajax and Brontosaurus excelsus were close enough alike that they should get the same Genus, but not close enough that they would be the same species. He reassigned them so we have Apatosaurus ajax and Apatosaurus excelsus. And there they stayed for a century--two different species of the genus Apatosaurus. If it wasn't for some museums labeling the display "Brontosaurus" and the name catching on in the popular imagination, we'd have only ever thought about "Apatosaurus."

That was 1903. Since then, we've begun using computers to classify animals based on hundreds of details. A computer is only as sensitive as you want it to be, but one thing it has going for it is that it applies standards consistently. There was a recent study that looked at all the Sauropods to try to get a better description of how they relate to each other. And in doing so, it found that Apatosaurus ajax and Apatosaurus excelsus (Brontosaurus) have a lot of differences. So many differences that they shouldn't even be considered the same genus (if you apply the same standards used for other Sauropods). Apatosaurus ajax is a lot bigger. Its neck angle is different. There are a lot of different bumps on the bones. They're closely-related, but they're not Lions and Tigers. They're Lions and Cheetahs. That's why Brontosaurus is now considered valid.

By the way, I simplified this slightly. I only discussed the type species of each Genus (ajax and excelsus). There are actually two species of Apatosaurus and three species of Brontosaurus that are generally considered valid. We're talking about millions of years, so it makes sense it would be that simple. There are some Paleontologists who disagree that they should be split and would instead say there are five species of Apatosaurus. It really depends on your standards since you could lump species together or split them apart based on any number of criteria.

MorgothTheDarkElder on March 30th, 2020 at 17:12 UTC »

That actually was part of a Batman story, sometime before Knigthfall, when Two-Face returned, Batman loudly wonders why someone would put a dead man inside a brontosaurus (or some criminal activity involving a Brontosaurus skeleton) and one of the people working at the museum of the Brontosaurus corrects him, along the lines of it not being a Brontosaurus but an Apatosaurus, the confusion comes from someone having put the wrong heads on Brontosaurus skeletons.

And Batman basically comes to the conclusion:

"Crime? And an exhibit with two Names and two heads?

Must be Two-Face."

Tex-Rob on March 30th, 2020 at 15:21 UTC »

Pedant kid me accosted a lot of people for calling it a Brontosaurus for nothing now.