Alamosaurus and Utetitan Blog Post
Milo Gaillard
Gregory Paul
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dinosaur Mailing Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DinosaurMailingG...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/43d6153b-ac13-4e23-b04a-cf24e7e38376n%40googlegroups.com.
mkir...@gmail.com
Gregory Paul
Gregory Paul
Hey Brian and everyone.
Brian makes some points, but others not so much.
I will make a major objection to his The Figure We Deserved version of my Fig. 1. I don’t know what is going on with what he is doing with the 15560 scapula in 1A. But my drawing was direct from Fig. 5D in D’Emic et al. 2011 and is entirely good. The way it is shown by Brian can leave the impression that the figure is way off, which it is not. My comment on p. 205 that these are the most accurate images yet done pertains specifically to the two scapulae, these being the only images that are derived both from recent previously published photos that all can see, with bits and pieces that seem to have gone missing over the decades taken into account. For the purposes of differential diagnostics of this paper, the profiles in Fig. 1are all that is needed. So if I am being a minimalist, it gets the job done.
As the Brian version shows, the profiles in Fig. 1 are actually accurate in the figure to the photos they are specifically based upon. Fig. 1B profile of ischium 15560 is based on photograph Fig. 5F in D’Emic et al. 2011, which is superior to the Gilmore 1946 drawing that is not based upon. The comparison in 1B shows the significant differences the ischium has relative to the others – including to 10487 which in of itself indicates the two bones are from different taxa even if the latter is not the same species as 10486, ergo titanosaur diversity in the SW. The BIBE 45854 cervical is 11 (which is barely distinguishable from its neighbors), it being quite distinct from the other figured cervical, again indicating there was not just one titanosaur taxon in the SW. The intent of 1D is to show how the centra profiles are divergent for the same purpose. Using photos would not have changed anything, so what is the oversized fuss really about? How would photos or scans have altered the conclusions?
I used the C. supremus scapula comparison because a reviewer said they showed lots of variation in a same quarry sample of the same species. If not for that I would have not thought of them. The opposite being true of the undistorted examples, I used them to show that the variation in the SW titanosaurs is actually greater. Using variation observed in yet other sauropod taxa can be iffy since those might actually be distinct taxa.
Brian is not happy with my short diagnosis of the Utetitan holotype, wants me to have included the rest of the preserved remains. A reviewer wanted me to do more comparison to other titanosaurs outside N Amer. There was no way that was happening. Nyet. This is a case of persons wanting a study to be what they want it to be, rather than what it is. The paper is about showing multiple titanosaur taxa in the Late Cretaceous SW. Which I can do. I am not a general titanosaur researcher and do not have the ability to go beyond the immediate subject. And the paper is long enough as it is – people get after me for doing papers that are too long, when they are not long then they are too short, golly gee wizz I can’t win. In particular, the diagnoses are differential between the SW specimens, especially the two holotypes. Since 10487 lacks the forelimb no point in diagnosing that of 15560. Going into the future others crazy enough to work on the mire that is titanosaur systematics – you have my sympathies -- can do a fuller diagnosis of 15560, with it and Alamosaurus not auto lumped together. Making that the new paradigm is the reason the paper exists.
Originally I was going to declare A. s. a nomen dubium. But doing the paper it turned out it can be diagnosed, so if I sank it I would have been criticized for that. A no win situation. Go to the ICZN? So far dinosaur names shifted to a neotype are ones well known to the public and having deep historical value – Iguanodon, Allosaurus, Stegosaurus, Coelophysis. Even Diplodocus did not make the cut, although it should have. Alamosaurus? Never all that well known. Unlikely to work. Looks like Utetitan is here to stay.
The paper I sent it was a lot shorter. It kept getting longer because of the reviewers and editors. The paper was never rejected. It was refused when I balked at doing the strat chart, so I did that and that and other items needed a another round of reviews -- I was worn down into doing the chart. The long list of specimens was not my idea, I wanted to stick assigning key specimens and let others do with other specimens as they think best. Someone said it was necessary, so I burned time doing that and it was sent out for more reviews.
As for that damn stratigraphic chart, I did not want to do it. But the editor insisted – well it is the Geology of the IMW. Never done a strat chart before and hope to never do one again. Not my forte, not being a geologist. And the dubious nature of the dating of some of the remains made me very reluctant, and I do not stand behind the blasted thing. Note that papers naming new dinosaur taxa in part on time separation don’t always have geocharts, A. fragilis and A. jimmadseni coming to mind. So why did I have to do one complain complain? And so I got NM & AZ mixed up, they are almost interchangeable;) and it is not the end of western civilization (Trump is getting that job done).
That the GIMW paper exists is not my fault. Would not have been needed had any got their paleo butts in gear and put a clear stop to chucking every SW titanosaur into A. s. when it is obvious that is not a good thing. Such as Brian back in the teens. My getting into iguanodont was also to stir things up – I had warned Norman that I would if he did not get a lot of specimens out of Iguanodon which he did not – and these days most of the taxa are or are about to be accepted (including it seems Dollodon:). As it was I was doing a go through for the entries of the Princeton Field Guide edition 3 (new book on sauropodomorphs coming out soon! https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/06/books/review/niche-field-guides-lizards.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare) and saw the problem.
The above comment on not seeing specimens is not pertinent in this case, I live in the DC/MD area. And is that assertion really serious? If I publish on the apatosaurs do I really have to go to Tokyo to see the specimen mounted there, when there is a detailed description on hand. And to really examine the specimen it needs to be disassembled. Is that going to happen? I have seen the Yale Brontosaurus many times. Which is not saying much because it is very hard to deal with because it is mounted and much of it obscured. Does it have to be taken apart anytime a person wants to do a deep analysis on apatosaurs? Not practical me thinks. How about the AMNH skeleton which has never been described and will always be mounted? Or their Tyrannosaurus which has not been detailed for over 100 years (kudos to Carr for getting the type T. rex skull done). This business about seeing specimens is becoming an example of auto rigidity in the field designed to control people. And increasingly impractical now that science funding has been gutted, with vrtpaleo taking a huge hit.
Perfection is of course the enemy of good enough, and biology is never perfect. Had I not published the paper the SW titanosaur issue would still be wallowing along, with everything in A. s. and no progress likely for many years. Now the best and most diagnostic specimen has a name, and with A. s. so weak IT is the taxon that is at risk of irrelevance. Folks are at last going to have to deal with there being multiple named taxa one way or another, which is a major advance that should move things along via increased future work if for nothing else to get after me. So instead of spinning wheels complaining, get out there and do a formal analysis. With all the photos and scans one may wish. Not like the best skeleton is going to be returned into the NM scapula taxon.
What is likely to drive young folks away from paleo is how those who dare not adhere to the company line are being trounced for their sincere efforts online on a regular basis. It is so bad that the term PaleoMafia has been coined - when a term like that arrives it is saying something that people should pay attention to. It is not me who is part of that.
To pronounce Utetitan, it is Ute as per the aboriginal peoples of the region, and titan as in titan.
Gunnar Bivens
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/633359802.714720.1765892367928%40mail.yahoo.com.
Heinrich Mallison
Dr. Heinrich Mallison
cell: +49 (0)179 5429922
email: heinrich...@gmail.com
blog: dinosaurpalaeo.wordpress.com
Milo Gaillard
Andreas Johansson
—
Andreas Johansson
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/6E963A2A-F396-4A27-9245-8B6C7AD27731%40gmail.com.
Thomas Richard Holtz
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CACNGv5jyYC8kq09BtfLk7AZXa5DVuzGmfFp9TmC6-WHMGDOzWQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email: tho...@umd.edu Phone: 301-405-4084
Principal Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Office: CHEM 1225B, 8051 Regents Dr., College Park MD 20742
Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/
Phone: 301-405-6965
Fax: 301-314-9661
Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
Office: Centreville 1216, 4243 Valley Dr., College Park MD 20742
http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc
Fax: 301-314-9843
Mailing Address:
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology
Building 237, Room 1117
8000 Regents Drive
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742-4211 USA
Andreas Johansson
—
Andreas Johansson
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/CAHQFgprSAHBCYCzTYov7PnyOJ421Tq634DVg39D-_L0e2TxY9g%40mail.gmail.com.