The Night of the Brontosaurus
Originally published in Finnish in niin & näin online-extra in 2015.
In the beginning of April 2015 many dinosaur-buffs had to rub their eyes. The long-necked Brontosaurus, familiar from movies, toys and stamps, was reported to have returned to the fields of science.[1] This was a surprise likewise for those who knew about Bronto’s unofficial status and for those who did not even know the giant had been absent. What ever happened to Brontosaurus? In order to understand the piece of news, it is good to take a glance on the naming history of Brontosaurus, as well as on the history of paleontological naming conventions in general.
Once upon a time there was Brontosaurus. It was the biggest dinosaur known in its time, when its fossils were dug up in 1879 from the Morrison Formation in Wyoming.[2] It was so big that famous American paleontologist and University of Yale professor O.C. Marsh named the finding Brontosaurus excelsus, meaning thunder lizard (gr. brontê, thunder and sauros, lizard). With its length of 20 metres and weight of 15–30 tons, Bronto conquered both the scientific world and popular culture and slowly became one of the most known genera of dinosaur.
However in 1903 paleontologist E.S. Riggs made a different discovery. Marsh’s Brontosaur-specimen differed only in minor ways from another species, Apatosaurus ajax, which Marsh himself had named two years prior to Brontosaurus (1877). Based on this Riggs was able to prove that Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus are the same genus, and that "Brontosaurus" is scientifically an invalid name.[3] The giant thunder lizard was demeaned to Apatosaurus’s junior synonym with a single stroke. Brontosaurus then vanished from the scientific map in a jiffy, and even if it did continue its life in different forms of popular culture, it garnered mostly derogatory looks from dinosaur-enthusiasts, amateur paleontologists and well-informed grade-schoolers.
Taxonomical Battles
Why is "Apatosaurus" the primary term instead of "Brontosaurus", and what does it mean to be the junior synonym of another genus. Taxonomy is a scientific field, which focuses on the naming, defining and classifying of species. It includes strict regulations especially on synonymy, meaning cases in which the same species or genus has been given two different names. There are different conventions in taxonomy for defining which of the given names should be consider the primary term and therefore the official scientific name of the genus. Most common of these is priority. What it has going for it is at least straight forwardness: name, which has been given first, is the primary one. Therefore as "Apatosaurus" was a given name to the genus two years before, it was the primary name, and "Brontosaurus" was just a secondary synonym stricken from usage. There you go, no more Brontosaurus. At least not scientifically.
But even if Riggs’s
Apatosaurus-rapport was argumentatively valid, it failed on another important
facet: garnering public attention. The name "Brontosaurus" became world-famous,
gaining support on its road to fame by Marsh’s specimen being the first
sauropod[4]
put on public display. American Museum of Natural History in New York mounted a
reconstruction of the skeleton in its display in 1905, with the name "Brontosaurus". Riggs’s piece from 1903 did not reach the knowledge of larger
public, while Brontosaurus began its life in popular and semi-scientific
writings, as a gas station mascot, and as the leading star of several museums.
Marsh himself donated the original specimen – almost a full skeleton – for the
Yale Peabody Museum, where it was mounted in 1931, likewise titled as "Brontosaurus". The skeleton stands in Yale even to this day.[5]
Brontosaurus-skeleton in Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History. Photo:
Matt Wedel. When the popularity of
dinosaurs started to rise at the end of 1980’s, helped along the way by the
Land Before Time animated movie (1987), United States Postal Office decided in
1989 to publish a collection of dinosaur-stamps. The four stamps were decorated
by figures of famous dinosaurs and were named: Tyrannosaurus, Stegosaurus,
Pteranodon and Brontosaurus. This apparently was too much for the well-educated
dinosaur-enthusiasts and the unofficial status of Brontosaurus as a synonym to
Apatosaurus was finally made public (ironically, no-one seemed to raise noise
about Pteranodon, which wasn’t a dinosaur but a pterosaur). However, there were also
defendants of Brontosaurus. Famous paleontologist Robert T. Bakker suggested
that the synonymy of Brontosaurus should be taken into reconsideration.[6]
Stephen Jay Gould, one of the most read popularizers of science of his
generation, in the heat of the stamp-scandal dedicated a whole column for the defence
of Brontosaurus. In the article “Bully for Brontosaurus” (1990) Gould, a
self-declared brontophile, offers a larger context for the discussion, arguing
for the Brontosaurus-name among other ways by appealing to its position in
popular knowledge.[7]
Poor Brontosaurus’s destiny
was from the beginning tied to different battles on scientific fields.
Brontosaurus versus Apatosaurus -situation is actually a direct consequence
from the most infamous skirmish in the history of paleontology, the bitter rivalry
of O.C. Marsh and E.D Cope, which is known collectively as the Bone Wars. Marsh
and Cope engaged in a scientific confrontation in the late 1800’s, both aiming
to name as many genera of dinosaur as possible, while also using writing space
for attacking each other viciously, masqueraded as scientific criticism. Both
also committed even more vile acts, like bribery, stealing and the destroying
of fossils. Their quarrel was fruitful for paleontology though: it resulted in
the naming of 142 new genera of dinosaur – although only 32 of those are still
valid. E.D. Cope (left) and O.C. Marsh (right) engaged in a bitter
paleontological rivalry, known as the Bone Wars, in the late 19th
century on the Western Front of the United States. Because of the competition
both men named new animals based on only marginal evidence, accompanied with
only short notes and a small number of drawings, in some instances naming only
partial fossil material. This was the case with also Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus.
Marsh named two species’ of Apatosaurus (A.
ajax and A. grandis) in 1877 only
with two pages, without drawings and describing only the spinal column.[8] In
1879 Marsh named Brontosaurus in even smaller space, once again without
drawings.[9]
Marsh apparently noticed the similarity of the genera, but because of differing
number of vertebrae, he considered them to be separate. Along the 20th
century Brontosaurus became the canonical long neck of popular consciousness,
and Marsh showcased its skeleton (uncommonly full for a sauropod) in many
different publications. Apatosaurus on the other hand remained mainly as parts
of a spine.[10]
The Significance of Names for the Popularization of Dinosaurs Let’s trace back
to the late 80’s, early 90’s dinosaur-stamp scandal. What was at the issue
there? The defence of scientific truth, some would say. Triviality of language,
would be the judgment of others. When Riggs originally laid the genera
together, it was mostly a scientific notification for him: "Apatosaurus" was a
young individual in the same genus, which "Brontosaurus" represented as an
adult, and since Apatosaurus had scientific priority being named first, the
case was closed. Brontosaurus vanished in one page.[11]
However, since it later on became well-known amongst the larger public, it stayed alive in
speech as a popular nickname of sorts for the Apatosaurus-genus. Like Gould
states, as a defence for scientific truth, the whole topic is quite trivial in
the end, especially compared to the more serious paleontological quarrels and
to the history of paleontology: "If you approach me in
wild lament, claiming that our postal service has mocked the deepest truth of
paleontology, I will know that you have only skimmed the surface of my field."[12]
But if names
don’t matter, why does Gould defend Brontosaurus so rigorously? Even if names
might not be so significant for paleontology, for the popularization of
paleontology it is a different matter. The names of the dinosaurs in public
eyes have at least as big of a significance as the dinosaur portraying paleoart
has. Charles R. Knight's (1874-1953) illustration of Brontosaurus (1897). Brontosaurus gained a huge popularity in part because
of paintings like this. With hanging tails and
swamp-dwelling sauropods the painting is scientifically inaccurate, but still
remains awe-aspiring. However, it still should be said that even if
Brontosaurus has returned, the animal depicted here has most likely never
existed. Indeed, the United
States postal service replied from its part that even if the genus is known as
Apatosaurus by the scientific community, Brontosaurus was chosen as the name in
the stamp for being better known amongst the larger public. Here Gould sees the
post office to have been more right than the complaining besserwissers. Older
name might be technically correct, but in this case the latter name also has
validity due to its well-known status in the popular consciousness.[13]
What the Brontosaurus vs. Apatosaurus -case teaches is that on some occasions which
ever defective and imperfect description is enough for priority, as long as it
has been made first. Scientific rigidity might not always be the best way to
carry out naming conventions, and the popular name can try to gain at least a
moral victory. In this "Brontosaurus" as a popular nickname seems to have succeeded. Those who
assessed the stamp-scandal to have been the last nail to Bronto’s skin were
badly mistaken. Even just lately there have been news articles reporting, as if
some just lately discovered novelty, that Brontosaurus never existed.[14] "Brontosaurus" has become in both name and image a descriptive definition for
the ancient gigantic titans, as dinosaurs are still seen by many. It
has some specific simplistic power in it, which "Apatosaurus" does not convey.
The significance of names for the popularization of dinosaurs is then
specifically seen here. Also names, which are simple and memorable, tag along
easier than those which are complicated and difficult to pronounce.[15]
The Story of Ultrasaurus (and its synonyms) Along with
Brontosaurus there also exists another giant sauropod, closely related to
taxonomic brawls, which exemplifies the importance of dinosaur names. In 1972, American paleontologist James A. Jensen reported of two gigantic sauropods to
been found in Dry Mesa, Colorado.[16]
This was the beginning of a long and strange tale, starring creatures called
Ultrasaurus, Supersaurus and Ultrasauros. If Jensen
could do one thing well, it was branding with names. The first fossilized
sauropod found in Colorado gave evidence of the biggest land creature ever
known by then.[17]
Therefore Jensen decided to name this animal "Supersaurus". In the same paper, Jensen also notified another finding, which was the fossils of
possibly an even larger sauropod. Jensen referred to this finding as "Ultrasaurus" – what else. Later on, when Jensen wanted to officially name the sauropod
Ultrasaurus after more research in 1985,[18]
an unexpected problem turned up. The name "Ultrasaurus" was already taken. For
a much smaller genus of dinosaur. In
a twist of fate, another paleontologist, Haang Moon Kim, who had read Jensen’s
paper on Supersaurus and Ultrasaurus, had named a new species of dinosaurs he
had found Ultrasaurus tabariensis in
1983,[19]
because he believed it to be related to Jensen’s Ultrasaurus. However, it was
discovered that the dinosaurs were not related, on top of which Kim had been
mistaken when evaluating the size of the finding. In reality, Kim’s dinosaur
was even smaller than Supersaurus. Even
still, as Jensen had only referred to
the fossils as "Ultrasaurus", without officially naming them, "Ultrasaurus" was now scientifically the name of Kim’s
finding, and Jensen was not able to use it anymore. As a result, Ultrasaurus was now a smaller genus than
Supersaurus. Jensen on the other hand
did not give up easy and in 1991 changed his dinosaur’s name to… well, "Ultrasauros." The
story of Ultrasaurus-sauros did not end so well, unfortunately. Jensen’s
finding was in later analyses proclaimed a chimaera,
meaning a combination of parts from different animals: it included bones from
Jensen’s Supersaurus and Brachiosaurus, named by Riggs in 1903.
As a result of this, Ultrasauros
faced the fate of Brontosaurus and was classified as junior synonym of Supersaurus. Ultrasaurus meanwhile is considered today
as nomen dubium, dubious
classification, as not enough information has been gathered from Kim’s fossil
specimen to entitle classification into any specific genus.[20]
Supersaurus on the other hand is still a valid classification – and the
creature was for a time battling for the title of the longest known land animal
ever. It didn’t get to keep that rank[21]
but an interesting and marketable name has made it stuck in popular
consciousness as more memorable than many of its larger rivals. Jensen might
have been mistaken on Ultrasauros, but as a marketer he is difficult to beat.
Jim Jensen (1918–1998) standing next to a reconstruction
of the leg of "Ultrasaurus," later found to be chimerical. The
story of Ultrasaurus also exemplifies well how taxonomic classifications are
still changing quite often in paleontology to this day. Many other genera have
had to face the fate that poor Brontosaurus did in the beginning of 20th
Century. Most of these reclassifications have, however, passed by without much attention from the larger non-expert public. For example, few probably know that our best known Brachisaurus (B. brancai) is today known as "Giraffatitan".[22]
However,
every once and a while some iconic dinosaur genus is about to end up in the
jaws of taxonomy, springing larger public attention as well. This happened a
couple of years ago with Triceratops, when a new research was circling the
news, claiming that the creatures of the genus were in fact younger individuals
of a different genus of dinosaur, Torosaurus.[23]
Many news articles were proclaiming in the headlines that Triceratops “had never
existed”.[24]
Heated debate on the topic is still going strong among paleontologists, but the
fate of Bronto, for the relief of many, is not going to fall upon Triceratops.
Triceratops was named in 1889 and Torosaurus in 1891 (both by O.C. Marsh), and
so with the same taxonomic rules which originally deprived Brontosaurus of its
official status, "Triceratops" would be the primary name. The Return of Brontosaurus During Spring 2015, a new buzz generated in the scientific community. A Portugese-Italian-English
research group published their 300-page paper on an enormous phylogenetic
analysis, done on the family diplodocidae,
renewing its taxonomy. Especially worth notice were the results on
Brontosaurus: according to the analysis, there is enough difference to separate
it from Apatosaurus as its own valid taxonomical classification.[25]
"Brontosaurus" has therefore returned as a valid genus. Actually, according to the research we
now know three species’ of Brontosaurus (type species B. excelsus, B. parvus
and B. yahnapin).[26]
Apatosaurus on the other hand includes two species’ (type species A. ajax and A. louisiana).[27]
It should be noticed that the original aim of the research was not restoring the Brontosaurus name – the researchers most likely are not enthusiastic
brontophiles nor part of a toy maker conspiracy. The return of Brontosaurus as a valid scientific class is mostly a curiosity in an extremely precise
analysis, which required an enormous amount of work, aiming at clearing out the
whole taxonomy of the diplodocidae-family.
Researchers used more fossil material in the analysis than any other work conducted
before, which also explains the differing results on Bronto. Even though a
common ancestor can be found for both Diplodocus
and Apatosaurus -subfamilies, the
relations between them have been poorly known before.[28] The new analytic research clarifies these lesser known family relations and
rearranges taxonomy in multiple places, especially with Apatosaurus-subfamily. Apatosaurus has turned out to be worthy of
its name, a deceptive lizard (gr. apatê,
deception or lie). Brontosaurus
might have been a curiosity in the research itself, but in the news flow and
social media it generated deserving attention.[29]
Brontophiles gained a new stranglehold on technical priority. Even Gould can be
imagined celebrating in his grave. His classic column on Brontosaurus’s behalf
might not have saved the creature from the claws of taxonomy, but the silent wish
presented there, on the name gaining official status one day, seems to have
been granted.[30]
It
could very well be that the festivities for Brontosaurus are premature. The
history of paleontology is full of namings and renamings. It often hangs on
chance which of the names stay in either scientific-technical use or in popular
consciousness. This is what Brontosaurus vs. Apatosaurus proves rather well.
After all, the question is of names, not of things. Paleontology studies the
creatures behind the names. Creatures – allegedly – stay the same, whatever the
name used. However, sometimes and in some contexts, even the names do matter. Once
again there is Brontosaurus. References Bakker, Robert T., Dinosaur Mid-Life Crisis. The Jurassic–Cretaceous
Transition in Wyoming and Colorado. In Lower and Middle Cretaceous
terrestrial ecosystems. Ed. Spencer J. Lucas, James I. Kirkland & John
W. Estep. New Mexico Museum of Natural History, Albuquerque 1998. Gould, Stephen Jay, Bully for
Brontosaurus. In Bully for Brontosaurus. Reflections in Natural History.
Norton, New York 1991. Jensen, J. A., Three New
Sauropod Dinosaurs from the Upper Jurassic of Colorado. Great Basin
Naturalist. Vol. 45, No. 4, 1985, 697–709. Kim, H. M., Cretaceous
dinosaurs from South Korea. Journal of the Geological Society of Korea. Vol.
19, No. 3, 1983, 115–126. Marsh, O. C., Notice of New
Dinosaurian Reptiles from the Jurassic Formation. American Journal
of Science. Vol. 14, 1877. Marsh, O. C., Notice of New
Jurassic Reptiles. American Journal of Science. Vol. 18, 1879. Riggs, Elmer S., Structure and
Relationships of Ophistocoelian Dinosaurs, Part I. Field Columbian
Museum, Geological Series. Vol. 2, 1903, 165–196. Scanella, John B. &
Horner, John R., Torosaurus Marsh, 1891, is Triceratops Marsh,
1889 (Ceratopsidae: Chasmosaurinae). Synonymy through Ontogeny. Journal
Vertebrate of Paleontology. Vol. 3, No. 4, 2010, 1157–1168. Switek, Brian, My
Beloved Brontosaurus. On the Road with Old Bones, New Science, and Our
Favourite Dinosaurs. Scientific American/Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New
York, 2013. Tschopp, Emanuel, Mateus,
Octávio & Benson, Roger B. J., A specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic
revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sauropoda). PeerJ 3:e857, 2015. Woodruff, Casey & Foster,
John R., The fragile legacy of Amphicoelias fragillimus
(Dinosauria: Sauropoda; Morrison Formation - Latest Jurassic). PeerJ PrePrints3:e1037, 2015.
[1] "The Brontosaurus is Back," Scientific American, 7/iv/2015.↩
Comments
Post a Comment