Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Diplodocidae Phylogeny by bricksmashtv Diplodocidae Phylogeny by bricksmashtv
So I threw this together real quick on TreeGraph 2 to test it out (wanted to pick a phylogeny I know very well that's also not that controversial). Nothing to crazy or special to talk about here. More phylogenies to come.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconkester14:
Kester14 Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2017  Student Digital Artist
shouldn't dinheirosaurus be a species of supersaurus.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Edited Jul 11, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
Geographic distance is a good reason to split them. Tschopp et. al. also finds enough morphological differences to split them. And taxonomy papers don't get much more detailed than that.
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
does not have to be. Remember the good old lumper v splitter debate. I for one will not lump it.
Reply
:iconandreof-gallery:
AndreOF-Gallery Featured By Owner Edited Jul 4, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I forgot to comment: wouldn't it be good to ad at the dinosaur specimens data matrix a post date of each specimens? I found kinda hard to track what is knew and what was already there, specially sauropod category.

Edit: would not be necessary for the old one just the new.
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
oh you mean for the specimens list? Not a bad idea now that I think about it xD
Reply
:iconandreof-gallery:
AndreOF-Gallery Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
specimens list is a much better name indeed :)
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
lol indeed
Reply
:iconthederpasaur:
TheDerpasaur Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
neat
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
thanks!
Reply
:iconthederpasaur:
TheDerpasaur Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
np
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Maybe I'm misinterpreting this (fairly new to taxonomy) but:
I see that Diplodocus carnegii groups with Seismosaurus hallorum and ''Kirkwood'' , but D.longus is more basal than that grouping. Would it then not make more sense to merge D. carnegii and S.hallorum in one genus while separating D.longus and D.carnegii? Or am I misunderstanding how genera work and applying a way to cladistical approach?
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Jul 13, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
quietly fixes whaaaat I don't know what you're talking about...
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Jul 13, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Oh kay
Reply
:iconandreof-gallery:
AndreOF-Gallery Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Let me try explaning:

If this classification is correct "Diplodocus" carnegii can't be Diplodocus if it is closer to another genus then the type species of the genus Diplodocus, you were correct. But for the same reason it can't be Seismosaurus either because Seismosaurus hallorum is closer to the Kirkwood diplodocid then to "D". carnegii. So I guess you are kind of correct.

But both seismosaurus and carnegii are from the late jurassic north america and Kirkwood was from early cretaceous South Africa couldn't they be in the same genus and part of S. hallorum found its way into Africa in the earliest part of the cretaceous and generated that taxon?

Well I also want to know about this (in my case Parasaurolophus and Charonosaurus, it seams like P. tubicen is closer to Charonosaurus then to any other Parasaurolophus species), I pretend asking this to my phylogenetic systematic professor this Thursday and I will comment back.
(I know you didn't make this question but I think it is a plausible one that I'm asking myself and maybe you would to)
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
In that case Diplodocus longus needs a new generic name, either that, or they are all lumped into one (very problematic).
Reply
:iconandreof-gallery:
AndreOF-Gallery Featured By Owner Edited Jul 4, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Important:following this cladogram: Diplodocus longus (type species of Diplodocus) is valid, "Diplodocus carnegii" is closer to (Seismosaurus + Kirkwood diplodocid) then to D. longus.

There is a problem surrounding Diplodocus longus that is its validity, since it is know from scarse material some considerate it a doubtful species (same case as Stegosaurus armatus) and want to make D. carnegii the type species of the genus. This is not the case here because we are considering both species valid.

Diplodocus longus don't need a new generic name, the one that needs a new genus (Something carnegii).

It is really problematic to put them all in one genus, a genus that is alive for around 20 million years, and genus is another complicated problem. I wouldn't do it especially because I like splinting genus.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Edited Jul 11, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
It's a mess either way. Might get simpler though, when you take the juvenile Seismosaurus material out of "D. longus" as Tschopp and GSP did.

Makes sense to split Diplodocus just because of how long it appears to have lasted. Heck, Brachiosaurus probably needs to be split too, and that's even before you look at the more obscure/unpublished specimens. The Felch Quarry skull is a good bit older than B. altithorax.
Reply
:iconandreof-gallery:
AndreOF-Gallery Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Taking the Seismosaurus material of Diplodocus longus preatty much puts a nail in its coffin, rigth? So carnegii arises to type genus of Diplodocus, so we can have Seismosaurus and Kirkwood as a thing.

Yep I agree with you, some genera are tucked with to many material and probably need to be split.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
No, there is also other stuff in D. longus including the type material and some referred, that is not Seismosaurus.

D. longus is potentially still valid. The Seismosaurus material is some AMNH and UNSM specimens including the partial tail with 4 fused caudals.
Reply
:iconandreof-gallery:
AndreOF-Gallery Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Wait: D.longus validity was questioned after or before taking the Seismosaurus material out of it?

What I understood was that it was doubtful and by taking the Seismosaurus  material out of it pretty much puts the final nail. Or it was valid and them after taking the Siesmosaurus material it has its validity questioned?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconglavenychus:
Glavenychus Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Brontosaurus, Brontosaurus everywhere man!!
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
yes
Reply
:iconmajestic-colossus:
Majestic-Colossus Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2017
Well done!
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
thanks!
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Edited Jul 3, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
''Scientists now state that given the incompleteness of the fossil record, there must have lived at least 10 thousand species of Brontosaurus in the upper Morrison formation'' - 

Jk, well done! I like it.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
Not only that, there are also probably around 5,000 as-yet unknown species of Hornerfowlerus given the incompleteness of the Montana State formation. :P
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Oh yes.
Reply
:iconpeteridish:
PeteriDish Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
HAHAHAHAHAHA XD I'm dead!!! XD
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Sorry I didn't mean to kill you, I promise :D (Big Grin) 
Reply
:iconpeteridish:
PeteriDish Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
I am only figuratively dead, don't worry XD
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
*puts defibrilators away*
Reply
:iconpeteridish:
PeteriDish Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
:rofl:
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
lol thank you
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2017
So...many...Brontosaurus...species...
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
nah, it's totally fine xD
Reply
:iconpaleoaustin:
PaleoAustin Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
I love it!! Very well done. :D
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
thank you!
Reply
:iconcaptainjimmbob:
captainjimmbob Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2017
"Nothing too crazy" 9 species of Brontosaurus
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
okay fair point xD
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
Heil Der Tschoppinator!  :XD:  On the one hand, there's plain old splitting - and then there's Tschopping!
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Der Tschoppinator is my favorite.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
July 3, 2017
Image Size
378 KB
Resolution
3089×2346
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
709
Favourites
31 (who?)
Comments
43
Downloads
5

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.