RT @EJR_Paleo_MSc: Originally, Brontosaurus was considered to be synonymous with Apatosaurus. A 2015 study concluded that Brontosaurus is a…
"セイスモサウルス" → ディプロドクス・ハロルムの現在の分類については、2015年の研究論文をご覧ください Tschopp et al. (2015) https://t.co/MgM9v5yFPP
@PercyStaffin @justjason78 @evolution_1859 @SearchCz @TakeThatDarwin @TJaytheist @KD29442825 @rspencer1762 @mickitiki So only one of those is outdated in 2015 the genus Brontosaurus was once again resurrected as a sister lineage to Apatosaurus. https://t.c
RT @RizkiusMaulanae: @smegolas @BradtheCurator It's been valid and distinct since 2015. https://t.co/BWy9FjYcN4 https://t.co/8J1eAsQAo9
RT @Hiro_DinoPaleo: ディプロドクス科の標本をそれぞれ分析して、分類の再検討を行なった2015年の論文 ブロントサウルスを復活させた論文といった方が有名かも? https://t.co/7m8eTXMpnr #ディプロドクス類復元教室 #恐竜復元教室
@algxtrading @Molson_Hart Nope, paper came out in 2015 that resurrected the genus in its own right, no longer a synonym for Apatasaurus. https://t.co/mdUrktMoMp
#地球ドラマチック #etv #Eテレ ディプロドクス属で現在有効な種と考えられているのは、少なくとも、カルネギイ D. carnegiiとハロルム D. hallorum(元"セイスモサウルス")の2種です(e.g. Tschopp et al. 2015 https://t.co/MgM9v5yFPP)。
@GCC_Mars @TFF1618 Pas aussi simple que ça, la synonymie de Brontosaurus et Apatosaurus est source de débat pas de consensus (au moins encore en 2015 avec cette étude https://t.co/gy2gMEYvJE) pour plus d'actualité sur ce cas il faut en discuter avec @Vince
RT @kristof_smeyers: @pressfuturist @EtheHerring woah woah, Brontosaurus made a triumphant return five years ago https://t.co/DSVST1pCQ0
@AshleyAlready @bigskyhawkdrvr Brontosaurus is *not* an Apatosaurus. https://t.co/JCiPUha3z8
@Wraith27143775 Though it has long been dead named for being misinterpreted as apatosaurus they actually reassessed it’s material and there’s enough distinctions that make it a valid genus again so it exists (again) https://t.co/WdKSqPPSLR
RT @ASWolniewicz: #MyFavoritePeerJPaper is a great example of how to combine careful anatomical observation, phylogenetic analysis and a nu…
RT @ASWolniewicz: #MyFavoritePeerJPaper is a great example of how to combine careful anatomical observation, phylogenetic analysis and a nu…
RT @ASWolniewicz: #MyFavoritePeerJPaper is a great example of how to combine careful anatomical observation, phylogenetic analysis and a nu…
RT @ASWolniewicz: #MyFavoritePeerJPaper is a great example of how to combine careful anatomical observation, phylogenetic analysis and a nu…
RT @ASWolniewicz: #MyFavoritePeerJPaper is a great example of how to combine careful anatomical observation, phylogenetic analysis and a nu…
#MyFavoritePeerJPaper is a great example of how to combine careful anatomical observation, phylogenetic analysis and a numerical approach in order to establish the phylogeny and taxonomy of extinct organisms, in this case diplodocid sauropod dinosaurs! 🦕ht
https://t.co/TiFjHOdg2B eu li... eu li essa porra inteira
RT @thePeerJ: This #FossilFriday we revisit a specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Saur…
RT @PeerJLife: This #FossilFriday we revisit a specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sau…
RT @MikeTaylor: Tschopp et al. 2015 is the single most important paper published on sauropods since the great monpgraphs of the early 20th…
RT @MikeTaylor: Tschopp et al. 2015 is the single most important paper published on sauropods since the great monpgraphs of the early 20th…
RT @MikeTaylor: Tschopp et al. 2015 is the single most important paper published on sauropods since the great monpgraphs of the early 20th…
RT @PeerJLife: This #FossilFriday we revisit a specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sau…
RT @MikeTaylor: Tschopp et al. 2015 is the single most important paper published on sauropods since the great monpgraphs of the early 20th…
RT @MikeTaylor: Tschopp et al. 2015 is the single most important paper published on sauropods since the great monpgraphs of the early 20th…
Tschopp et al. 2015 is the single most important paper published on sauropods since the great monpgraphs of the early 20th Century (Hatcher 1901, Gilmore 1936, Osborn and Mook 1923, etc.) I just LOVE that the whole lavishly illustrated 300 pages of it is
RT @PeerJLife: This #FossilFriday we revisit a specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sau…
This #FossilFriday we revisit a specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) See the full PeerJ article - https://t.co/Vti8063ZiU #Paleontology #Taxonomy https://t.co/dCmGKuRTuk
This #FossilFriday we revisit a specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) See the full PeerJ article - https://t.co/tZExn9alhs #Paleontology #Taxonomy https://t.co/EXlAlP4YpE
RT @RizkiusMaulanae: @smegolas @BradtheCurator It's been valid and distinct since 2015. https://t.co/BWy9FjYcN4 https://t.co/8J1eAsQAo9
@smegolas @BradtheCurator It's been valid and distinct since 2015. https://t.co/BWy9FjYcN4 https://t.co/8J1eAsQAo9
@TPixel55 @SpahnCameron Diplodocus hallorum is the only diplodocine species with vertical mid-caudal neural spines. The other diplodocines, including Diplodocus longus, are found to have slightly posterodorsally directed neural spines instead. https://t.c
Mais les 2 derniers n'ont été utilisés que sur l'original, pas sur les moulages. Et d'après une étude parue en 2015, le crâne ne serait même pas du Diplodocus, mais un autre genre : Galeamopus. Du coup on ne connaît peut être AUCUN crâne de Diplodocus! 📝 h
@PPaleoartist @tyrannoraptoran here’s a *very* simplified timeline showing when Brontosaurus became a valid genus again actually a few years ago, and here’s the paper that actually made the split https://t.co/ypQh8zFmkH https://t.co/9wiewiDFFC
RT @hirolichyi10: ディプロドクス・ハロルム Diplodocus hallorum USNM 10865 D. hallorumの事は、元"セイスモサウルス"と呼んだ方が通りは良いかもしれません。 Tschopp et al. (2015) https:…
@JoshuaGrubbsPhD I looked it up in the interim and apparently the Brontosaurus genus was originally miscategorized under Apatosaurus but then was separated out in 2015 into its own genus. https://t.co/wDZLDOAH6D
I haven't read this so I am just gonna put this here https://t.co/Gyj0GH77Fo Ini sumber yang meng-klasifikasikan kalau Brontosaurus itu genus sendiri, berbeda dengan Apatosaurus.
RT @marioquiron: Fuentes: Dinosaurios, Noticias de Ciencia, estudio en PeerJ https://t.co/bXzaf25Cbo, imágenes tomadas de internet #Jueves…
Fuentes: Dinosaurios, Noticias de Ciencia, estudio en PeerJ https://t.co/bXzaf25Cbo, imágenes tomadas de internet #JuevesDeDinosaurios 21/21 #👁️ https://t.co/ec0VA8aoNV
나의 공룡세계에서는 아파토사우루스=브론토사우루스인데 2015년 연구에서 아예 다른 속으로 분류되었다고 한다 충격 https://t.co/dTrncG1rJG
@gabriel_silly @Sophiesaurus98 @LtColonelMisato @Magara1954 It's not definite. Look / V https://t.co/s1fjafEFTD
@LtColonelMisato @Magara1954 Brontosaurus is actually considered a valid genus again as of this paper’s publication! https://t.co/gwFmuxATYp
RT @EJR_Paleo: Originally, Brontosaurus was considered to be synonymous with Apatosaurus. A 2015 study concluded that Brontosaurus is a val…
@Michael_Tomlin_ @king_tyranno @ArminReindl @Strangeandlosts Brontosaurus history can be confusing, we know that the animal existed, there was just debate on how to call it. After this paper we now consider it a valid genus: https://t.co/sWvQTfup4u
RT @EJR_Paleo: Originally, Brontosaurus was considered to be synonymous with Apatosaurus. A 2015 study concluded that Brontosaurus is a val…
Originally, Brontosaurus was considered to be synonymous with Apatosaurus. A 2015 study concluded that Brontosaurus is a valid genus of sauropod distinct from Apatosaurus, but not all paleontologists agree with this division. (1/2) https://t.co/iMRF5bPBNM
RT @SenhorRaposa: I don't understand much of the study but it sounds convincing. https://t.co/zQesrLdkJb
I don't understand much of the study but it sounds convincing. https://t.co/zQesrLdkJb
@D77628384 https://t.co/H9HGzOkbse そいやディクラエオサウルス類(を含む竜脚類)の頭骨画像が見つかりましたよ。Bがディクラエオの全上顎骨、Aカマラ、Cカアテドクス、Dガレアモプス、Eディプロ。 https://t.co/D6kz2DjMB2
@Epicureo64 Eso si te fías de los métodos estadísticos para extraer árboles filogenéticos, que hay quien los critica. El paper está aquí en abierto: https://t.co/EApxxzditW
@SinuheDiogenes @AgarthaEmma Brontosaurus sí existió. https://t.co/KJoHe8pnaT https://t.co/FlPREXmGrM
@Tricerasun1353 ディプロドクス科の恐竜の標本については、この論文を読めば何とかなるよ https://t.co/7m8eTXMpnr
@Tricerasun1353 ロングスは疑問名になったけど、その解釈でOKよ https://t.co/4V9krMVcwI
ディプロドクス・ハロルム Diplodocus hallorum USNM 10865 D. hallorumの事は、元"セイスモサウルス"と呼んだ方が通りは良いかもしれません。 Tschopp et al. (2015) https://t.co/7m8eTY40M1 Gilmore (1932) https://t.co/nqtGPnXbMd
Just a few years later, brontosaurus is recognised as distinct, albeit related. https://t.co/4rMKiacHpc
RT @kristof_smeyers: @pressfuturist @EtheHerring woah woah, Brontosaurus made a triumphant return five years ago https://t.co/DSVST1pCQ0
blessed
RT @kristof_smeyers: this is now a brontosaurus appreciation account enjoy https://t.co/BgTZG4pnMl
this is now a brontosaurus appreciation account enjoy https://t.co/BgTZG4pnMl
@pressfuturist @EtheHerring woah woah, Brontosaurus made a triumphant return five years ago https://t.co/DSVST1pCQ0
@DMantarctica @ericsteig It's gone back and forth, but as far as I'm aware, it's currently considered valid, thanks to a 2015 study (below): https://t.co/hQCXZQV7l5
@kiddopediatv It made a comeback actually since 2015 https://t.co/BWy9FjG3yW https://t.co/Spyz1qLNfF
@charlesbarzallo In case you didn't find it, the Tschopp et al. paper is here: https://t.co/CBmhtRbRI7 With free access! It's a massive review of not only Brontosaurus but the rest of the members of its family. It's a long one, but a good detailed study!
Spoiler! The paleontological community apparently disagrees! An influential 2015 paper argued that they were distinct species; Prothero admires that study but says he remains convinced that they're the same. https://t.co/pP4UfcGV6O
RT @hirolichyi10: ディプロドクス科の標本をそれぞれ分析して、分類の再検討を行なった2015年の論文 ブロントサウルスを復活させた論文といった方が有名かも? https://t.co/7m8eTXMpnr #ディプロドクス類復元教室 #恐竜復元教室
RT @hirolichyi10: ディプロドクス科の標本をそれぞれ分析して、分類の再検討を行なった2015年の論文 ブロントサウルスを復活させた論文といった方が有名かも? https://t.co/7m8eTXMpnr #ディプロドクス類復元教室 #恐竜復元教室
RT @hirolichyi10: ディプロドクス科の標本をそれぞれ分析して、分類の再検討を行なった2015年の論文 ブロントサウルスを復活させた論文といった方が有名かも? https://t.co/7m8eTXMpnr #ディプロドクス類復元教室 #恐竜復元教室
RT @hirolichyi10: アンフィコエリアス・アルトゥスの位置についてはこの研究論文が最新の筈 https://t.co/pT4MumIzqT
RT @hirolichyi10: ディプロドクス科の標本をそれぞれ分析して、分類の再検討を行なった2015年の論文 ブロントサウルスを復活させた論文といった方が有名かも? https://t.co/7m8eTXMpnr #ディプロドクス類復元教室 #恐竜復元教室
RT @hirolichyi10: ディプロドクス科の標本をそれぞれ分析して、分類の再検討を行なった2015年の論文 ブロントサウルスを復活させた論文といった方が有名かも? https://t.co/7m8eTXMpnr #ディプロドクス類復元教室 #恐竜復元教室
この論文。読んでみると中々面白いですね。ディンヘイロがスーパーの統一された事や、ディプロドクス科が白亜紀前期まで生きていたとか…
RT @hirolichyi10: ディプロドクス科の標本をそれぞれ分析して、分類の再検討を行なった2015年の論文 ブロントサウルスを復活させた論文といった方が有名かも? https://t.co/7m8eTXMpnr #ディプロドクス類復元教室 #恐竜復元教室
アンフィコエリアス・アルトゥスの位置についてはこの研究論文が最新の筈
#Brontosaurus is back! View graphical abstract https://t.co/x1vdpnPWXT & full article https://t.co/A0GCFOZaAm
RT @dinosven: Diplodocus skeleton at @DenverMuseumNS. The specimen (DMNS 1494) was initially referred to Diplodocus longus and is currently…
@yamamotoyama555 ディプロドクス亜科の亜成体 CM 11255の記載論文で、彼らの亜成体と成体の吻部の形態の違いはブラウザーとグレーザーの違いを示唆している可能性ありとしてます https://t.co/u3wtmijvPi https://t.co/pxvi6TEBCz
@maxhummus @andy_nobes I can't discount the possibility; but so far there's been no sign of it. In truth, I wish there WAS a secondary market that would enable me to easily buy nicely printed and bound copies of giant papers like https://t.co/XDoT1B3odw
RT @thePeerJ: #PeerJ5Years (6/10) By the end of 2015 we had published 2,000+ peer-reviewed articles and preprints (inc. 2 of @altmetric's 2…
#PeerJ5Years (6/10) By the end of 2015 we had published 2,000+ peer-reviewed articles and preprints (inc. 2 of @altmetric's 2015 articles of the year: https://t.co/HBZQjUwaY8 and https://t.co/uXygzW1Vpq) and @thePeerJ was listed in the @webofscience offici
RT @dinosven: Diplodocus skeleton at @DenverMuseumNS. The specimen (DMNS 1494) was initially referred to Diplodocus longus and is currently…
RT @hirolichyi10: #冬休み子ども科学電話相談 ブロントサウルスという学名が復活した論文 恐竜の学名は難しい! https://t.co/pT4MumIzqT
RT @hirolichyi10: #冬休み子ども科学電話相談 ブロントサウルスという学名が復活した論文 恐竜の学名は難しい! https://t.co/pT4MumIzqT
RT @hirolichyi10: #冬休み子ども科学電話相談 ブロントサウルスという学名が復活した論文 恐竜の学名は難しい! https://t.co/pT4MumIzqT
RT @hirolichyi10: #冬休み子ども科学電話相談 ブロントサウルスという学名が復活した論文 恐竜の学名は難しい! https://t.co/pT4MumIzqT
RT @hirolichyi10: #冬休み子ども科学電話相談 ブロントサウルスという学名が復活した論文 恐竜の学名は難しい! https://t.co/pT4MumIzqT
RT @hirolichyi10: #冬休み子ども科学電話相談 ブロントサウルスという学名が復活した論文 恐竜の学名は難しい! https://t.co/pT4MumIzqT
#冬休み子ども科学電話相談 ブロントサウルスという学名が復活した論文 恐竜の学名は難しい! https://t.co/pT4MumIzqT
RT @hirolichyi10: #テンション上がる会 https://t.co/nMKoY7dKk9 ディプロドクス科には30m以上のディプロドクスやスーパーサウルスがいます
#テンション上がる会 https://t.co/nMKoY7dKk9 ディプロドクス科には30m以上のディプロドクスやスーパーサウルスがいます
RT @dinosven: Diplodocus skeleton at @DenverMuseumNS. The specimen (DMNS 1494) was initially referred to Diplodocus longus and is currently…
RT @dinosven: Diplodocus skeleton at @DenverMuseumNS. The specimen (DMNS 1494) was initially referred to Diplodocus longus and is currently…
RT @dinosven: Diplodocus skeleton at @DenverMuseumNS. The specimen (DMNS 1494) was initially referred to Diplodocus longus and is currently…
RT @dinosven: Diplodocus skeleton at @DenverMuseumNS. The specimen (DMNS 1494) was initially referred to Diplodocus longus and is currently…
RT @dinosven: Diplodocus skeleton at @DenverMuseumNS. The specimen (DMNS 1494) was initially referred to Diplodocus longus and is currently…
RT @dinosven: Diplodocus skeleton at @DenverMuseumNS. The specimen (DMNS 1494) was initially referred to Diplodocus longus and is currently…
RT @dinosven: Diplodocus skeleton at @DenverMuseumNS. The specimen (DMNS 1494) was initially referred to Diplodocus longus and is currently…