versus Apatosaurus does provide an interesting story in itself and does raise important issues about the public presentation of science—and thus do I hope to snatch victory (or at least interest) from the jaws of defeat (or triviality).
Brontosaurus versus Apatosaurus is a direct legacy of the most celebrated feud in the history of vertebrate paleontology—Cope versus Marsh. As E. D. Cope and O. C. Marsh vied for the glory of finding spectacular dinosaurs and mammals in the American West, they fell into a pattern of rush and superficiality born of their intense competition and mutual dislike. Both wanted to bag as many names as possible, so they published too quickly, often with inadequate descriptions, careless study, and poor illustrations. In this unseemly rush, they frequently gave names to fragmentary material that could not be well characterized and sometimes described the same creature twice by failing to make proper distinctions among the fragments. (For a good history of this issue, see D. S. Berman and J. S. McIntosh, 1978. These authors point out that both Cope and Marsh often described and officially named a species when only a few bones had been excavated and most of the skeleton remained in the ground.)
In 1877, in a typically rushed note, O. C. Marsh named and described Apatosaurus ajax in two paragraphs without illustrations (“Notice of New Dinosaurian Reptiles from the Jurassic Formation,” American Journal of Science , 1877). Although he noted that this “gigantic dinosaur…is represented in the Yale Museum by a nearly complete skeleton in excellent preservation,” Marsh described only the vertebral column. In 1879, he published another page of information and presented the first sketchy illustrations—of pelvis, shoulder blade, and a few vertebrae (“Principal Characters of American Jurassic Dinosaurs, Part II,” American Journal of Science , 1879). He also took this opportunity to pour some vitriol upon Mr. Cope, claiming that Cope had misnamed and misdescribed several forms in his haste. “Conclusions based on such work,” Marsh asserts, “will naturally be received with distrust by anatomists.”
In another 1879 article, Marsh introduced the genus Brontosaurus , with two paragraphs (even shorter than those initially devoted to Apatosaurus ), no illustrations, and just a few comments on the pelvis and vertebrae. He did estimate the length of his new beast at seventy to eighty feet, in comparison with some fifty feet for Apatosaurus (“Notice of New Jurassic Reptiles,” American Journal of Science , 1879).
Marsh’s famous illustration of the complete skeleton of Brontosaurus . FROM THE SIXTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 1895. NEG. NO. 328654. COURTESY DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY SERVICES, AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY .
Marsh considered Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus as distinct but closely related genera within the larger family of sauropod dinosaurs. Brontosaurus soon became everyone’s typical sauropod—indeed the canonical herbivorous dinosaur of popular consciousness, from the Sinclair logo to Walt Disney’s Fantasia —for a simple and obvious reason. Marsh’s Brontosaurus skeleton, from the most famous of all dinosaur localities at Como Bluff Quarry 10, Wyoming, remains to this day “one of the most complete sauropod skeletons ever found” (quoted from Berman and McIntosh, cited previously). Marsh mounted the skeleton at Yale and often published his spectacular reconstruction of the entire animal. ( Apatosaurus , meanwhile, remained a pelvis and some vertebrae.) In his great summary work, The Dinosaurs of North America , Marsh wrote (1896): “The best-known genus of the Atlantosauridae is Brontosaurus , described by the writer in 1879, the type specimen being a nearly entire skeleton, by far the most complete of any of the Sauropoda yet discovered.” Brontosaurus also became the source of the old stereotype, now so strongly challenged, of slow, stupid,
Brontosaurus versus Apatosaurus is a direct legacy of the most celebrated feud in the history of vertebrate paleontology—Cope versus Marsh. As E. D. Cope and O. C. Marsh vied for the glory of finding spectacular dinosaurs and mammals in the American West, they fell into a pattern of rush and superficiality born of their intense competition and mutual dislike. Both wanted to bag as many names as possible, so they published too quickly, often with inadequate descriptions, careless study, and poor illustrations. In this unseemly rush, they frequently gave names to fragmentary material that could not be well characterized and sometimes described the same creature twice by failing to make proper distinctions among the fragments. (For a good history of this issue, see D. S. Berman and J. S. McIntosh, 1978. These authors point out that both Cope and Marsh often described and officially named a species when only a few bones had been excavated and most of the skeleton remained in the ground.)
In 1877, in a typically rushed note, O. C. Marsh named and described Apatosaurus ajax in two paragraphs without illustrations (“Notice of New Dinosaurian Reptiles from the Jurassic Formation,” American Journal of Science , 1877). Although he noted that this “gigantic dinosaur…is represented in the Yale Museum by a nearly complete skeleton in excellent preservation,” Marsh described only the vertebral column. In 1879, he published another page of information and presented the first sketchy illustrations—of pelvis, shoulder blade, and a few vertebrae (“Principal Characters of American Jurassic Dinosaurs, Part II,” American Journal of Science , 1879). He also took this opportunity to pour some vitriol upon Mr. Cope, claiming that Cope had misnamed and misdescribed several forms in his haste. “Conclusions based on such work,” Marsh asserts, “will naturally be received with distrust by anatomists.”
In another 1879 article, Marsh introduced the genus Brontosaurus , with two paragraphs (even shorter than those initially devoted to Apatosaurus ), no illustrations, and just a few comments on the pelvis and vertebrae. He did estimate the length of his new beast at seventy to eighty feet, in comparison with some fifty feet for Apatosaurus (“Notice of New Jurassic Reptiles,” American Journal of Science , 1879).
Marsh’s famous illustration of the complete skeleton of Brontosaurus . FROM THE SIXTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 1895. NEG. NO. 328654. COURTESY DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY SERVICES, AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY .
Marsh considered Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus as distinct but closely related genera within the larger family of sauropod dinosaurs. Brontosaurus soon became everyone’s typical sauropod—indeed the canonical herbivorous dinosaur of popular consciousness, from the Sinclair logo to Walt Disney’s Fantasia —for a simple and obvious reason. Marsh’s Brontosaurus skeleton, from the most famous of all dinosaur localities at Como Bluff Quarry 10, Wyoming, remains to this day “one of the most complete sauropod skeletons ever found” (quoted from Berman and McIntosh, cited previously). Marsh mounted the skeleton at Yale and often published his spectacular reconstruction of the entire animal. ( Apatosaurus , meanwhile, remained a pelvis and some vertebrae.) In his great summary work, The Dinosaurs of North America , Marsh wrote (1896): “The best-known genus of the Atlantosauridae is Brontosaurus , described by the writer in 1879, the type specimen being a nearly entire skeleton, by far the most complete of any of the Sauropoda yet discovered.” Brontosaurus also became the source of the old stereotype, now so strongly challenged, of slow, stupid,
Similar Books
