This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
From the pdf, it seems like the year should be 2007, but if it turns out that it should be 2008, I'm not going to raise a stink about correcting it. J. Spencer (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think in cases like this it's usually the year of actual publication that gets listed, but I could be wrong. The paper was just published this week, online and elsewhere. It's definitely 2008. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dinogeorge and Dinogenera are using 2007 for the two new names from the issue, while Jerry Harris used 2008 in his DML posting. Someone's bound to bring it up sooner or later. J. Spencer (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking the image of the NAMAL mount needs to be replaced since it's outdated (portraying the animal as a diplodocine and not and apatosaurine). I would suggest using a picture of the WDC mount instead.
Good catch, unfortunately our selection of Supersaurus images on Commons is pretty paltry... [2] If somebody can find/release a creative commons licensed pic of the WDC mount that would be phenomenal. MMartyniuk (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, on images of Supersaurus here, Darren Naish used Lady of Hats's restoration in this article in his recent Dinosaur Discoveries book. FunkMonk (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this article states that 'Recent discoveries show Supersaurus to be a large relative of the familiar Apatosaurus', then why do both the taxobox and the article Diplodocid both list Supersaurus as a Diplodocine rather than an Apatosaurine? Surely something that is actively noted as being a larger relative of Apatosaurus would be an Apatosaurine? Or is this sentence just included because Apatosaurus is a relatively famous dinosaur, more famous than, say, Barosaurus or even Diplodocus, and it's important to note that they were related? Which seems odd, especially since the article says 'recent discoveries'. Basically, was Supersaurus chunky or lanky?
Somewhere in between. This is confusing as recent studies basically showed Apatosaurinae doesn't exist, but Apatosaurus is a basal diplodocid and other members form a grade leading toward Diplodocus. Supersaurus is something of a transitional form between bulky and lanky diplodocids. The discussion of classification was spread over several sections with the older info in the intro, so I consolidated and summarized the situation. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I just looked at the diplodocid page, and the bottom cladogram, after Whitlock, 2011, clearly shows this. So Apatosaurus is less derived than Diplodocus. Gotcha.--86.146.156.158 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if this is the case, wouldn't Barosaurus be more derived than Diplodocus? It seems a lot more gracile. Is this not the right place for this discussion?--86.146.156.158 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well according to most studies Barosaurus and Diplodocus are sister groups, so they're technically equally derived (i.e. it's arbitrary which one is placed at the 'top' of the cladogram). It may be that Diplo is more 'primitive' in body form than Baro--not sure we can say. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I didn't notice that on the cladogram sorry. Yes, it clearly has Diplodocus and Barosaurus as sister groups on two branches at the 'top/bottom' of the cladogram, just like the less derived Tornieria and Dinheirosaurus. Out of interest, where would something like Eobrontosaurus go? Would you say it was more or less derived than Apatosaurus? Or equally derived as with Baro and Diplo and...er..Torni and...Dinheiro?--86.146.156.158 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eobrontosaurus hasn't been included in many analyses separately from Apatosaurus, unfortunately. We will need someone to publish in detail exactly how it's different (if it is) from the various species of Apatosaurus before it can be coded for cladistic studies. So right now the answer would be unknown, but either near the base close to Apato or in a clade with Apato, most likely. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a bit nigglish but I can't help note the scale image comparing various sauropods has no human for scale as indicated in its caption. --Dracontes (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing how Hartman was one of the Co-Authors of Lovelace et al. (2007), which was used for the size estimate for Supersaurus on this article. I will edit the size of Supersaurus and add the source I provided above for the edit. As for the picture that can be figured out later. Any objections reply to this section please.
Well, we should not be citing context-free images, and the article does not contain any total length estimates for Supersaurus, so this qualifies as original research. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]