Talk:Ammosaurus

Merge to Anchisaurus
I think that the time is right to discuss merging Anchisaurus and Ammosaurus. For historical background, there are five skeletons of sauropodomorph in the Portland Formation. One of them (the early specimen, 1818 or so) might be a true prosauropod (Yates 2004), but it's hard to tell because it was recovered after a blasting operation. The other four (A. polyzelus from Springfield and the other three from a quarry in CT) used to be split into several taxa, but a consensus has emerged among researchers that there is no difference between diagnostic specimens (Fedak and Galton 2007; Sereno 1999, 2007; Yates 2004 and in press). The question has been which are diagnostic. If Sereno (2007) is correct and the type of Anchisaurus is not diagnostic, then the other three are folded into Ammosaurus, the next available name. If Yates (2004, in press) is correct and the type of Anchisaurus is diagnostic, then all four are folded into Anchisaurus. Either way, it appears we're carrying one Portland Formation sauropodomorph (Sauropoda has been subtly redefined to excluded most potential members that were formerly good prosauropods because of the instability) too many. J. Spencer (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a merge may be warranted... but if so, which way? According to the Paleobiology Database, Fedak and Galton synonymized Ammosaurus with Anchisaurus. (They also re-combined Megadactylus back to Anchisaurus). But papers apparently as late as 2009 are still treating them separately. The cladogram in The Dinosauria 2nd shows the two as close pairs, and the text mentions the 1999 Sereno synonymy, but states "The fact that these two taxa are sister groups is consistent with such a synonymy, but clear non-age-related differences between these two taxa (e.g., the emarginated proximal portion of the pubis in Anchisaurus versus emargination of the proximal end of the ischium in Ammosaurus; and the reduced ungual on pedal digit 1 in Anchisaurus, which is not seen in Ammosaurus) suggest that it is premature to regard them as the same genus with "Ammosaurus" as the adult. Also, a 1m long juvenile referred to Ammosaurus major has a broad metatarsus, while it is slender in the larger Anchisaurus (Galton 1976b)."  Firsfron of Ronchester  15:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Galton must have changed his mind between whenever he and Upchurch turned in that chapter for the Dinosauria II and his publication with Fedak in 2007. All four articles since 2004 that are specifically about Anchisaurus and Ammosaurus (Yates 2004, in press; Fedak and Galton 2007; Sereno 2007) have come to the conclusion that the CT specimens are of the same animal, which is important because Anchisaurus is usually depicted from a better specimen from the CT quarry, and it's from these three skeletons that the broad foot/narrow foot dichotomy was formed (and as for adult morphology, none of the four are probably adult, but to be fair growth stages weren't the *in-thing* until a couple of years ago.
 * Bizarre about Megadactylus. I have all the respect for the PBDB but sometimes there's an entry that someone missed: Megadactylus being recombined with Anchisaurus is meaningless, because it's the objective synonym (Anchisaurus being the eventual replacement name for preoccupied Megadactylus). There was an edit war about that a few years ago on Anchisaurus, in fact; an otherwise helpful editor trying to provide an etymology had an insistence that Anchisaurus was coined in an attempt to unite Ammosaurus and Megadactylus (which would be awfully forward-thinking on Marsh's part when he wouldn't name Ammosaurus until 1891, 6 years after he coined Anchisaurus). J. Spencer (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the Fedak and Galton paper, but I don't doubt you. Yates has done a ton of work on sauropodomorphs in the last six or eight years, cleaning up the "classic prosauropod" mess, and since he is supporting sinking Ammo into Anchi, we probably should, too (still, one thing that drove me crazy when prepping the Massospondylus article for GAN and FAC was that Yates' opinions kept changing. I suppose that's just the way things work, being science and all, but Yates and Kitching (2003), Bonnan and Yates (2007), and Yates (2007) all gave very different opinions on classification). The other thing that you just hint at above is the age of the conclusions in Galton and Upchurch, which could have been outdated when it was published in 2004. Obviously, it took a long time to compile a work as comprehensive as The Dinosauria, we really don't know when that section was submitted, and 2004 was a few years ago anyway... Firsfron of Ronchester  03:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem was the definition of Sauropda (Brachiosaurus > Plateosaurus); when it turned out that there wasn't necessarily a Prosauropoda of any significance, there was suddenly an ever-changing string of names between Plateosaurus and trad sauropods. The instability wouldn't have been quite as dramatic if it was all contained within a monophyletic Prosauropoda. J. Spencer (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, even Yates, who hacked away at the dead brush in "Prosauropoda" until there was nothing left but Plateosauridae, did admit there is still possibly a core monophyletic prosauropod clade (Plateosauridae, Riojasauridae, and Massospondylidae). Still, as you say, a stem-based definition of Sauropoda with Brachiosaurus>Plateosaurus may result in traditional prosauropods (like Masso) ending up instead in Sauropoda. Do you know what the redefinition will be? Will it be a node-based definition? Firsfron of Ronchester  05:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per before, except Melanorosaurus instead of Plateosaurus, so Sauropoda is everything closer to Saltasaurus (I should have said Saltasaurus before) than Melanorosaurus. J. Spencer (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (BTW, take a gander at the DYK quote at the top of this page. Ironic, no?) Firsfron of Ronchester  05:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that was then, as they say. Marsh ended up making four species for the four specimens, and then von Huene was unsatisfied with the two genera, sinking Anchisaurus into Thecodontosaurus and renaming Marsh's Anchisaurus colurus to Yaleosaurus, giving three genera. J. Spencer (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So, it looks like no one else is planning to weigh in with the merger proposal. I think it's safe to merge. Firsfron of Ronchester  18:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have any further thoughts? J. Spencer (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This still isn't merged? Firsfron of Ronchester  12:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Seven years later...) This STILL isn't merged? Did we just never get around to it? Does literally anybody support Ammosaurus anymore? The entire article as written reads like somebody thinks scientists somehow engage in an active debate with their past selves rather than, you know, updating their conclusions based on new data. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)