BC's Response to GP's Comments on BC's Utetitan blog

Below is Greg Paul’s response to my blog. He tried posting it to the website; however, his inclusion of a link to one of his books violated the Fossil Crates Terms of Service, so it couldn’t be posted. Alas, there is no way for people to reply directly to posts on the site; it isn’t an actual blog site like SVPOW!, but it does the job we need it to. Thus, I have posted his email below, broken into sections so I can reply. I removed a few sentences where he agreed with my post (I’m not here to pat my back this time :-)). Oh yeah, I also included a few responses to Mickey Mortimer’s comments.

The takeaway? He failed to address essentially all of the errors I pointed out. The outstanding questions and observations I had regarding Paul 2025 appear in Appendix 1 below for your convenience. He mainly wanted the world to know that he felt I had traced a scapula wrong. I’ll let you judge!

Paragraphs in italics are pastes of Greg’s post. Any bold, italics are me adding emphasis. I reply beneath the italics. 

(Scroll to the bottom for info he didn't send in his comments to my blog)

His first issue with my blog:

“Hey Brian and everyone. Brian makes some points, but others not so much. I will make a major objection to his The Figure We Deserved version of my Fig. 1. I don’t know what is going on with what he is doing with the 15560 scapula. But my drawing was direct from Fig. 5D in D’Emic et al. 2011 and is entirely good. The way it is shown by Brian can leave the impression that the figure is way off, which it is not.”

Below is the caption for Paul 2025’s now-famous outline figure. After reading his Figure 1 caption, I ask the reader to decide if you would:

a) Use Gilmore 1922 and Gilmore 1946 only

Or

b) Use D’Emic et al. 2011 after reading these statements (bold emphasis mine):

Figure 1. Same scale comparison of postcranial elements of Maastrichtian North American titanosaurids, entire bar equals 1 m (this figure is more accurate to a common scale than Figure 5 in D’Emic et al., 2011), appendicular elements are from the left side (reversed when necessary), dotted lines indicate missing bone, arrows point to taxonomic characters discussed

in text and listed in diagnoses as numbered; traced from published images as indicated. (A) Scapulae in lateral view: left, early Maastrichtian Alamosaurus sanjuanensis holotype USNM 10846 (Plate 1 in Gilmore, 1922, Plate 10 in Gilmore, 1946; Figure 5C in D’Emic et al., 2011, bone is not as complete); …..  right, late Maastrichtian U. zellaguymondeweyae holotype USNM 15560 (Figure 5D in D’Emic et al., 2011, contrast to Figure 6 in Gilmore, 1946)”

I presumed Paul used Plate 1 in Gilmore, 1922, and Plate 10 in Gilmore, 1946 because:

1 - Paul writes that his Figure 1 is more accurate than Figure 5 in D’Emic et al., 2011, which, to me, meant there is no way he would have used a figure that wasn’t as accurate as the one he drew.

2 - Paul uses a comma ‘,’ between the two Gilmore papers and a semicolon’; before saying D’Emic’s figured bone is not as complete.

3 - Paul writes, “...(Figure 5D in D’Emic et al., 2011, contrast to Figure 6 in Gilmore, 1946)” which I read as him once more pointing out the difference between the two figures, and reasonably presumed, based on other errors throughout, that he had phrased it backward based on his opening sentence. 

Thus, I presumed he was saying D’Emic’s figure wasn’t good, and therefore I never suspected he used it.

How do you read it? Did you take it that he actually used D’Emic’s figure as his base?  I took him at his word.

His second issue with my blog

“My comment on p. 205 that these are the most accurate images yet done pertains specifically to the two scapulae, these being the only images that are derived both from recent previously published photos that all can see, with bits and pieces that seem to have gone missing over the decades taken into account.”

The issue here is that none of the above is apparent (at least to me) in Paul’s sentences here:

“Recent photographs of the USNM 10486 and USNM 15560 scapulae (Figures 5C and5D in D’Emic et al., 2011) show the bones have been somewhat degraded over the decades (compared to Plate 1 in Gilmore, 1922, and Figure 6 in Gilmore, 1946). The new illustrations are the most accurate images of the fossils yet produced.”

I argue that Gilmore instructed his artist to illustrate it as it should have been, not exactly as it was. So many people did this back then (I’ll link to my blog on that when it is done). In my opinion, there is no loss of bone, the photographs accurately capture what was present when found. We haven’t lost an unreasonable amount of bone. I wonder if there are historical photos in the archives. I’ll dig around.

Issue 3 Paul has with my blog

“For the purposes of differential diagnostics of this paper, the profiles in Fig. 1 are all that is needed. So I am being a minimalist, it gets the job done.”

It doesn’t get the job done. Not even close. He is wrong on this point, in my opinion. The outline completely fails to capture the distortion suggested by the photographs. Note the white plaster, the “smooshedness” (an appendicular technical term), which is a sign of distortion. Outlines of bones fail to note breakage and distortion more poorly than any other medium. Even words are superior, as one can note the damage. Let that sink in.

Issue 4 (OK, this one I have with his note to me)

“The comparison in 1B shows the significant differences the ischium has relative to the others – including to 10487 which in of itself indicates the two bones are from different taxa even if the latter is not the same species as 10486, ergo titanosaur diversity in the SW.” 

He is talking about comparing the paratype ischium to the North Horn ischium. Which is cool, as you see in my images I note there are some differences. Here is the rub, that paratype ischium, USNM 10487, has no “name-bearing” capability. He could have named that ischium a new genus, as there is no proof either way that it goes with the holotype. So, yes, diversity, but no, the only bone that you can use in this instance is the scapula. Paratypes have no authority.

Issue 5 (Another that I have with him)

“The BIBE 45854 cervical is 11 (which is barely distinguishable from its neighbors), it being quite distinct from the other figured cervical, again indicating there was not just one titanosaur taxon in the SW….  (C) Mid cervicals in left lateral view left, A. sanjuanensis provisionally referred SMP VP-1850 (Figure 1A in Fowler and Sullivan, 2011); right, BIBE 45854 (Figure 3A in Tykoski and Fiorillo, 2017)”

Paul doesn’t specify which cervical he copied from Figure 3A of Tykoski and Fiorillo (2017). Which is a problem as that figure is of a number of cervicals. He clarifies that in his note above. However, are the two vertebrae he is comparing from the same/similar position? Ontogeny impacts vertebrae *a lot*, one certainly shouldn’t use a cervical of unknown position to validate a new genus. Without knowing what position it is thought by Paul to be, it is impossible (for me) to evaluate the differences. 

Issue 6 (three in a row I have with his response to me)

“The intent of 1D is to show how the centra profiles are divergent for the same purpose.”

I interpret this as “hey, anterior and posterior faces make the same point, Brian.” I disagree, and I don’t see two taxa here; I see variation: serial, taphonomic, individual. We clearly disagree on these elements, and that is fine! I’m betting on my tail specialization here :-).

Paul continues his hatred of photos :-)

“Using photos would not have changed anything, so what is the oversized fuss really about? How would photos or scans altered the conclusions?”

The crux of the taxon differentiation is the scapula. Photos show there are clearly taphonomic issues with both scapulae. As such, nothing else in the paper matters but these elements (he says this later when he justifies why he didn’t address the thirty caudals and nearly complete forelimb). Outlines absolutely and utterly fail to note when damage is present, the flatness alone is indicative of distortion. We aren’t looking at taxonomic variation necessarily, we could very well be looking at taphonomic variation. Which is why Gilmore shouldn’t have named it in the first place. Please don’t name dinosaurs on a single bone!

Now he throws reviewers under the bus in his blog response:

“I used the C. supremus scapula comparison because a reviewer said they showed lots of variation in a same quarry sample of the same species. If not for that I would have not thought of them. The opposite being true of the undistorted examples, I used them to show that the variation in the SW titanosaurs is actually greater. Using variation observed in other sauropod taxa can be iffy since those might actually be distinct taxa.”

He writes, “...might actually be…” meaning variation leaves doubt. He built a new genus based off of variation that is a might/might not. The fact there is taphonomic issues should give one pause, the fact there is wild scapular variation should give larger pause. However, the left and right scapulae of an individual Supersaurus vary greater than these two bones!

Oh yeah, why is the figure is poorly labeled? 

He gets personal, then does not answer a single question I asked in the blog. Not one.

“Brian is not happy with my short diagnosis of the Utetitan holotype, wants me to have included the rest of the preserved remains.” 

In my opinion, the qualitative diagnoses and outlines looked and felt to me like I was reading a paper from 1877 in the height of the Bone Wars. Short diagnoses that clearly demonstrate actual non-variable characters are fine by me.

Laments a reviewer’s ask:

“A reviewer wanted me to do more comparison to other titanosaurs outside N Amer. There was no way that was happening. Nyet. This is a case of persons wanting a study to be what they want it to be, rather than what it is.”

It sounds like a reviewer wanted to make sure this doesn’t belong to a taxon that already exists. Standard academic fare.

I have thoughts…

“The paper is about showing multiple titanosaur taxa in the Late Cretaceous SW. Which I can do. Anyone can do that. I am not a general titanosaur researcher and do not have the ability to go beyond the immediate subject. And the paper is long enough as it is – people get after me for doing papers that are too long, when they are not long then they are too short, golly gee wizz I can’t win.”

Not in my opinion. To me, it shows that ischia and scapulae have variation. The photos indicate deformation that would impact the provided qualitative characters. A general titanosaur researcher would realize how wild variation can be and, as history has shown, such researchers have opted to not name the specimen a new genus.  As for too long, too short, all I care about is actual not-wildly-variable characters that can be tested. 

I strongly disagree with him here

“In particular, the diagnoses are differential between the SW specimens, especially the two holotypes.”

No. Given the wide variation and the taphonomic issues, the diagnosis provided fails to convince me. The issue is with the original specimen. We are all are stuck. I don’t fundamentally disagree that there are two taxa, but nothing in the paper would let my interns differentiate them once they see the range of variation in the scapula.

“I’m going to name off of a bone, then move on…”

“Since 10487 lacks the forelimb no point in diagnosing that of 15560. Going into the future others crazy enough to work on the mire that is titanosaur systematics – you have my sympathies -- can do a fuller diagnosis of 15560, with it and Alamosaurus not auto lumped together.”

When new taxa are named with amazing new elements such as a forelimb, researchers provide information on those elements. Apologies if I am misreading this, but is feels like a “post and ghost.”

Length of paper

“The paper I sent it was a lot shorter. It kept getting longer because of the reviewers and editors”

Reviewers and editors ask for items to make the paper better (in my experience).

“I do not stand behind the blasted thing”

“As for the damn stratigraphic chart I did not want to do it. But the editor insisted – well it is the Geology of the IMW. Never done a strat chart before and hope to never do one again. Not my forte, not being a geologist. And the dubious nature of the dating of some of the remains made me very reluctant, and I do not stand behind the blasted thing. Note that papers naming new dinosaur taxa in part on time separation don’t always have geocharts, A. fragilis and A. jimmadseni coming to mind. So why did I have to do one complain complain? And so I got NM & AZ mixed up, they are almost interchangeable;) and it is not the end of western civilization (Trump is getting that job done).”

An editor asked for a strat column, and the one you built, you “don’t stand behind...” How do I know what else you don’t stand behind? Academic papers have a tacit agreement, the writer stands behind the work and the reader assumes the writer is right until the hypothesis is tested. I don’t care about Allosaurus. I do care about bad data being semi-intentionally inserted into the literature. As for Arizona and New Mexico, I’m an AZ native, and that one stung (which is why I caught the error to begin with, though the Geology of the Intermountain West should have caught it and the many, many errors listed below).

There is a reason academics since the early 00s haven’t named it

“That the GIMW paper exists is not my fault. Would not have been needed had any got their paleo butts in gear and put a clear stop to chucking every SW titanosaur into A. s. when it is obvious that is not a good thing. Such as Brian back in the teens.”

If any of us had an actual smoking gun it would have already been named. This isn’t a scenario where a specimen on a shelf (OK, maybe ‘Rough Run’) has the answer. This is a case of tantalizing clues. Aside, the GIMW is 100% your fault as you wrote it :-).

Names, Names, Names!

“My getting into iguanodont was also to stir things up – I had warned Norman that I would if he did not get a lot of specimens out of Iguanodon which he did not – and these days most of the taxa are or are about to be accepted (including it seems Dollodon:)”

I’m not touching this, outside of my knowledge. 

I deleted the next section as it was an advertisement for his new book and violated our Terms of Service, thus it couldn’t be uploaded.

Nothing to see here. I deleted it.

This felt insightful…

“So now folks are at last going to have to deal with their being multiple named taxa one way or another, which is a good thing . Instead of hissy complaining get out there and do a formal analysis. With all the photos and CT scans one may want.”

Based on the huge volume of Tyrannosaurus specimens I have seen (I spend all of my time and money touching specimens, you can, too, if you choose to spend your vacations that way!), I have long thought there are multiple species. I was a Nano champ since Larson’s paper. However, there is an academic way to name specimens, and there is a public-facing encyclopedia-style. The characters I read in the T. rex and the Alamosaurus paper both feel like the latter (or 1870s, which you can argue was permissible, maybe you are bringing them back?)

Pronunciation unanswered

“To pronounce Utetitan, it is Ute as per the aboriginal peoples of the region, and titan as in titan. GSPaul”

Do the “aboriginal people” say “You-Tay”? “Yute?” I’m still not clear. Also, it is my understanding that is not the term in use in the United States. Australia?

You didn’t address the factual errors I pointed out nor my examples of variation.

I noticed you didn't address *any* of my issues with your characters, nor the dozens of typos/errors of fact. I am left to presume anything you chose not to address was 100% meant by you initially.

BC

PS: Responses to Mickey Mortimer:

“I think the weakest part of your argument is claiming certain elements are only diagnosable to a certain taxonomic level, like when you say “correctly using sauropod scapulae for what they are best used for: family-level delineation” and “their tremendous variability … makes their utility beyond family ID all but useless.” Because yes, your points about taphonomy are valid, but workers like Tschopp et al. (2015) did find scapular characters to be diagnostic at lower levels. They used “a straight scapular blade in lateral view (368-0, unique within Diplodocidae)” for Apatosaurus, “the area on the scapula posterior to the acromial ridge and the distal blade is excavated (365-0, unique among Apatosaurinae), (3) the acromial edge of the scapular blade bears a rounded expansion at its distal end (367-1, unique among Apatosaurinae)” for Brontosaurus, “a widely expanded distal end of the scapular blade (at least 2 times the narrowest width of the shaft in lateral view; 371-0*, unique among Diplodocinae)” for Supersaurus vivianae, etc.. Or back to titanosaurs, saltasaurins have such weird scapulae that Gilmore doubted Neuquensaurus’ was correctly assigned to the same family as those referred to Laplatasaurus, as you partially quote above.”

I am not alone in disagreeing with many of Tschopp’s characters. That’s why I’m on the diplodocoid working group, to bring variation concerns to the forefront. The Brontosaurus scoring in particular are erroneous (thanks to deceptive restoration with heavy paint and plaster and the fact that none of the Marsh plates match the bones like I’d been raised thinking, not Tschopp’s fault). 

“We all overtly (or implicitly) acknowledge YPM 1920 isn’t diagnostic beyond “diplodocine” As the author of an ICZN Comment regarding this situation, that’s simply untrue. As I wrote in 2017- “Tschopp & Mateus (2016) … explicitly state D. longus ‘can be clearly referred to the genus Diplodocus as generally perceived’” and “If D. longus might belong outside the concept of Diplodocus as currently used, there would be a case, but Tschopp & Mateus (2016) agree with every prior author that that is not likely.” I don’t know of a single case where an author suggested the longus holotype was not in the same genus as carnegii.”

Probably more correct to many that I used the term Diplodocus, however, with our Barosaurus research, we have realized we can barely use caudals to tell them apart, and the part of the tail YPM 1920 is in is particularly egregious for identification. We can say, “Yep, that might be a Dipldoocus, but we can’t rule out Barosaurus.” Of course, that information is likely not circulating about the world because we sauropod researchers share this info in conclaves and museum halls long before we publish. Thus something we figured out a few years ago and is now “common knowledge” among diplodocid tail researchers hasn’t made it to into the literature yet. When the new diplodocoid volume comes out you’ll see some major changes to diplodocid tails. Technically, in today’s published world, you are absolutely correct, I should have used Diplodocus sp., but talk to us in collections and you’ll get “diplodocine sp.” nowadays.

“Because Gilmore named the taxon and declared these were the same species, shouldn’t that carry weight?” Not at all! The number of named titanosaur taxa has increased several-fold in the past 75 years, the number of potential Alamosaurus specimens is obviously much higher, and I think we’d all agree most modern researchers have a better notion of diagnostic characters than Gilmore did. His 1946 paper for instance includes in Alamosaurus’ diagnosis characters that he says are shared with Titanosaurus two pages later, in addition to things like “five metacarpels” that are true of all sauropods.

I concur. My thought was, in part, that since he had them laying next to each other shouldn’t that carry additional weight? Everyone else seems to be working from scribbles and photographs, both less than ideal, or from viewing one side up. I give extra “points” for people who have touched many bones in person, especially the bones in question.

Outstanding Errors Paul's Response Didn’t Address

Questions I had in my blog that Paul chose not to address in his response to my blog

1-Acromion process strongly prominent. 

What is “strongly prominent,” and how would I know when this character is a known variable one?

2-Posterior profile of scapula strongly sinuous so a prominent triangular glenoid process is present. 

Another not useful-to-me character, especially in light of sauropod variation and the presence of distortion.

3-Paired tubercles dorsal to glenoid fairly prominent and widely separated. Maybe this is useful? 

Remember, a sauropod scapula is a huge, thin bone with various soft-tissue actions transpiring; the variation is amazing. I’m not sure when something is “fairly prominent” and not simply “prominent.” Does the presence of two tubercles matter? They exist in other titanosaurs. I will make sure to photograph the tubercles on each scap up close next time I am in DC.

4-Flare of postero-dorsal edge of blade more prominent.

Yet again, the word “prominent” is used without a definition or range. 

Ischium characters

5-Lateral process of ischium modest in size. 

What is modest-sized? How would I know? Give me a ratio at least!

6-Postero-lateral profile of ischium moderately concave arced. 

What does moderately concave even mean?

Femur

7-Femur robust? [sic]

Is one permitted to allow a guesswork character? Define robust! This one absolutely slayed me... (me trying to use hip new lingo doesn't always land according to my kids :-)).

8-He references ischia but doesn’t address the fact Gilmore also mentoined a caudal

Gilmore (1946) mentioned a New Mexico caudal, USNM 15658, which matches well with the Utah specimen USNM 15560. Here are some photos from my 1995 trip. Why not compare the caudal vertebrae as I did below? It feels criminal that the tail was ignored. Granted, I love tails and am thus biased, but I'm sure app dicular folk feel the same about the limb material getting short shrift.

9-Paul (2025) writes, “paratype pubis” in his Introduction paragraph, right after he cites the year of my paper erroneously 

10-CitesCurtice 2016, but the paper’s official citation is 2017, as you can see here. If this is a typo, we should start tallying them, there is *a lot*

11-In his response he advised he used cervical 11 from Tykoski and Fiorillo, 2017 for his Figure 1C. 

12-He simply says about the wrong label, paraphrased, “it makes the same point.” The point is wrong, and it doesn’t. But he did kind of acknowledge he was in error in his text. These errors are fine in a popular book, not an academic paper. These errors matter, if a student trusted his figure then they’d make mistakes downstream…

13-He fails to address the fact that I strongly disagree that the bone has been damaged over the years. 

14-Does he think the Morrison taxa are oversplit? “Even taking possible over splitting of taxa into account, differing stratigraphic levels each feature an array of diplodocid, camarasaurid, and brachiosaurids…” Which brachiosaurs are in the Morrison Fm that he is thinking of?

15-He doesn’t address the errors on his Figure 4

16-He doesn’t address a single point showing (using outlines ;-)) wild variation in his paper nor in his response to my blog.

18-He does address the strat column error, saying “...don’t stand behind it.”! What??? Then he notes, “It isn’t the end of the world.” Again, cool with books, not cool with academic pubs. Mistakes happen in every paper (check out the rogue specimen number in the Nano paper, or its three ‘n’ spelling ;-)) but not 30+!

19-This whopper of a typo: “were found about 300 m from one another (Gilmore, 1922).” Gilmore wrotethey were found “...some 200 feet distant from one another.” 

20-Wrong holotype number

21-Wrong paratype number

22-Species typo U. zellaguondemeya

23-Typo Illustrattions

24-Typo Illustrations

25-Chihauhau typo

26-possinle typo

27-Univeristy

28-Univeristy

29-extince

30-Wiel

31- has obtain an

32-Javenila

34-Black Peak

35-Rio Neuguen

36-biogeograhic

37-Jasinki

38-D’Jasinksi

39-Smithonsian Institute (tis Institution!)

40-25077, 25077, 25077, 25077 in same list (did he mean another number three times?)

41-45864-1, 45864-1 appears twice in same line, did he mean a different number?

42-43599- he doesn’t mention the scapula… in a paper with an emphasis on scapulae!

43-extra space “fragmentary  right”

44-”form the”

45-”horizontally Based on…”

46-”part of fossil”

47-”and5D”

If you count the ones he did address, I found over 50 errors in the published paper! Errors of misquoting, completely wrong statements, duplication and quadrification of specimen numbers, confusing figure labels, and more basic issues like spaces and lack thereof. 

The lack of clear characters, coupled with more substantive errors than I am used to seeing, eroded my confidence on conclusions drawn. Then the timing of a paper that dropped contra-ing the temporal statement argument… 

 

Items that are on DML* DMG but not on his original post to me:

The above comment on not seeing specimens is not pertinent in this case, I live in the DC/MD area. And is that assertion really serious? If I publish on the apatosaurs do I really have to go to Tokyo to see the specimen mounted there, when there is a detailed description on hand.

YES! I did. Twice. And am glad I did because there are things I now disagree with in the publication.

And to really examine the specimen it needs to be disassembled. Is that going to happen? I have seen the Yale Brontosaurus many times. Which is not saying much because it is very hard to deal with because it is mounted and much of it obscured. Does it have to be taken apart anytime a person wants to do a deep analysis on apatosaurs? Not practical me thinks.

I DID THIS! I jumped on a plane and saw it apart. It was revelatory! I did the same with CM 3018 and CM 84. And H. delfsi. And others. When a specimen is remounted, I show up. Otherwise, the specimen is lost to science in plain sight.

How about the AMNH skeleton which has never been described and will always be mounted?

Which one hahaha! They won't always be mounted, fyi.

Or their Tyrannosaurus which has not been detailed for over 100 years (kudos to Carr for getting the type T. rex skull done).

I think more tis people haven't asked, haven't made it a priority. We both have had 30+ years to do so. I am now making things happen :-).

This business about seeing specimens is becoming an example of auto rigidity in the field designed to control people. And increasingly impractical now that science funding has been gutted, with vrtpaleo taking a huge hit. 

No, it is important beyond compare. And no more impractical now than ever before. One has to want it and work at it. Should it be so hard? Probably not, especially with public land specimens. But it is doable. I am proof.

Perfection is of course the enemy of good enough, and biology is never perfect. 

To me, "good enough" is great for encyclopedias and field guides, not for academic papers.

What is likely to drive young folks away from paleo is how those who dare not adhere to the company line are being trounced for their sincere efforts online on a regular basis. It is so bad that the term PaleoMafia has been coined - when a term like that arrives it is saying something that people should pay attention to. It is not me who is part of that. 

Your Predatory Dinosaurs of the World inspired a generation. I loved it as a kid. As an adult, not so much. But I understand, as an adult, that it was a book to share your directionally correct passions with the world, not to be treated as a scientific document. Alas, in my opinion, the Ute paper would be a great stand-alone book with just enough science to get a YT dinosaur fan spun up, but it lacks anything I can use to overturn the current taxonomic status. (I am NOT denigrating YTers with that statement, I love seeing the next generation inspired, thank you for your work!) I think there are two taxa, but this wasn't, to me, the way to demonstrate it. And when I do show it, I don't know if I'll have enough to name it. Aside, who and what are names for? I use specimen numbers with my sauropod specialists. I'm sure I can write more on that topic later :-).

*From Mary Kirkaldy: Just a minor correction to your post. “Items that are on DML but not on his original post to me:” The DML ended a couple of years ago and morphed into the “DMG” (Dinosaur Mailing Group).

Thank you Mary! I was last on the DML (now DMG) in 1998. A thread on Utahraptor vs marines did me in :-). Glad to know they have a new name.