Yes but now Troodon is rendered Taxonomically invalid due to it being a mix of other Troodontid fossils (But things might change, who knows). But the same people who complain about brontosaurus, barely lift a finger to care about the loss of Anatosaurus to Edmontosaurus.
Something I do want to clarify about the 2024 paper on nanotyrannus is that it's essentially a load of nonsense. The author of the paper is a paleontologist by the name of Longrich, who has ended up receiving the nickname of "Longreach" by the general community due to his rather extensive record of making extraordinary claims on minimal evidence, with the nanotyrannus paper being no exception. A lot of the supposed "unique characteristics" are either just straight up not actually unique or have more simple explanations. He also PROBABLY twisted the results to fit his conclusion. Case in point, his data set for examining the difference between "nano" and trex included only 77 characters, which isn't a lot for a study like this and is what made nano and trex seem so distinct/seperate. Thomas Carr, another paleontologist, did basically the same thing in a 2020 study but with 1851 characters, and it resulted in a lot of the gaps in Longrich's study that would suggest differences, being filled in, and thus making them not that different after all.
Paleontologist who actively make shit up instead of following the proper scientific method should just have whatever license or degree that allows you to do paleontology revoked.
Given the issues, what should the paleontological community do to ensure rigorous standards in evaluating claims of distinct species, especially in cases where evidence is limited?
@@AncientWildTVProbably just not do it unless they can be sure but sadly these animals have been extinct for millions of years so it's impossible to know for sure- i'm sure even things we think we 100% know for certain aren't true 🤷🏻♀️
Ultrasauros is such a badass name. Sucks how it was never a valid genus in the first place. It joined Deinodon and Suchosaurus in the wasted good names club.
@@Blackfish-m3h wdym? Paleontology is one of the few fields where discoveries are made every year that changes our previous understanding of certain species. Just look at the spinosaurus or the feather debate or countless other discoveries that have been made in recent years
Very bad realization too, considered how cool and plausible its presence was. Just hope real dromaeosaur at that size of that thing really exist in Hell Creek and not yet discovered
@@prasetyodwikuncorojati2434 there is very real evidence of Deinonychus-sized dromaeosaurs in Hell Creek, in the form of teeth. Those have been known for several decades now, but they're too undiagnostic to properly erect a new genus. Some folks believe they're just fully grown Acheroraptor, but they might be a new animal, who knows. Sure, it's no giant, but it is something. That, and the recent discovery of a new large caenagnathid from the region, show that we still have a lot to learn when it comes to Hell Creek.
The dinosaur still existed. Just because the name isn’t real anymore doesn’t mean the specimen the name was used for suddenly doesn’t exist. Troodon for example.
I believe there actually was a bone wars movie being planned in the early 2010s starring James Gandolfini and Steve Carell, but fell apart after Gandolfini's death.
Brontosaurus wasn’t a chimera, they always knew the Camarasaurus skull wasn’t correct. They used it as a placeholder when mounting the AMNH specimen because it was just what they had to work with, since sauropod skulls don’t fossilize well, and most museums followed suit because AMNH was a big deal at the time. In fact, Brontosaurus was already considered to be a dubious genus by that point, a convincing argument that it was a junior synonym of Apatosaurus having been made by Elmer Riggs in 1903, while the AMNH specimen was unveiled in 1905, which started the long divide between paleontologists trying to convince the public Brontosaurus was fake, while museums stubbornly labeled their Apatosaurines as Brontosaurus, which didn’t fully come to an end till 1995. Anyway, AMNH used the Camarasaurus skull because they assumed Brontosaurus’s would be somewhat similar, mostly because they had seen very little variety at that point. They assumed the same of Apatosaurus, and likely of every very roughly similarly sized sauropod of the time. The funny thing is that they found an Apatosaur skull not too far from an Apatosaur skeleton in 1909, a mere four years after the AMNH mount, and paleontologists of the time dismissed it as belonging to the skeleton because it was too Diplodocus-like, and they didn’t yet realize how closely related Apatosaurines were at the time. Took till the 70s before we figured that out, and it wasn’t till the 21st century that we finally found an articulated Apatosaur skeleton with an associated skull proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that they actually did have Diplodocus-like skulls.
@@MechaShadowV2 American Museum Natural History Also They Kinda Shortened The Name Because It Will Be Way Easier To Say "AMNH" Than "[Insert Name Here Again]" Over And Over And Over Again To Describe A Fossil Specimen They Collected
Spot-on except for one detail: we had a diplodocine skull (today referred to _Galeamopus_ , which was at the time a species of _Diplodocus_ ) when the mount was being built. Some people wanted the _Brontosaurus_ mount to have the prosthetic skull modeled after it given the close relation between the two species. Osborn went with the macronarian skull (today referred to _Brachiosaurus_ ) because, in essence, he thought that the boxier macronarian skull looked manlier and therefore better for a dinosaur with a manly name.
That's why when people ask me my favorite meat, I say fish. Because all land vertebrates are descendants of fish. So saying I like eating fish. Could mean cow, pig, human or whatever. Man I love me some fish. And all that implies.
The fact that it's the only troodontid material yet known from the Judith River Formation gives credence to it being its own genus, but the fossil record there isn't as good for small dinosaurs as we'd like.
@Hugo-yz1vb 2004, deemed insufficiently different from Edmontosaurus to warrent a seperate classification. Anatosaurus might still be distinct though.
I thought this was going to be about made-up dinosaurs or at least outlandish claims about fragmentary fossils, not mere mistakes. There is a huge difference between a fake and a mistake, even though they do rhyme.
We need to stop equating the names we give things ("Words, Bernardo, there was a time when I believed in words!") with the reality of the things themselves. Misnaming something does not magically make it disappear. If that were so, colloquial expressions would be zapping things out of existence right and left. So too with the mismatching of bones. The creatures still existed even though our assumptions based on limited evidence turned out to be wrong. Words are by nature generalizations and convenient tools for helping us discuss things. Like the use of "brontosaurus" in this video. But words aren't flesh and blood things and don't really affect the things they name except in our own minds. Just ask Pluto. We refine our nomenclature all the time to make it better reflect reality as we learn it, but that does not change the reality we are trying to describe. That said, it is interesting to learn the mismatching of bones in this case. Science is not an exact science. It too evolves.
I assume now when you said just ask Pluto you mean the (dwarf) planet, rather than the roman god, but I think it's funny that it works either way, I thought you were saying that Pluto would know if words had the capability to affect his domain of the dead
A lot of it is that we usually talk about extinct animals at the genus level, so when a previously distinct genus is sunk into another one we act as if it stopped existing (even if, as is often the case, it still exists as a distinct species within that genus, one presumably distinct in both appearance and behavior if we could observe it in life).
17:15: I love the outlook of that "T. rex" or whatever it is supposed to be. It appears really surprised and embarrassed by something, maybe being revealed mingling with such a company.
11:55 Dakotaraptor is still being looked into and is becoming far from valid but still up for some debate until we know for sure. Only further finding debates and research will tell.
When you're digging up bones at the Pace those two and their teams did, particularly when communication isn't great, You're going to create some overlapping species. If we didn't have the internet the same thing would be happening today.
I never believed in dakotaraptor. And I tend to avoid the nanotyrannus issue. The brontosaurus fiasco however was both embarrassing and hilarious. I grew up with "no such thing as brontosaurus" and then suddenly brontosaurus was real. The archeoraptor hoax happened during the time I wasn't paying much attention to current paleontology trends, so I missed it entirely, only coming to discover it happened after the drama was over. I'm grateful for that, because I would have hated to be conscious of it during the event. Have a great day
do you know what factors lead to public misconceptions about species classification in paleontology, particularly in cases like Brontosaurus and Archaeoraptor
@@AncientWildTV Mostly a few guys with big egos & loud mouths rant and rave about how cool something is, and the public gets suckered into believing them because they don't personally care enough to check.
Though there still could’ve been A dromeosaur of that size living in Hell Creek, it just can’t be called “Dakotaraptor” because the holotype was a chimera.
T. rex was originally going to be called "Dynamosaurus" before they settled on "Tyrannosaurus" I read too. So I guess Dynamosaurus is a "fake dinosaur" as well... and, yeah I'm team "Tyrant-Lizard." Its just cooler.
Laelops not only continues on in the painting , it also ironically has " leaping laelops " as a tittle ...ironic as the actual title holder of lealops is a damn flea 😂😂 coincidence if there ever has been
Epanterius, Sigilmassasurus on this list too, and Antrodemus (Both as a former name of allosaurus when they thought they were the same and now as a dubious genus for a few fragments)
He thinks he’s a dinosaur elite expert for 💩ing on common known dinosaurs so he can then explain why his favorite dinosaur is niche and cool, because otherwise no one would care about his favorite Dino 😢.
@@squidman3484 why is the T. rex boring? Sounds like you think less known = cooler. considering they are super controversial, apex predators, many mysteries behind this species, such as it’s wonky tiny arms. I don’t think T. rex is boring at all, I can see how some ignorant person on the internet would think that tho.
Life and the earth already has 3 vids i cant wait to watch! Heck yeahh thank you so much to your team for providing easily accesible info to newer generations!
They aren't archaic rules of nomenclature. They are just... the rules! The oldest validly published name has priority. If not for things like that, there would be chaos.
Yeah, that kinda annoyed me in the video tbh 😭 Like, there ARE times when there is legitimately good cause to bend certain rules (I'm an entomologist, and Solenopsis invicta was not the first name that was published for the red imported fire ant, but the ACTUAL name was so obscure by the time people realized the mistake, and so many papers using invicta were already in circulation that it was just kept to prevent mass confusion), but on the whole, the rules are there for good reason, and most of the complaints he had seemed to amount to "this was slightly confusing and/or annoying to me personally, so it must be bad", or were legitimate grievances that had nothing to do with taxonomic nomenclature. There are absolutely valid criticisms to be made of taxonomic nomenclature rules, particularly in the rigidity of their application, but the rules are far from archaic, and his comments in the video felt irresponsible and reflective of a lack of understanding of why the rules exist.
5:05 And there is nothing that says some sections of _Tyrannosaurus_ , that we don't have skin imprints for, might not have been feathered. After all the large Yutyrannus was feathered, as were other basal tyrannosaurs.
I don't think you should've started the video calling the Brontosaurus fake only to have a twist at the end. If someone, for whatever reason, does not manage to watch the video all the way through, then they will have learned the wrong information.
This was such a fascinating video. I don’t feel these should be considered fake given the circumstances of the fossils themselves. In regards to the Bone Wars though it’s sad to think Marsh and Cope were once friends who named dinosaurs after one another but due to the unfortunates of the quarry in New Jersey to Marsh pointing out a mistake Cope made with a reconstruction made them become petty. Imagine what even more they could’ve accomplished had those events not happened and they remained friends
“Walrus impersonator” O.C Marsh legitimately made me laugh 😂 so good! ….except now everyone else in the checkout line is thinking I’m some weirdo who randomly busts out laughing froth absolutely no reason( from their point of view) Now I’m just some weirdo… Gee thanks bro😉👍😅
I might be being pedantic and nitpicky, but I’ve never liked the connotation that dinosaurs are, “just made up.” Have they been proven invalid? Yes, but it’s not like these dinosaurs just came out of nowhere. Scientists discovered fossils that they had thought was something, but then turned out to be something else after further study. I’ve never liked the framing of, “god, can you believe how STUPID these scientists were? They should’ve known better!” It’s easy to say that in retrospect because yes, NOW we have more knowledge and more evidence, THEY didn’t have that. The implication that scientists of the past were, “incompetent” or “stupid” is biased because they didn’t have access to what we have today. Not to mention that fast-forward a century into the future, will it be ok for those scientists to look at us and scoff at our mistakes? I don’t think so. I’m not saying, I dislike this video in the least, honestly I really enjoyed it! I’m just saying that we might want to cut past scientists some slack. Just because they didn’t know what we know today doesn’t mean they weren’t intelligent or smart.
Of course, some scientists really _were_ that stupid. The astronomer Percival Lowell had a tendency to make great errors that his contemporaries quickly figured out were such, but because of Lowell's popularity with the American public the misconceptions he created persisted. And Cope was a misogynist & racist.
Lets talk about feathers and how it was FACT that there were no modern feathers and dinos were scaly UNTIL finding a feather in amber proved the obvious feathers. On one hand we just say this-looks-like-so-its-fact while on the other we ignore the obvious implied thing as OBVIOUSLY not there because we didnt find one yet
Afaik it's the sickle claw that's the holotype of Dakotaraptor so it would have still been a large Dromaeosaurid even if the rest of the skeleton is from other dinosaurs. The issue is more if it was a large specimen of Archeroraptor but we're still in Dromaeosaur territory
There's an internal battle in Paleontology between "lumpers" and "splitters". Everyone wants to name a new species. When, according to the literature, there's like 5 sauropods living at the same place and time it's more likely some of those species are really just ontogeny variations (young vs old) or sexual dimorphics (male vs female). In the real world you just don't see see multiple similar species on top of each other. For example there's only THREE elephants species (excluding subspecies) and they really don't overlap.
Yes, the brontosaurus is a real dinosaur, although there was a time when it was thought not to be. For many years, paleontologists believed that the brontosaurus was actually an apatosaurus due to a classification error. However, more recent studies have shown that the brontosaurus is a distinct and valid species.
It's possible the Nano Tyrannus is actually a young adult T-Rex, and that much like Alligators and crocodiles, T-Rex continuously grew larger and larger even as adults. I do wonder if scientists have bothered considering that as well.
Coelophysis is my go-to after Tyrannosaurus, but that's because my home state has two prominent fossils regarding them: Coelophysis Ranch and the only Tyrannosaur footprint in existence.
A lot of taxon names i've seen have been slightly edited in spelling after a realization that the name was taken. I wonder if that was just not done back then. They could have easily renamed Laelaps to something like "Laylaps" or "Leilaps"
Even though most of the fossils from saurophaganax were revealed to be a sauropod, i refuse to call said sauropod "saurophaganax". Saurophaganax means lord of the lizard eaters, and something with that name should eat a lizard, not plants.
'Seismosaurus' had whole _books_ written on it; I own one of them, "Seismosaurus. The Earth Shaker" by David D. Gillette. I admit that it and 'Ultrasaurus/Ultrasauros' were two mega sauropods...that ultimately weren't real...that I grew up with as a kid.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
If I wanted to name a dinosaur and found out "Ultrasaurus" was already taken, my next try would be "Humongousaurus"
Sounds like Humungousaur from Ben 10
@@Babybigchillwhy not
If thanos has a dino, Ben can have one also.
@@futurepig I’m gonna hang on to Enormousaurus myself.
Am sorry but ultrasuarus is taken
@@MrashBSoffcial but ultimate isn't 😁
1:46 if your rival's name is literaly "Cope" you could definity use that to our advantage lol
"Cope, try harder"
Othniel Charles Seethe
and the first two letters of EDP
@@enderman_666 * O. Seethe Marsh
@@enderman_666*O. C. Mald
'Renowned paleontologist and walrus impersonator'. I nearly choked.
It wasn't even funny. They dude looks nothing like the guys that actually look like walrus imperaonators 🤦🤷
@@J.C... Jamie Hyneman be like...
Brontosaurus is back! In POG form!
Just like ALF!
YOU SOLD EVERY BRONTOSAURUSES SOUL FOR POGS
Thanks, Milhaus.
Brontosaurus is a valid genus again, it indeed is a real genus of dinosaur again.
Watch the video to the end
@@telson1583 yea I assume so, I'm clarifying for those who don't watch the video all the way through
@@grendel8342nah don’t listen to him if you spot bs better to point it out quick
Man, some jerks just gotta be hatin on brontosaurus
Yes but now Troodon is rendered Taxonomically invalid due to it being a mix of other Troodontid fossils (But things might change, who knows).
But the same people who complain about brontosaurus, barely lift a finger to care about the loss of Anatosaurus to Edmontosaurus.
Something I do want to clarify about the 2024 paper on nanotyrannus is that it's essentially a load of nonsense. The author of the paper is a paleontologist by the name of Longrich, who has ended up receiving the nickname of "Longreach" by the general community due to his rather extensive record of making extraordinary claims on minimal evidence, with the nanotyrannus paper being no exception. A lot of the supposed "unique characteristics" are either just straight up not actually unique or have more simple explanations. He also PROBABLY twisted the results to fit his conclusion. Case in point, his data set for examining the difference between "nano" and trex included only 77 characters, which isn't a lot for a study like this and is what made nano and trex seem so distinct/seperate. Thomas Carr, another paleontologist, did basically the same thing in a 2020 study but with 1851 characters, and it resulted in a lot of the gaps in Longrich's study that would suggest differences, being filled in, and thus making them not that different after all.
Paleontologist who actively make shit up instead of following the proper scientific method should just have whatever license or degree that allows you to do paleontology revoked.
Given the issues, what should the paleontological community do to ensure rigorous standards in evaluating claims of distinct species, especially in cases where evidence is limited?
@@elishafollet5347so true
@@AncientWildTV Peer review, same as every other science. Don't publish the paper until it gets past the committee.
@@AncientWildTVProbably just not do it unless they can be sure but sadly these animals have been extinct for millions of years so it's impossible to know for sure- i'm sure even things we think we 100% know for certain aren't true 🤷🏻♀️
Ultrasauros is such a badass name. Sucks how it was never a valid genus in the first place. It joined Deinodon and Suchosaurus in the wasted good names club.
Toho should rename titanosaurus with Ultrasauros instead.
Ultrakillodon
Don't forget Trodoon
Deinodon is basically just dinodon.
Suchosaurus? Wasted good name? Sucho is awesome, I dunno why you'd consider that a waste!
Paleontology is one of the few fields where if the prof tells u to get the most recent edition of a textbook, there might actually be a good reason to
Eh, majority of their claims are Bs
@@Blackfish-m3h wdym? Paleontology is one of the few fields where discoveries are made every year that changes our previous understanding of certain species. Just look at the spinosaurus or the feather debate or countless other discoveries that have been made in recent years
@HenryZhoupokemon it is also have tons of lies like that nanotyrannus or troodon etc..
@ oh I see what u mean, for sure
You really have too. Damn you Spinosaurus!!!!!
R.I.P my boy Dakotaraptor!
Seeing him in Saurian was so cool too...
Very bad realization too, considered how cool and plausible its presence was. Just hope real dromaeosaur at that size of that thing really exist in Hell Creek and not yet discovered
Such a cool name as well
@@prasetyodwikuncorojati2434 there is very real evidence of Deinonychus-sized dromaeosaurs in Hell Creek, in the form of teeth. Those have been known for several decades now, but they're too undiagnostic to properly erect a new genus. Some folks believe they're just fully grown Acheroraptor, but they might be a new animal, who knows.
Sure, it's no giant, but it is something. That, and the recent discovery of a new large caenagnathid from the region, show that we still have a lot to learn when it comes to Hell Creek.
@@prasetyodwikuncorojati2434 That way such a cool name can be brought back, and in a real taxon this time!
The dinosaur still existed. Just because the name isn’t real anymore doesn’t mean the specimen the name was used for suddenly doesn’t exist.
Troodon for example.
I would define "fake" and "mistake" as vastly different definitions.
making things up it’s not a mistake… it is a lie
Am I the only one that would watch the hell out of a Bone Wars movie? Get Christian Bale and Daniel Day-Lewis to star. Christopher Nolan directs.
I believe there actually was a bone wars movie being planned in the early 2010s starring James Gandolfini and Steve Carell, but fell apart after Gandolfini's death.
@@TheBudgetMuseumwe were robbed
Robert Downey Junior would fit the role of Cope perfectly too imo. God I'd pay good money for that
I would pay good bucks to see great paleontologists on the screen
@@THECeratoThen watch Jurassic Park
Brontosaurus wasn’t a chimera, they always knew the Camarasaurus skull wasn’t correct. They used it as a placeholder when mounting the AMNH specimen because it was just what they had to work with, since sauropod skulls don’t fossilize well, and most museums followed suit because AMNH was a big deal at the time. In fact, Brontosaurus was already considered to be a dubious genus by that point, a convincing argument that it was a junior synonym of Apatosaurus having been made by Elmer Riggs in 1903, while the AMNH specimen was unveiled in 1905, which started the long divide between paleontologists trying to convince the public Brontosaurus was fake, while museums stubbornly labeled their Apatosaurines as Brontosaurus, which didn’t fully come to an end till 1995.
Anyway, AMNH used the Camarasaurus skull because they assumed Brontosaurus’s would be somewhat similar, mostly because they had seen very little variety at that point. They assumed the same of Apatosaurus, and likely of every very roughly similarly sized sauropod of the time.
The funny thing is that they found an Apatosaur skull not too far from an Apatosaur skeleton in 1909, a mere four years after the AMNH mount, and paleontologists of the time dismissed it as belonging to the skeleton because it was too Diplodocus-like, and they didn’t yet realize how closely related Apatosaurines were at the time. Took till the 70s before we figured that out, and it wasn’t till the 21st century that we finally found an articulated Apatosaur skeleton with an associated skull proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that they actually did have Diplodocus-like skulls.
Sorry but what does AMNH mean?
@@MechaShadowV2 American Museum Natural History
Also They Kinda Shortened The Name Because It Will Be Way Easier To Say "AMNH" Than
"[Insert Name Here Again]"
Over And Over And Over Again To Describe A Fossil Specimen They Collected
I have a book saying that camarasaurus skulls were accidently mounted with a different skull similar to apatosaurus or brontosaurus
Spot-on except for one detail: we had a diplodocine skull (today referred to _Galeamopus_ , which was at the time a species of _Diplodocus_ ) when the mount was being built. Some people wanted the _Brontosaurus_ mount to have the prosthetic skull modeled after it given the close relation between the two species. Osborn went with the macronarian skull (today referred to _Brachiosaurus_ ) because, in essence, he thought that the boxier macronarian skull looked manlier and therefore better for a dinosaur with a manly name.
@@HorriblePaleoartist Standard practice for museums.
2:17 Dino got so much drip it has the word "drypt" in its name.
Your pfp gives me ptsd
Those chimeras are a really good at showing how science is actually made
Sadly some people would cherry pick and misrepresent those as an argument against science
@@gravel9270 true
If you asked me on the street to name a dinosaur, I would be the annoying one to say the chicken that I had for lunch.
I would go for "shoe horn" or " shoe bill " they still look dinosaur' ish but yes chicken would also be a Dino as well as din'ner .
@@ijaripanju3408 cassowary. They have crest like oviraptor and feet like hadrosaur
Maybe KFC should become KFD 🤣
That's why when people ask me my favorite meat, I say fish. Because all land vertebrates are descendants of fish. So saying I like eating fish. Could mean cow, pig, human or whatever.
Man I love me some fish. And all that implies.
I would say Dave. I think that's a good name for a dinosaur.
Man I was hoping Troodon was gonna be on this list as I heard it’s invalid since it’s only named that via teeth samples
Your invalidating my genus you bigot.
The fact that it's the only troodontid material yet known from the Judith River Formation gives credence to it being its own genus, but the fossil record there isn't as good for small dinosaurs as we'd like.
Troodons are a pain in the ass at night time on ARK...take them out
There's some rumblings about an ongoing attempt to get a neotype set up.
Edmontosaurus: You all belong to me now
Anatosaurus, Anatotitan, Ugrunaaluk and Claosaurus: 😮
Also Trachodon
Wait, Anatotitan became invalid?! Since when?!
@Hugo-yz1vb 2004, deemed insufficiently different from Edmontosaurus to warrent a seperate classification. Anatosaurus might still be distinct though.
Anatotitan is a cool name, sadly invalid though
@@darklordofsword Consensus is that _Edmontosaurus annectens_ is still _Edmontosaurus_ .
I thought this was going to be about made-up dinosaurs or at least outlandish claims about fragmentary fossils, not mere mistakes. There is a huge difference between a fake and a mistake, even though they do rhyme.
Let’s gooo, new budget museum
Gooo? Gross dude, do that on you're own.
These are not "fake" dinosaurs. Rather, they represent a scientific process of categorization.
I was today years old when I learnt that Seismosaurus was fake and just a different species of Diplodocus
As with Dinherosaurus
@@bluesteno64 I did not know this one
@@johngr1747 glad to have taught you something
@@johngr1747 Slight correction: _Dinhierosaurus_ is currently regarded as a species of _Supersaurus_ , not _Diplodocus_ .
1:08 But recently wasn't there some more investigation an dthey found in may be valid. "MAY! BE!" is the key word
You are correct. They have reinstated the name brontosaurus.
@@vmccall399yes! 16:23
We need to stop equating the names we give things ("Words, Bernardo, there was a time when I believed in words!") with the reality of the things themselves. Misnaming something does not magically make it disappear. If that were so, colloquial expressions would be zapping things out of existence right and left. So too with the mismatching of bones. The creatures still existed even though our assumptions based on limited evidence turned out to be wrong. Words are by nature generalizations and convenient tools for helping us discuss things. Like the use of "brontosaurus" in this video. But words aren't flesh and blood things and don't really affect the things they name except in our own minds. Just ask Pluto. We refine our nomenclature all the time to make it better reflect reality as we learn it, but that does not change the reality we are trying to describe. That said, it is interesting to learn the mismatching of bones in this case. Science is not an exact science. It too evolves.
I assume now when you said just ask Pluto you mean the (dwarf) planet, rather than the roman god, but I think it's funny that it works either way, I thought you were saying that Pluto would know if words had the capability to affect his domain of the dead
A lot of it is that we usually talk about extinct animals at the genus level, so when a previously distinct genus is sunk into another one we act as if it stopped existing (even if, as is often the case, it still exists as a distinct species within that genus, one presumably distinct in both appearance and behavior if we could observe it in life).
@@consensuslphiskwhat if he actually meant the cartoon dog?
@@iapetusmccool that's a better and more likely idea
@@PoetGorman invalid genuses can be like the OCs of the fossil record. Sure they’re not part of what actually happened, but it can be fun
17:15: I love the outlook of that "T. rex" or whatever it is supposed to be. It appears really surprised and embarrassed by something, maybe being revealed mingling with such a company.
Nah it's because it has feathers
11:55 Dakotaraptor is still being looked into and is becoming far from valid but still up for some debate until we know for sure. Only further finding debates and research will tell.
Oh Seismosaurus. For the longest time I had a library book about it that I "forgot" to hand in.
When you're digging up bones at the Pace those two and their teams did, particularly when communication isn't great, You're going to create some overlapping species. If we didn't have the internet the same thing would be happening today.
Quagga
I never believed in dakotaraptor. And I tend to avoid the nanotyrannus issue.
The brontosaurus fiasco however was both embarrassing and hilarious. I grew up with "no such thing as brontosaurus" and then suddenly brontosaurus was real.
The archeoraptor hoax happened during the time I wasn't paying much attention to current paleontology trends, so I missed it entirely, only coming to discover it happened after the drama was over. I'm grateful for that, because I would have hated to be conscious of it during the event.
Have a great day
do you know what factors lead to public misconceptions about species classification in paleontology, particularly in cases like Brontosaurus and Archaeoraptor
@@AncientWildTV Mostly a few guys with big egos & loud mouths rant and rave about how cool something is, and the public gets suckered into believing them because they don't personally care enough to check.
Paleontologist: Bone Wars...
Me: laughs in Butthead voice....
Ain’t Brontosaurus back?
yes, brontosaurus was redescribed in 2015 idk if he metioned it in the video
Yep
Watch till the end
If you bothered to watch the whole thing, then yes
Yeah but it's ridiculous. The motivation to do so was because of the names popularity. A terrible reason in my opinion.
The first dinosaurs I knew about was Trexz Triceratops, Stegosaurus and Brachiosaurus. The main four.
6:03 "And what is better than super?"
Me: SuperDupersaurus?
Hypersaurus
Maximum Oversaurus
Supercalifragilisticexpialidociosaurus
To be fair, Brontoaurus was reinstated as it's own genus recently so he was proven correct
Please do a video about bad skeleton reconstructions like the Magdeburg unicorn
Dakotaraptor being a chimera was so disappointing
Though there still could’ve been A dromeosaur of that size living in Hell Creek, it just can’t be called “Dakotaraptor” because the holotype was a chimera.
here's to hoping it gets a better name 🙏
@@dannybright8708 If it does exist they need to give it a cooler name.
@@dannybright8708 why can't a new one just repurpose the name since the previous raptor is fake?
Probably legal reasons, something about name copyright and "the law says no so fuck off" -_-
Maybe the real dinosaurs were the friends we made along the way.
If is an outdated dinosaur, it exists in carnivores universe
0:21 look whos back on science again.... BRONTOSAURUS YIPPEE
It’s 2024 how do people still not know brontosaurus is actually a valid species
*Genus, but I blame pop culture teaching people that adults shouldn't love dinosaurs.
T. rex was originally going to be called "Dynamosaurus" before they settled on "Tyrannosaurus" I read too. So I guess Dynamosaurus is a "fake dinosaur" as well... and, yeah I'm team "Tyrant-Lizard." Its just cooler.
don't forget about Manospondylus gigas
This is how I find out Dakotaraptor isn't real :(
You've been fooled,is real
Laelops not only continues on in the painting , it also ironically has " leaping laelops " as a tittle ...ironic as the actual title holder of lealops is a damn flea 😂😂 coincidence if there ever has been
Someone should do a recreation of "Leaping _Laelaps_ " with two mites on the back of a mouse.
And yet my homie Nigersaurus remains real
since this video, Nanotyrannus has become invalid alongside Saurophagonax (not mentioned in video)
Brontosaurus is valid again, and it has more species now than Apatosaurus XD
Epanterius, Sigilmassasurus on this list too, and Antrodemus (Both as a former name of allosaurus when they thought they were the same and now as a dubious genus for a few fragments)
0:10 Why would saying T.Rex be vague and awful? Genuinely confused by that 🤔 They were amazing animals.
He thinks he’s a dinosaur elite expert for 💩ing on common known dinosaurs so he can then explain why his favorite dinosaur is niche and cool, because otherwise no one would care about his favorite Dino 😢.
It's a channel that presents content using dry humor, don't take the narration at face value broski 😅@@Encrusteddead
I'm guessing because it's the most basic answer
Cuz it's a boring answer, it's like asking someone what their favorite movie is and they answer with avengers or something
@@squidman3484 why is the T. rex boring? Sounds like you think less known = cooler. considering they are super controversial, apex predators, many mysteries behind this species, such as it’s wonky tiny arms. I don’t think T. rex is boring at all, I can see how some ignorant person on the internet would think that tho.
Life and the earth already has 3 vids i cant wait to watch! Heck yeahh thank you so much to your team for providing easily accesible info to newer generations!
The Dara Hueghes bandcamp page in the description is broken and doesn’t work, please fix! I want to hear more of the background stuff.
NEW BUDGET MUSEUM VID WOHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They aren't archaic rules of nomenclature. They are just... the rules! The oldest validly published name has priority. If not for things like that, there would be chaos.
Yeah, that kinda annoyed me in the video tbh 😭
Like, there ARE times when there is legitimately good cause to bend certain rules (I'm an entomologist, and Solenopsis invicta was not the first name that was published for the red imported fire ant, but the ACTUAL name was so obscure by the time people realized the mistake, and so many papers using invicta were already in circulation that it was just kept to prevent mass confusion), but on the whole, the rules are there for good reason, and most of the complaints he had seemed to amount to "this was slightly confusing and/or annoying to me personally, so it must be bad", or were legitimate grievances that had nothing to do with taxonomic nomenclature.
There are absolutely valid criticisms to be made of taxonomic nomenclature rules, particularly in the rigidity of their application, but the rules are far from archaic, and his comments in the video felt irresponsible and reflective of a lack of understanding of why the rules exist.
5:05 And there is nothing that says some sections of _Tyrannosaurus_ , that we don't have skin imprints for, might not have been feathered. After all the large Yutyrannus was feathered, as were other basal tyrannosaurs.
I don't think you should've started the video calling the Brontosaurus fake only to have a twist at the end. If someone, for whatever reason, does not manage to watch the video all the way through, then they will have learned the wrong information.
I have a book with Monoclonius in it. Learning that it's fake makes the book feel more like a piece of history
actually Dakotaraptor is still valid, however yeah, there were some bones of different animals, but it still valid.
This was such a fascinating video. I don’t feel these should be considered fake given the circumstances of the fossils themselves. In regards to the Bone Wars though it’s sad to think Marsh and Cope were once friends who named dinosaurs after one another but due to the unfortunates of the quarry in New Jersey to Marsh pointing out a mistake Cope made with a reconstruction made them become petty. Imagine what even more they could’ve accomplished had those events not happened and they remained friends
Look at an owl skeleton, imagine what someone would create if they never saw an owl before.
2:20 it was even Marsh who renamed it! His rival's dinosaur!
The fact that dinosaur-deniers would use the Bone Wars to support their claim without looking into what really happened makes my blood boils.
Archeologist are still debating if Supersaurus is a distinc dinosaur or only another name for Clarkentosaurus.
So excited about the new channel!
Guys i think brontosaurus *might* be a valid genus again !
Your invalidating my genus you bigot.
7:01 He should have gone with Megasaurus, or if that was taken, Ultramegasaurus.
Well the first is probably a no go due to Megalosaurus not only existing but being the first named dinosaur ever.
14:07 Bro was not having it 😂
I appreciate the front facing eyes of the various paleo-art tyrannosaurs featured here
“Walrus impersonator” O.C Marsh legitimately made me laugh 😂 so good! ….except now everyone else in the checkout line is thinking I’m some weirdo who randomly busts out laughing froth absolutely no reason( from their point of view)
Now I’m just some weirdo…
Gee thanks bro😉👍😅
It's been great working together Bennett, looking forward to our future episodes :)
Inb4 crazy young earth creationists come in and say "All dinosaurs are fakes created by satan to make men doubt the bible!"
Lmfao
That is true but there are also yec who believe dinosaurs lived among men
I might be being pedantic and nitpicky, but I’ve never liked the connotation that dinosaurs are, “just made up.” Have they been proven invalid? Yes, but it’s not like these dinosaurs just came out of nowhere. Scientists discovered fossils that they had thought was something, but then turned out to be something else after further study.
I’ve never liked the framing of, “god, can you believe how STUPID these scientists were? They should’ve known better!” It’s easy to say that in retrospect because yes, NOW we have more knowledge and more evidence, THEY didn’t have that. The implication that scientists of the past were, “incompetent” or “stupid” is biased because they didn’t have access to what we have today. Not to mention that fast-forward a century into the future, will it be ok for those scientists to look at us and scoff at our mistakes? I don’t think so.
I’m not saying, I dislike this video in the least, honestly I really enjoyed it! I’m just saying that we might want to cut past scientists some slack. Just because they didn’t know what we know today doesn’t mean they weren’t intelligent or smart.
I mean, to be fair Cope was a racist & misogynist who didn't want women to vote.
Of course, some scientists really _were_ that stupid. The astronomer Percival Lowell had a tendency to make great errors that his contemporaries quickly figured out were such, but because of Lowell's popularity with the American public the misconceptions he created persisted. And Cope was a misogynist & racist.
To those who made a comment "....but brontosaurus is back!", you didn't finish the video didn't you? 😅
yeah i didnt
Correction:
Walruses are O.C. Marsh impersonators.
when they fight on beaches, it's actually over beach fossils and who gets to name them.
My sweet summer child, Archaeoraptor liaoningenis; the world just wasn't ready for you smh.
Lets talk about feathers and how it was FACT that there were no modern feathers and dinos were scaly UNTIL finding a feather in amber proved the obvious feathers. On one hand we just say this-looks-like-so-its-fact while on the other we ignore the obvious implied thing as OBVIOUSLY not there because we didnt find one yet
I'd KILL for a dino survival game but with retrosaurs..
14:07 this went from scientific error to Bobbi Brocoli video territory really quickly
Idea for an April 1st video: publish and discuss the news of a sensational newly discovered family of dinosaurs, the Chimerasauridae.
Now, it's Saurophaganax who disappeared
Aw hell I was gonna say "Duplicitosaurus" but you said it better. :D
So apparently Troodon, known for being the most intelligent dinosaur, was invalidated too
Afaik it's the sickle claw that's the holotype of Dakotaraptor so it would have still been a large Dromaeosaurid even if the rest of the skeleton is from other dinosaurs. The issue is more if it was a large specimen of Archeroraptor but we're still in Dromaeosaur territory
There's an internal battle in Paleontology between "lumpers" and "splitters". Everyone wants to name a new species. When, according to the literature, there's like 5 sauropods living at the same place and time it's more likely some of those species are really just ontogeny variations (young vs old) or sexual dimorphics (male vs female). In the real world you just don't see see multiple similar species on top of each other. For example there's only THREE elephants species (excluding subspecies) and they really don't overlap.
2:12 that genuinely made me laugh out loud oh my goodness
Yes, the brontosaurus is a real dinosaur, although there was a time when it was thought not to be. For many years, paleontologists believed that the brontosaurus was actually an apatosaurus due to a classification error. However, more recent studies have shown that the brontosaurus is a distinct and valid species.
wake up babe, new budget museum video...
brontosaurus was revalidated again ages ago man
H0w did I not know Dakotaraptor and Archaeoraptor weren't real?!?
It's possible the Nano Tyrannus is actually a young adult T-Rex, and that much like Alligators and crocodiles, T-Rex continuously grew larger and larger even as adults. I do wonder if scientists have bothered considering that as well.
brontosaurus has been back for years
Everythings aside
Can you explain Your background music😆😆?
im weird, paleontology is weird, its a perfect match
Can we get a second part
Coelophysis is my go-to after Tyrannosaurus, but that's because my home state has two prominent fossils regarding them: Coelophysis Ranch and the only Tyrannosaur footprint in existence.
They`re real dinosaurs it`s just over time as they find more diverse fossils the scientists rethink the dinosaurs, and they`re names.
When will life and the earth be available? I can’t find it 😅
It's linked in the description of this video!
@@TheBudgetMuseumokay thanks!
A lot of taxon names i've seen have been slightly edited in spelling after a realization that the name was taken. I wonder if that was just not done back then. They could have easily renamed Laelaps to something like "Laylaps" or "Leilaps"
Asked my brother to name a dinosaur. He named the one with 500 teeth...
Shame. Don't tell him about the Welsh Sauropodomorph, or the Madagascan Sauropod. Or Argentina's "Great Chief lizard".
I believe Brontosaurus has been reinstated as a real dinosaur.
Even though most of the fossils from saurophaganax were revealed to be a sauropod, i refuse to call said sauropod "saurophaganax". Saurophaganax means lord of the lizard eaters, and something with that name should eat a lizard, not plants.
'Seismosaurus' had whole _books_ written on it; I own one of them, "Seismosaurus. The Earth Shaker" by David D. Gillette. I admit that it and 'Ultrasaurus/Ultrasauros' were two mega sauropods...that ultimately weren't real...that I grew up with as a kid.
"Some now Defunct Dinosaurs". But isn't Every Dinosaur Defunct!!!