MovieChat Forums > King Kong (1933) Discussion > It wasn't a Brontosaurus

It wasn't a Brontosaurus


And I'm not saying that it was an Apatosaurus either. As most people know, for many decades paleontologists believed that the genus Brontosaurus and the genus Apatosaurus were identical and that Apatosaurus was the earlier and thus the correct genus name.

But a 2015 study suggests that the genus Brontosaurus and the genus Apatosaurus were separate.

But there were many different species of sauropod dinosaurs with a Brontosaurus-like body shape evolving and becoming extinct over a total period of at least a hundred and fifty million years, while each individual species existed for only a few hundred thousand or a few million years.

The several Apatosaurus species lived in the late Jurassic period about 152 to 151 million years ago, and the several Brontosaur species lived about 155 to 152 million years ago. Dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago.

So there is no way that a sauropod dinosaur living in 1933 could be a brontosaur, an apatosaurus, a diplodicus, a brachiosaurus, an argentinosaurus, a supersaurus, or any other known species of sauropod dinosaur. the dinosaur was a member of a relatively newly-evolved species.

So do any dinosaur fans have any inforamation about what that dinosaur of a new and fictional species was like, such as its size and weight and which known sauropods it most and least resembles, and so on?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

T'was a newly-evolved species killed the crew members.

---

reply

Your logic does not apply here. We know that it was the cavemen 65 million years ago who hunted the dinosaurs to extinction. However the cavemen never were on this island so the dinosaur population thrived for millions of years. The natives living on the island never developed the tools or the brain power to hunt down the remaining dinosaurs. Hope that helps

reply

Nobody cares, including me, and I've been reading books about dinosaurs for sixty years.

reply