Tutorial 48: my museum collections kit
November 26, 2025
I was on the road for most of August, September, and October, and in particular I made a ton of museum collections visits. When I visit a museum collection, I bring a specific set of gear that helps me get the photos, notes, and measurements that I want. All of this is YMMV — I’m not trying to predict what will work best for you, but to explain what has worked for me, and why. I’m reasonably happy with my current setup, but even after 28 years of museum visits, I’m still finding ways to improve it. Hence this post, which will hopefully serve as a vehicle for sharing tips and tricks.
A word about my program when I visit a collection, because not everyone needs or wants to do things my way. The closest museums with extensive sauropod collections are states away from where I live and work. If I’m in those collections at all, I’m traveling, and therefore on the clock. Time in collections is a zero-sum game: if I have the time to take 20 pages of notes, that could be 4 pages of notes of each of 5 specimens, 2 pages on 10, 1 page on 20, half a page on 40, etc. In practice, I usually make expansive notes early in the visit, one or two spreads per specimen with detailed sketches and exhaustive measurements of the most publication-worthy elements. I grade toward brevity over the course of the visit, and end with a mad desperate rush, throwing in crude sketches and rudimentary notes on as many newly-discovered (by me) specimens as possible. My collections visits are Discovery Time and Gathering Time, trying to get all the measurements and photographs I’ll want for the next year, or five, or forever. And, to the extent that I can suppress them, not Analysis Time or Graphing Time or Writing Time — I can do those things after hours and in my office back home, IF and only if I’ve spent my collections time efficiently gathering all the information I’ll need later.
The very first thing I do in any collection is a walking survey, to make sure I know roughly what specimens the collection contains and where to find them. For a sufficiently large collection — or even a single cabinet with 10 drawers of good stuff — I may draw a map in my notebook, on which I can note things I want to come back and document, and add new things as I find them.
Enough preamble, on to the gear. The first two or three entries here are in strict priority order, and after that things get very fuzzy and approximate.
1. Research Notebook
Seems obvious, right? Write stuff down, make sketches, capture the info that will be difficult or impossible to recapture later from photos. I have encountered people who don’t take a physical notebook, just a laptop or tablet, and take all their notes digitally. If that works for you, may a thousand gardens grow. For me, sketching is a fundamental activity — for fixing morphology in my mind, disciplining myself to see the whole object and its parts, creating a template on which to take further explanatory notes, and capturing the caveats, stray ideas, and odd connections that surround each specimen in a quantum fuzz in my mind (temporarily in my mind, hence the need for external capture). I also write priority lists in advance of specimens to document each day, and then cross them off, add new ones, and strike out duds with wild abandon in the heat of data collection.
I do a few specific things to increase the usefulness of my notebooks:
– Label the spines and covers with the notebook titles and years. These things live on the shelf directly over my desk, and I pull them down and rifle through them constantly. I also have notebooks for university service (committees, student advising, and so on), astronomical observations, and personal journaling, so “Research” is a useful tag for me.
– Number the pages, if they’re not already numbered, use the books chronologically from front to back, and create the table of contents retrospectively as I go — a tip I got from the Bullet Journal method.
– Paste a small envelope inside the back cover, if a pouch is not already built in, to hold all kinds of ephemera — index cards, scale bars, a bandage (just in case), stickers I acquire along the way, etc.
– Affix a section of measuring tape to the outer edge of the front or back cover. I got this tip from the naturalist John Muir Laws, whose Laws Guide to Nature Drawing and Journaling is wonderfully useful and inspiring (UPDATE: that book is now covered in its own post, here). The scale-bar-permanently-affixed-to-research-notebook has been a game-changer for me. Do you know how many times I’ve accidentally left a scale bar on a museum shelf, and then gotten to my next stop and had to borrow or fabricate one? I myself lost count long ago. But never again. If I’m in a hurry, small specimens go straight onto the notebook to be photographed, like the baby apatosaurine tibia above, and the notebook itself goes into the frame with large specimens. (This comes up again — if possible, and it’s almost always possible, put the specimen label in the photo with the specimen. No reason not to, and sometimes a lifesaver later on.)

Behold the thinness of the eminently pocketable IKEA paper tape. Folding instructions, because this seems to bedevil some folks: hold up one end, fold in half by grabbing the other end and bring it up in front, then do that three more times. Finished product is 65mm long, 25.4mm wide, and about 1mm thick when folded crisply and left under a heavy book overnight.
2. Measuring tapes
I find the flexible kind much more convenient and useful than retractable metal tape measures. I like the 1-2mm thick plastic type used by tailors and fabric sellers, because they have just enough inertia to stay where I put them, or drop in a predictable fashion when draped over something sufficiently large, as when measuring midshaft circumference of a long bone.
I LOVE the little plasticized paper tapes that hang on racks, free for the taking, near the entrances of IKEA stores. I tear them off by the dozen when I go to IKEA, cram them in my pockets, fold them flat when I get home, and stash them everywhere, including in my wallet. A few specific reasons they’re great:
– Folded flat, they’re about the thickness of a credit card, so there’s just no reason to be without one. I usually have one in my wallet, another in the envelope at the back of my research notebook, a couple more stashed in my luggage, a couple more stashed in my car, desk, tookbox, nightstand, etc.
– I can write on them. Especially handy if:
– I’ve torn off a section to serve as an impromptu scale bar. Which I never hesitate to do, because they’re free and I have dozens waiting in my toolbox and desk drawers at any one time. Torn off bits also make good bookmarks, classier, more cerebral, and less implicitly gross than the traditional folded square of toilet paper.
– I give them away to folks I’m traveling with, or that I meet in my travels, and they’re usually well-received.
3. Writing instruments in various colors
Up until about 2018 my notebooks were always monochrome pen or pencil. Then I realized that color is an extremely helpful differentiator for Future Matt, so now I highlight and color-annotate willy-nilly.
4. Calipers
I borrowed the digital calipers from Colin Boisvert to get the photo up top, having forgotten my own at home. As a sauropod worker, I don’t need sub-millimeter accuracy all the time. But digital calipers have three exceedingly useful functions: measuring the thickness of very thin laminae and bony septa; measuring the internal dimensions of small fossae and foramina; and measuring the depth of fossae and of concave articular surfaces. I also have a little titanium caliper on a lanyard that goes with me most places.
5. Small brush on a carabiner
This is the newest addition to the kit. I got the idea from Matthew Mossbrucker at the Morrison Museum in Morrison, Colorado. Colin and I visited him in September, immediately before our week-long stint in the collections at Dinosaur Journey. Matthew keeps a little brush carabinered to his belt at all times, and the utility was so instantly obvious that when Colin and I rolled into Fruita later that same day, I went to the hardware store and got my own. Cheap, weighs nothing, clips to anything, compact enough to cram in a pocket, good for lab and field alike. Genius!
6. Scale bar
Yes, I have my scale-bar-enhanced research notebook and my hoarder stash of IKEA paper tapes, but good old-fashioned scale bars are still useful, and I use them constantly. And lose them constantly, hence my multiple redundant backup mechanisms.
(Aside: I can’t explain why I hold onto some objects like grim death, but let others fall through my fingers like sand grains. I’ve only lost one notebook of any kind in my entire life — set it on top of the car while packing and then drove off [grrrr] — so I have no problem investing in nice notebooks and treating them like permanent fixtures. But I can’t hang onto pens and scale bars to save my life, hence my having gravitated to Bic sticks and IKEA paper tapes.)
7. Index cards
I try to get as much information into each photograph as possible. Ideally alongside the specimen I will have:
– a scale bar at the appropriate depth of field;
– the specimen tag with the number, locality, and other pertinent info;
– my notebook open to my sketch of the specimen, for easy correlation later (I don’t do this for every single view, just the ones that I think are particularly publication-worthy, or have info I’m likely to forget later);
– anything else I might want — serial position, anatomical directions, whether the photo is part of an anaglyph pair, and so on — written on an index card, which being a standard size will itself serve as an alternate/backup scale bar.
8. Pencil case
To hold all the smaller fiddly bits you see in the photo up top. I can’t now fathom why, but I resisted getting one of these for a loooong time. I was young and foolish then. Pretty useful all the time, absolutely clutch when it’s 4:58 pm and I’m throwing stuff in bags, caught between the Scylla of working as late as possible and the Charybdis of wanting to be polite to whatever kind, patient person is facilitating my visit. That is also when the pocket in the back of the notebook comes in especially handy.

Headlamp in action, casting low-angle light on a pneumatic fossa on the tuberculum of this sauropod rib. Note also the scale bar, elevated on a specimen box to be the same depth of field, and the notebook open to my sketch of the specimen.
9. Artificial lighting
This was another very late discovery for me — I don’t think I was regularly bringing my own lights prior to 2018. For me, portable, rechargeable lighting is useful in many circumstances and absolutely critical in two: casting low-angle light to pick out subtle pneumatic features, as in the photo above, and lighting up big specimens that I don’t have the time, energy, or space to pull off the shelves, as in the photo below.
I’m particularly taken with the big orange fan/light combo. It charges using a USB-C cable, has four settings for fan speed (handy when it’s hot, humid, or just oppressively still) and three for light intensity, a rotating hook that folds flat, and a USB power-out socket for charging phones, headlamps, fitness trackers, and what have you. I use it practically every day whether I’m on the road or not.

Magnetic flashlight hanging from steel shelving to illuminate Camarasaurus cervical vertebrae in the Utah Field House collections.
Whether it’s a hook or a magnet, some kind of mechanism for suspending a light at odd heights and angles is super useful. I usually have a strong flashlight with an integral seat-belt cutter and window-smasher in the door pocket of my car, and its magnetic base makes it omnidirectionally functional in collections spaces, which are usually liberally supplied with steel in the form of shelving and cabinets.

Haplocanthosaurus CM 879 caudal 2 in left lateral view, with rolled-up paper neural canal visualizer and scale-bar-stuck-to-flashlight.
Sometimes I use a bit of blue tack to stick a scale bar to a flashlight, to create a free-standing, truly vertical scale bar that I can rapidly place at different distances from the camera. Beats leaning the scale bar against a stack of empty specimen boxes or a block of ethofoam (which in turn beats nothing at all).
What else?
USUALLY — Laptop
Not for recording notes or measurements — all of that goes into the notebook, which I scan and upload new stuff from every evening. Mostly for displaying PDFs of descriptive monographs, and hugely useful in that regard.
MAYBE — Monographs
When I have the freedom (= baggage allowance) to do so, I find it handy to bring hardcopies of descriptive monographs, both for quick reference and so I can photograph specimens alongside the illustrations. Doesn’t even have to be the same specimens, just comparable elements. In the photo above, MWC 7257, a partial sacral centrum of Allosaurus from the Mygatt-Moore Quarry, is sitting next to a plate from Madsen (1976), illustrating the same vertebra in a specimen from Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry. Thanks to Colin Boisvert for bringing the specimen to my attention — I’ve got a longstanding thing for sacrals — and for loaning me his copy of Madsen (1976) for this photo.
OUT — Camera and tripod
I suspect that some folks will shake their heads in mute horror, but after a couple of decades of lugging dedicated cameras and tripods everywhere, I stopped. For the past few years I’ve been rolling with just my phone, which is objectively better than any dedicated camera I owned for the first half of my career. Sometimes I brace it in an ad hoc fashion against a chair or shelf or cabinet, but mostly I just shoot freehand. For my purposes, it does fine, and any minor improvements in field curvature or whatever that I’d get from a dedicated camera don’t outweigh the logistical hassle. Again: YMMV!
Over to you
So, that’s what I roll with right now. It was different six months ago, and will almost certainly be a little different six months hence, hopefully as a result of people responding to this post. With all that said: what’s in your kit?
P.S. Many thanks to Matthew Mossbrucker and Julia McHugh for their hospitality and assistance in their collections, and to Colin Boisvert for being such a great travel companion, research sounding board, and generous loaner-of-things-I’d-forgotten. The Wedel-Boisvert Morrisonpocalypse 2025 deserves more blogging.
New paper: pneumatic diverticula and blood vessels in the neural canals of the toothed birds Ichthyornis and Janavis
October 11, 2025
New paper out this week, open access like usual, go get it for free:
If I recall the sequence correctly, Jessie Atterholt met Dan Field at one of the recent Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution (SAPE) meetings. Between them they spun up the idea of looking for evidence of paramedullary diverticula (PMDs) in the neural canals of some fossil birds that Dan and his collaborators and students had been studying, namely Ichthyornis and Janavis, both toothy ichthyornithines from the Late Cretaceous. This was not long after Jessie and I had our paper on PMDs in extant birds published (Atterholt and Wedel 2022), and we were interested in chasing PMDs down the tree. At the same time, Dan and his former student, Juan Benito, had a big war chest of CT scans of Ichthyornis and Janavis. So the actual work for this project was very similar to the work for Atterholt and Wedel (2022): lots of hours in front of a computer, flipping through stacks of CT slices. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
Ichthyornis you know, it’s one of the toothed birds that O.C. Marsh described in the 1870s, after basically buying the specimen out from under E.D. Cope, one of the many inciting incidents of the Bone Wars. For most of my career I simply could not keep Ichthyornis and Hesperornis straight. It has always been perversely confusing to me that the flightless swimming bird is not named “fish bird”, and the gull-like flying bird is not named for Hesperus, or Venus, a thing actually up in the sky. The “fish bird” was the flyer and the “Venus bird” was the flightless swimmer. It’s just plain backwards. (Before anyone pushes their glasses up their nose in the comments, yes, I know that Hesperornis is intended as “western bird”. Both taxa are from the West. Still confusing.)

The much larger Janavis (right) compared to the more-completely-known Ichthyornis (left). From Benito et al. (2022: fig. 1).
Janavis I was not familiar with prior to this project. It’s the sister taxon of Ichthyornis, only named in 2022 by Benito et al. Janavis was big, too, with an estimated wingspan of 5 feet, about the same as the largest extant gulls (or for me, an Oklahoma farmboy, a really big hawk). The vertebrae of Janavis are cuh-ray-zee pneumatic, totally honeycombed inside and fairly Swiss-cheesy in places on the outside, edging up to the frankly unbelievable anatomy of pelicans. Or shoebill storks, about which more in a sec.

Jessie Atterholt, Grace Burton, and me at the LACM in August, 2024. Sorry about the unfortunate non-sauropods in the background.
Grace Burton, one of Dan’s current PhD students, came over to SoCal last year to do some research at the LACM and work with Jessie and me on the IchyJan project (it only took me about half a dozen emails to realize that I was too lazy to type “Ichthyornis and Janavis” the thousand or so times I’d need to). The three of us had an enjoyable visit to the LACM Ornithology collection to find comparative specimens, some of which we ended up figuring in the new paper. And Jessie and Grace spend a LOT of time looking through CT scans. I got in on some of that, but really, Jessie and Grace did almost all the heavy lifting with both the research and the writing, so it’s only just that they’re the first two authors. This was mostly an Atterholt joint from the get-go anyway. If my interest in weird neural canal anatomy is a roaring bonfire, Jessie’s is more like the Sun.

One of the cervical vertebrae of the shoebill stork, Balaeniceps rex, LACM 116167. Check out the “bone foam” of pneumatic foramina inside the cervical rib loop and on the side of the centrum.
Of the new coauthors I picked up on this project, one is close to home: Elle Fricano, who works alongside Jessie and me as one of the anatomy faculty at WesternU. We ended up needing to scan some specimens at WesternU with our microCT machine, and Elle did virtually all of the scanning and interp, so we brought her on as an author. Elle’s own research is mostly on the evolution of the cranial base and ear region in humans and other primates, but she’s gotten into pneumaticity with a very nice paper on the human maxillary sinus (Fricano et al. 2025). She also works as a forensic anthropologist, and earlier this year she passed her forensic board exams to became the 176th Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Anthropology — the 176th ever (full list here) — and one of only 124 active board-certified forensic anthropologists in the world. That is a heck of an achievement for anyone, but especially for someone on the tenure track, with a heavy teaching load, research, committee service, and a family. Am I bragging on my colleague? Heck yes. When a fire burns down a neighborhood out here, Elle is one of the people who goes and sifts bone shards out of the ashes and does her best to give the survivors some closure (not to mention helping investigate other deaths, ones that Nature had less of a hand in). That work is not without its costs, and I’m a little in awe of anyone who chooses to do it.

Hypothesized reconstructions of respiratory, vascular, and neurological structures in the neural canals of Ichthyornis dispar and Janavis finalidens. (a) Ichthyornis (KUVP 25472) cervical 11 showing likely arrangement of paramedullary diverticula (green) and paired extradural ventral spinal vessels (pink) relative to the spinal cord (yellow). (b) Janavis (NHMM RD 271) indeterminate mid-thoracic vertebra 1 showing likely arrangement of the extradural dorsal spinal vein (blue) relative to the spinal cord (yellow). Atterholt et al. (2025: figure 5).
Anyway: neural canals in fossil birds. We were hunting for hard evidence of pneumatic diverticula inside the neural canal, ideally unambiguous foramina opening into clearly pneumatic spaces in the neural arch or centrum. We found those foramina, and lots of other weird stuff besides. Some of the vertebrae of Ichthyornis and Janavis have bilobed neural canals, and from comparisons with extant birds we’re pretty sure the upper lobe held a big venous sinus. Crocs have one, too, in their bilobed neural canals. Most of the critters that fall evolutionarily between crocs and birds don’t have bilobed neural canals, but they may still have had big venous sinuses that simply failed to leave diagnostic traces — the curse of pneumaticity researchers extended to blood vessels.
Some of our CT scans of extant birds show that upper lobe being shared by both a big venous sinus and pneumatic diverticula, and the upper lobe is sometimes expanded into what Jessie and I nicknamed the “pneumatic attic”: a large space of variable geometry that very often has big pneumatic foramina opening into the transverse processes, postzygapophyseal rami, or neural spines. You can see the “pneumatic attic” with the pneumatic diverticula restored in a vertebra of Ichthyornis in Figure 5, above. Virtually everything we found in Ichthyornis and Janavis could be lined up 1-for-1 with an identical geometry or topology in one or another extant bird, which made us feel better about our interpretations.

Paired ventrolateral channels in Ichthyornis dispar, and examples of similar structures in extant avians. (a) Ichthyornis (ALMNH 3316) axis; note that the channel on the right has just given rise to a neurovascular foramen. (b) Ichthyornis (KUVP 25472) vertebra 11. (c) King penguin (Aptenodytes patagonicus, LACM 99854) thoracic vertebra. (d) Ichthyornis (ALMNH 3316) sacral vertebra. (e) Blue petrel (Halobaena caerulea) sacral vertebra. (f) Ichthyornis (KUVP 25472) indeterminate caudal vertebra 1. (g) Ichthyornis (KUVP 25472) indeterminate caudal vertebra 2. (h) Common loon (Gavia immer, LACM 112761) caudal vertebra. (i) Antarctic prion (Pachyptila desolata) caudal vertebra. Atterholt et al. (2025: figure 4).
One thing that needs more work is the frequent occurrence of small, paired troughs at the ventrolateral corners of the neural canal, not only in Ichthyornis and Janavis but in many extant birds as well. These troughs often bud off little vascular foramina that we can trace down into the centrum, so we’re pretty sure the troughs held blood vessels in life. A lot of vertebrates have a ladder-like arrangement of arteries in their neural canals, which could be the source of these troughs, but they might also have been produced by little basivertebral veins, which birds otherwise seem to lack. Why don’t we we just inject some dead birds, dissect them, and find out, you maybe wondering. Well, we’re gonna, at some point, but that’s at least another whole paper’s worth of work, and possibly several. We’d rather just go look up the answer, but as far as we and our reviewers could tell, no-one has ever written about these troughs and their contents before (if you know otherwise, please sing out in the comments!).
So once again, Jessie and I find ourselves needing to do novel anatomical research on living animals, partly because it’s worth doing in its own right, but also so that we can make progress on the paleontological questions that got us into this in the first place. It’s awfully hard to make informed paleobiological inferences when so much basic anatomy remains to be documented for the first time, even in extant critters. As I keep saying, a lot of this is work that anyone with sufficient time and curiosity could do, much of it inexpensively. So if you find this stuff intriguing, we’d love to have more explorers out here where the pneumatosphere intrudes into the neural-canal-iverse.

I was up inside the Utah Field House Diplodocus three weeks ago, logging pneumatic structures that no-one had documented in 125 years. More on that another time. Many thanks to John Foster for the ladder and the permission.
As for Jessie and me, this is our fifth neural-canal-related paper (see the evolving list here). We keep kicking them out the rate of one per year, which is nice and sustainable and unlikely to stop anytime soon. According to my to-do list, she and I have at least another 15 collaborative papers planned. Not all of them are about neural canals, but still… I reckon we’d better get to it.
REFERENCES
- Atterholt, Jessie, and Wedel, Mathew J. 2022. A computed tomography-based survey of paramedullary diverticula in extant Aves. The Anatomical Record 306(1): 29-50. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24923
- Atterholt, Jessie; Burton, M. Grace; Wedel, Mathew J.; Benito, Juan; Fricano, Ellen; and Field, Daniel J. 2025. Osteological correlates of the respiratory and vascular systems in the neural canals of Mesozoic ornithurines Ichthyornis and Janavis. The Anatomical Record. http://doi.org/10.1002/ar.70070.
- Benito, Juan; Kuo, Pei-Chen; Widrig, Klara E.; Jagt, John W. M.; Field, Daniel J. 2022. Cretaceous ornithurine supports a neognathous crown bird ancestor. Nature. 612 (7938): 100–105. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05445-y.
- Fricano, Ellen E.I; Nguyen, Joseph; Hallal, Ryan; and Llera Martín, Catherine J. 2025. Under the surface: Correlates with maxillary sinus shape. Journal of Anatomy. https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.14283
- Marsh, O.C. 1880. Odontornithes: a monograph on the extinct toothed birds of North America. United States Geological Exploration of the 40th Parallel. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 201 pp.
Midnight in the Museum
September 27, 2025
Midnight in the museum
In the yawning resonance
Of empty space
The great xylophone skeletons
Play the lonely strains of Time
Like cathedral organs
Heralding the ends of ages.
Time rushes on
The final predator
Implacable
Like Dinichthys
Cruising the crinoid beds
Sounding one note:
Everything dies.
Change hammers all
On the anvil of eons
Carnivores and civilizations
Long of tooth
Weak of spirit
Wracked by rot and riot
Collapse.
Their carcasses play host
To new generations
That strip the drying flesh
And flaunt their youth
Beneath the philistine stars
That warmed the nebulae
Before the phoenix-fusion birth
Of brash young Sol.
I feel a distant call
The silent whistle screaming
Of my genes
Seeking always
To jump this fragile ship of life
And flee down the generations
Until I am lost
Expended
Forgotten.
The tyrant kings smile knowingly:
“You too shall pass”
And continue their stately voyage
Into eternity.
The circle closes
The revolution complete
And morning spreads her wings
To the far horizon.
I do not fear the dawn
Or the age to come
For I have basked
On desert sands
Drinking life like heat
And felt the mighty Tethys
Washing over my feet.
Notes
In 1998-2001 I was a graduate student at the University of Oklahoma, with night-owl tendencies and all-hours keycard access to the old museum collections, a defunct WWII-era gymnasium where dinosaur skeletons were prepared and test-assembled, and the new building — now the Sam Noble Museum of Natural History — where they were being installed, ancient bones going up on skeletons of new steel. I wrote this in 1998 or 1999; perhaps fittingly, its precise origin is now lost in time. I’d no doubt say it all rather differently now, but 50-year-old me will yield the floor to the 20-something who penned this, not least because he wrote me into existence as well. Oh, and if I didn’t swipe the expression “xylophone skeletons” directly from Ray Bradbury’s Dinosaur Tales, it was at least heavily inspired by Bradbury.
Photos, top to bottom:
Diplodocus, Utah Field House of Natural History, Vernal, UT
Pteranodon, Rocky Mountain Dinosaur Resource Center, Woodland Park, CO
Something toothy, American Museum of Natural History, New York City, NY
Clouds over Mygatt-Moore Quarry, Rabbit Valley, CO
Ripple rock, Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Denver, CO
This Saturday is Aquilops Day!
July 17, 2025
This Saturday, July 19, the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History is hosting Aquilops Day.
Before Jurassic World Rebirth was released, I was interviewed by the folks at the SNOMNH about Aquilops. Andy Farke and I got quoted a few places (here, here, and here). I was really happy to see Scott Madsen get some attention (here) — if he hadn’t found and prepped the fossil, Aquilops wouldn’t be a thing, and we’d know a lot less about the earliest ceratopsians in North America.
It was nice to see that one quote of mine get around, but the rest of the interview was just sitting in email, so I got permission from the SNOMNH folks to post it here.
When the specimen was first discovered in the field what did the team think it was initially? Were they looking for anything specific in the area?
I wasn’t on the expedition in the summer of 1997 when Scott Madsen discovered the Aquilops type specimen — everything I know about this I learned from Scott and from Dr. Cifelli later. I did go out to the Cloverly Formation with the OMNH crew in the summer of 1998. To answer those questions in reverse order: even in 1998 we were looking for anything and everything. I did a lot of prospecting that summer with Scott and the rest of the crew, just walking outcrops for hours in hopes of finding either fossil skeletons or a promising microsite, someplace that preserved a lot of tiny bones and especially teeth that we could retrieve by screenwashing the sediment. Dr. Cifelli had been very successful getting tiny teeth of early mammals, lizards, snakes, and more from microsites in the Cedar Mountain Formation in Utah and, to a lesser extent, from the Antlers Formation in southeast Oklahoma, and we were hoping to replicate that success in the Cloverly. But we also were not going to turn down larger fossils like skulls and skeletons.
According to Scott’s account of the discovery (link), everyone initially assumed it was a Zephyrosaurus, a small plant-eating dinosaur distantly related to duckbills. It was only during the process of preparing the skull out of the surrounding rock that Scott found the beak and realized that it was an early horned dinosaur — the earliest anywhere in the world outside of Asia.
It’s more rare or unusual to find a dinosaur’s skull relatively intact isn’t it? Do we know or can we guess what circumstances caused this specimen’s skull to be preserved without the rest of its body?
It does often seem like feast or famine with dinosaur skulls. There are numerous dinosaurs for which we have most of the skeleton but no skull, and some others for which we have a skull but nothing else. For relatively large-headed animals like Aquilops, the skull and the body are basically two big masses connected by a weaker linkage — the neck. It’s common for the head to become separated from the body after death, as the carcass is moved around by scavengers or simply by flowing water. The same thing happens to human bodies in forensic situations.
What adaptations did Aquilops and other early ceratopsians have that made it so successful? What environmental pressures caused such a small, unassuming dinosaur to eventually evolve into some of the largest land animals that ever lived?
Ceratopsians had nifty teeth that could efficiently cut up plants, like walking around with paired sets of garden shears in their mouths. And to power those shears, they had enlarged attachments for jaw muscles at the backs of their skulls, which were the first beginnings of the frills that things like Triceratops and Pentaceratops would take to such flamboyant lengths later on. But even the little cat- and pig-sized ceratopsians were pretty successful, based on the high diversity of early ceratopsians in China and Mongolia — the ancestors and cousins of Aquilops.
The combination of big jaw muscles, shearing teeth, sharp beak, and pointy skull bits worked well across a wide range of body sizes, from little tiny things like Aquilops to the later rhino- and elephant-sized horned dinosaurs. I think it’s particularly interesting that even in the Late Cretaceous, generally Aquilops-like small ceratopsians such as Leptoceratops were still thriving alongside giants like Triceratops. So it’s not the case that big ceratopsians replaced small ceratopsians, rather that the range of successful body plans expanded to include big multi-horned four-leggers. But the little ones were still doing fine, more than 40 million years after Aquilops existed.

My Aquilops t-shirt was a birthday present from Andy Farke. I didn’t even know the other one existed until Jenny got it delivered.
How accurate do you think Aquilops’ representation will be on the big screen? What would be the biggest challenge in realistically portraying Aquilops in film — locomotion, coloration or something else?
We have a lot of advantages when it comes to reconstructing the little early ceratopsians. From Asia we have multiple complete skeletons of close relatives of Aquilops, like Psittacosaurus, and some of those have fossilized impressions of the skin, including scales, color patterns, even protofeathers or “dinofuzz”. So we can reconstruct those animals with a lot more certainty than we can most of larger and more famous dinosaurs like Spinosaurus or Dilophosaurus. There isn’t a single Dilophosaurus in the world in which the tippy-top of the skull is intact, so we still don’t know the full shape and extent of the head crest (more on that here).
From the footage I’ve seen in the trailers, I think the moviemakers did a pretty darned good job with Aquilops. The body proportions look good, the colors and movements are plausible, nothing set off any red flags for me. I do wonder about disposition. A lot of small plant-eaters today are pretty skittish, and they can fight aggressively when cornered — think about the attitude of a bantam rooster, or an angry goose. My guess is that a live Aquilops would be so good at hiding that humans moving through its environment would never even see it. But for the sake of getting to see “my” dinosaur on the big screen, I’m glad the moviemakers went another way.
One more question for fun… if you were consulted about creating this dinosaur’s on-screen persona, what kind of personality do you think it would or should have had? Nervous? Intelligent? Are there any modern animals that might have a similar personality?
When Dr. Farke, who was the lead author on the Aquilops project, and I were coordinating with Brian Engh, who did all of the art for the paper and the press release, we wanted to show a person holding an Aquilops to give a sense of scale. One of the things we talked about is that living animals with beaks or sharp teeth have a tendency to bite when they feel threatened. The core ceratopsian superpower was having very powerful jaw muscles pushing scissor-like teeth and a wickedly sharp beak. One of Brian’s preliminary sketches showed an Aquilops jumping out of a person’s arms and nipping their fingers on the way. As much as I love the idea of an adorable, friendly “cat-ceratops”, I think a real-life Aquilops would have no problem kicking, scratching, and especially biting if it got cornered by a human. Imagine a raccoon with the head of a snapping turtle — would you want that in your backpack?
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
One thing occurred to me after the interview, and after I saw the movie: the filmmakers may have gotten Dolores’s personality more correct than I thought. In the movie, the island had been uninhabited by people for 17years, and presumably Dolores is younger than that. She’d have no reason to fear people, and given the wiiiide variation in animal personalities, it wouldn’t surprise me if some Aquilops were more inquisitive than skittish. I still don’t think I’d want a cat-sized biting machine in my backpack; as Xavier says in the movie, “That may or may not be a terrible idea.”
So anyway, if you’re in or near central Oklahoma this weekend, you could do a lot worse than swinging by the Sam Noble Museum to enjoy Aquilops Day. I myself am planning on giving a short virtual presentation there — watch this space for more. EDIT: my talk, “Bringing Aquilops to Life”, will run from 1:00-1:15 PM, Central Daylight Time.
And since I’ve linked to more than one YouTube video already in this post, go watch Gabriel Santos’s awesome short on Aquilops — it’s good for you.
Whatever happened to the Munich Diplododcus?
May 15, 2025
Everybody[1] knows that in the early years of the 20th Century, the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh sent casts of its iconic Diplodocus around the world. Ten casts, in fact: to London, Berlin, Paris, Vienna, Bologna, St. Petersburg, La Plata, Madrid, Mexico City and Munich. The first nine were all mounted, and most still stand in their original museums. (The London cast has moved around a lot and currently resides in Coventry; the Russian cast has a very strange history and is now in Moscow.)
But what happened to the Munich cast? The story is in Taylor et al. 2025:68 — our new paper! — and it’s strange enough that I’m just going to quote verbatim.
The remaining Diplodocus was completed, boxed, and shipped to Munich’s Bayerische Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und Geologie in November and December of 1934, completing an exchange for fossils received from Germany five years previously (Carnegie Institute 1934:40). On arrival, however, the cast was not mounted, but instead stored in the basement of the Alte Akademie, which also housed the rest of the paleontological collections. The replica was long assumed to have been destroyed during World War II, specifically during a British Royal Air Force bombing in April 1944, along with the Spinosaurus aegyptiacus holotype BSP 1912 VIII 19 and other dinosaur remains from Egypt. However, the cast had been removed from the building before the bombing raid, and while the elements themselves were not destroyed, the record of where they had been moved to was lost. It now seems the cast was taken to an abandoned convent on the outskirts of Munich. It is believed that a group of hippies, holding parties in the convent during the 1960s, found some cast bones, took them home, and attracted the attention of authorities who then discovered the crates (sources who wish to remain anonymous, pers. comm. 2022). At any rate, the cast was returned to the Munich museum in 1977 but has remained in storage ever since. Calls for it to be mounted as one of the attractions of a new museum at the Nymphenburg castle came to nothing, partly because the museum authorities favored a lighter and stronger resin cast over the maintenance-intensive plaster one.
In a perfect world, I would like to illustrate this post with photos of the Munich Diplodocus, still in its basement at the time of writing. I do have a few such photos; but the person who sent them to me said that the museum prefers that they not be made public, so I’m going to sit on them. Toss in the fact that much of what we found out for the paper was a personal communication from someone who doesn’t want to be named[2], and the whole thing feels rather mysterious.
I just hope that some day, Louise[3] Carnegie’s final gift will find a home worthy of it, on public display.
[1] Well, OK.Maybe not everyone, but probably most people who read this blog.
[2] I don’t even know myself who that person is: Ilja Nieuwland, one of the co-authors, made the relevant contact.
[3] Yes, Louise. The Munich donation was made in 1934, fifteen years after Andrew Carnegie’s death, and was made possible only by financial assistance from his widow Louise. It was in her honour that Apatosaurus louisae was named. What a great legacy.
References
- Carnegie Institute. 1934. Thirty-seventh annual report of the
Carnegie Museum. Carnegie Institute, Pittsburgh. - Taylor, Michael P., Amy C. Henrici, Linsly J. Church, Ilja Nieuwland and Matthew C. Lamanna. 2025. The history and composition of the Carnegie Diplodocus. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 91(1):55–91. doi:10.2992/007.091.0104
Everything you always wanted to know about the Carnegie Diplodocus (but were afraid to ask)
May 8, 2025
I’m really delighted today to announce the publication of my, and my co-authors’, new paper on the Carnegie Diplodocus:

Taylor et al. 2025: Figure 13. Skeletal atlas of the Carnegie mount of Diplodocus as originally erected in 1907, with bones color-coded according to the specimen they belonged to or were cast or sculpted from. Modified from a skeletal reconstruction by Scott Hartman, used with permission. Bones are colored as follows: CM 84 (most of the skeleton), yellow; CM 94 (right scapulocoracoid, lower right hindlimb, much of the tail and some chevrons), sculpted left tibia, red; CM 307 (the rest of the tail), not pictured; CM 662 (sculpted braincase, right humerus, radius and ulna), green; AMNH 965 (sculpted forefeet and carpus), purple; CM 21775 (left humerus, radius and ulna), cyan; CM 33985 (left fibula and lateral metatarsals), orange; USNM 2673 (sculpted remainder of skull), gold. White elements were sculpted, but the specimens on which these sculptures were based are not definitively known, though are most likely the corresponding CM 84 elements from the other side. Hyoids, clavicles, interclavicle, sternal ribs, and gastralia were all omitted from the mounted skeleton. Source of chevrons past the first seven is uncertain. See Table 2 and text for details.
“But Mike”, you say, “surely the Carnegie Diplodocus is the single best-known sauropod in the world? Didn’t Ilja Nieuwland (2019) write the definitive book about it only six years ago?”
And you’re not wrong. Lots has been written about the history of this specimen, not least my own paper on the concrete cast in Vernal, Utah (Taylor et al. 2013). And yet, surprisingly little has been written about the actual science of this keystone specimen: nothing very substantial, really, since Hatcher’s (1901) original monograph and Holland’s (1906) follow-up.
As I recounted in How the Concrete Diplodocus paper came to be, this new paper initially arose from one seemingly simple question which I wanted to be able to answer in the Concrete Diplodocus paper: what actual bones were the Carnegie casts taken from. And the answer turned out to be complicated. (That answer is summarised in the caption to Figure 13, above.)
As I started trying to figure this out, I got into correspondence with Matt Lamanna, the Carnegie’s very helpful curator of vertebrate palaeontology, and it quickly became apparent that Matt’s substantial contributions warranted co-authorship. Through Matt, I also got in touch with Amy Henrici, then the Carnegie’s collection manager for VP (now retired); and then with Linsly Church, a curatorial assistant in the same department. Both Amy and Linsly also went far beyond the call of duty, so joined the authorship. Meanwhile, as I was working on the brief historical introduction of the paper, I kept finding new rabbit-holes, and got so much help from Ilja Nieuwland that that section grew substantially and he, too, ended up as a co-author. So we ended up with five of us working on this thing, as it grew from a brief note to 27 deliciously detailed pages with 22 illustrations. (Lots of other people helped, too: see the acknowledgements.)

Taylor et al. 2015: Figure 16. Right forefeet of the Carnegie Diplodocus and its casts, all in approximately anterior view. A, the feet as originally mounted in 1905 (in the London cast), 1907 (in the first iteration of the Carnegie Museum original-material mount), and subsequent casts, as supervised by Hatcher and Holland and executed by Coggeshall. This photograph shows the right forefoot of the Paris mount, which is unchanged since its original mounting. This forefoot material, sculpted from the camarasaurid specimen AMNH 965, has elongate metacarpals splayed in a semi-plantigrade posture, with multiple phalanges on each of the three medial digit and large unguals on digits I, II, and III. Photograph by Vincent Reneleau (MNHN); B, the right forefoot of the Berlin mount, as remounted in 2006 by Research Casting International, supervised by Kristian Remes. This consists of the original casts mounted in 1908 by Holland and Coggeshall, reposed in a more modern digitigrade posture, with superfluous phalanges and unguals discarded (see text). Photograph by Verónica Díez Díaz (MfN); C, the forefeet of Galeamopus (= “Diplodocus”) hayi HMNS 175 (formerly CM 662), casts of which were used in the Carnegie mount between 1999 and 2007. Note the much shorter metacarpals, the fully digitigrade posture, the reduction in phalangeal count, and the single large manual ungual on digit I. Photograph by Jeremy Huff (TAMU); D, the present forefeet of the Carnegie mount, modelled in 2007 after those of WDC-FS001A, then thought to belong to Diplodocus carnegii (Bedell and Trexler 2005) but currently thought to belong to an as-yet unnamed basal diplodocine (Tschopp et al. 2015:229–230). Note the resemblance to the diplodocine forefoot in part C, with short metacarpals, digitigrade posture, reduced phalangeal count, and a single large manual ungual. Photograph by Matthew C. Lamanna.
It turns out there was still plenty of history to be uncovered, and that some well-known parts of the story aren’t quite right after all. Also, that the composition of the Carnegie mount has changed a lot through the years — something that has not been publicly documented until now. And no-one really knows even how long this dinosaur is.
We dug into all of this, with the hope that the new paper would become a one-stop-shop for anyone who needs to know anything about this keystone specimen. It’s been a joy to work on (and especially to work with Matt L., Amy, Linsly and Ilja), and I hope you will enjoy reading it.
(A note on the venue of publication: I went against my usual policy of open-access venues only because the museum’s in-house journal, Annals of the Carnegie Museum, seemed so historically appropriate for this work. I liked the idea of following the footsteps of Hatcher and Holland — even if their early-1900s monographs were in the now discontinued Memoirs rather than the Annals. In fact, the Annals is not even paywalled: there is no online version at all hosted by the publisher (which is the museum itself). It is a print-only journal. So you can consider the PDF on my own website to be the definitive electronic copy.)
Oh, and we have a sidebar page about the new paper, containing full-resolution copies of all 22 illustrations.
References
- Hatcher, John Bell. 1901. Diplodocus (Marsh): its osteology, taxonomy, and probable habits, with a restoration of the skeleton. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 1:1-63.
- Holland, W. J. 1906. Osteology of Diplodocus Marsh with special reference to the restoration of the skeleton of Diplodocus carnegiei Hatcher presented by Mr Andrew Carnegie to the British Museum, May 12 1905. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 2(6):225-278.
- Nieuwland, Ilja. 2019. American dinosaur abroad: a cultural history of Carnegie’s plaster Diplodocus. University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN:978-0822945574. doi:10.2307/j.ctvh4zh5n
- Taylor, Michael P., Steven D. Sroka and Kenneth Carpenter. 2023. The Concrete Diplodocus of Vernal — a Cultural Icon of Utah. Geology of the Intermountain West 10:65-91. doi: 10.31711/giw.v10.pp65-91
- Taylor, Michael P., Amy C. Henrici, Linsly J. Church, Ilja Nieuwland and Matthew C. Lamanna. 2025. The history and composition of the Carnegie Diplodocus. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 91(1):55–91. doi: to follow.
Here’s a short post on another 5PVC presentation: Raber et al. (2025) on a musculoskeletal lesion in an apatosaur femur.
At the Utah Field House in Vernal, there’s a partial skeleton of an apatosaur from just north of Dinosaur National Monument. It’s nicknamed the “Soft Sauropod” because the bone is softer than the matrix, which made preparation a bit of an adventure.
I first became aware of this specimen a few years ago, when the distal end of the right femur was temporarily on display at the Field House. There’s a big bony prominence just proximal to the medial femoral condyle, right where we’d expect the medial head of the gastrocnemius to originate. It’s about the size of an ice cream cone, and it looks for all the world like a gastrocnemius tug lesion — indeed, it’s pretty hard to imagine what else could have caused a big conical spike of bone to form in precisely that place. Gastrocnemius tug lesions happen in humans and dogs and horses and loads of other extant animals, so they’re pretty well understood. As far as any of us know, this is the first one in a non-avian dinosaur.
I tend to not bring medical students in on paleo projects, unless those projects are going to teach them something relevant to their future careers as physicians. In this case, though, it was a no-brainer. One of our first year osteopathic medical students, Katherine Raber, got in touch with Jessie and me last fall and said she was interested in working on a paleo project, and I’d already talked with John Foster about the possibility of letting a med student tackle this very-diagnostic-and-highly-relevant-to-medicine project. And here we are.
Want to know more? Our slideshow on this specimen will be up for a few days yet, and there will be a paper along in due time.
References
- Gould, C.F., et al. (2007). Bone Tumor Mimics: Avoiding Misdiagnosis. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology, 36(3):124-141.
- Raber, K., Wedel, M., Atterholt, J., Foster, J., Gray, D., and Bennis, M.B. 2025. A musculoskeletal lesion in a femur of Apatosaurus. 5th Palaeontological Virtual Congress. [NB: you will probably need to be registered for 5PVC to follow that link.]
- Seiler, G. & Thrall, D.E. (Eds.). (2018). Thrall’s Textbook of Veterinary Diagnostic Radiology (7th ed.). Saunders.
A unique sauropod mount: Haplocanthosaurus delfsi CMNH 10380
January 23, 2025
Hatcher (1903a) gave a very brief description — two pages and no illustrations — of the new sauropod Haplocanthus, basing it and its type species H. priscus on the adult specimen CM 572. Later that year, having been notified that the genus name was preoccupied by a fish, he renamed it Haplocanthosaurus in a single-paragraph note (Hatcher 1903b).
Then in his monographic description later that same year (Hatcher 1903c), he also named a second species, H. utterbacki, based on the subadult specimen CM 879. McIntosh and Williams (1988:22) considered this to be synonymous with H. priscus, the differences noted by Hatcher being due to preparation (absence of hyposphenes) and ontogeny (fusion of sacral spines). This synonymy has been universally followed since.
Eighty-five years after Hatcher’s three papers, McIntosh and Williams (1988) described a new species of Haplocanthosaurus — H. delfsi — and this one has been accepted as valid. Their paper contains a photograph of the mounted skeleton in the Cleveland Museum:
What I didn’t realise until recently is that this is not how the skeleton was first exhibited at the museum. In an article about the new remount of this skeleton (its tail is off the floor at last!), Emily Driehaus writes that “by 1957, the team had fully excavated the dinosaur—and it was on display in the Museum by 1961”. And the article includes this photo:
I’ve never seen anything like this. I’ve seen plenty of regular mounts, and I’ve seen panel mounts where the bones are laid out on the ground as they may have been when they were found. And I’ve seen photos of the bizarre everted-elbowed Diplodocus in St. Petersburg. But never an exhibit like this, with the rib-cage complete and articulated, but sitting on the ground with the legs splayed out.
I wonder what the story was here? Did they get as far as building the torso, then run out of time or money? Were they trying for a possible sleeping posture? That doesn’t work at all: the femur would have been disarticulated in that posture, and the torso would need to be higher off the ground to allow space for the guts and gastralia.
Does anyone know any more about this?
Update (24 January 2024)
In a comment below, Matt Inabinett points to a Facebook post containing a photo of this exhibit under construction:
The accompanying text reads:
#TBT to the year 1959 and the mounting of our Late Jurassic sauropod, Haplocanthosaurus delfsi, nicknamed Happy! In life, this dinosaur was probably more than 72 feet long and 14 feet tall at the hips, with a weight of about 25 tons. Because of this tremendous mass, it’s anatomically impossible for a sauropod to be in this position without breaking all their joints…unless…😬🦖
Which could be construed as “unless killed by a theropod”, I guess, suggestion that the old mount might have been intended as a death pose.
(Note, by the way, that the 1959 date claimed for this photo doesn’t make a good match for the statement “it was on display in the Museum by 1961” in the article I first linked.)
References
- Hatcher, John B. 1903a. A new sauropod dinosaur from the Jurassic of Colorado. Proceedings of the Biology Society of Washington 16:1–2.
- Hatcher, John B. 1903b. A new name for the dinosaur Haplocanthus Hatcher. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 16:100.
- Hatcher, John B. 1903c. Osteology of Haplocanthosaurus with description of a new species, and remarks on the probable habits of the Sauropoda and the age and origin of the Atlantosaurus beds; additional remarks on Diplodocus. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 2:1–75 and plates I–VI.
- McIntosh, John S, and Michael E. Williams. 1988. A new species of sauropod dinosaur, Haplocanthosaurus delfsi sp. nov., from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Fm. of Colorado. Kirtlandia 43:3–26.
My favorite piece of paleoart is now for sale
November 6, 2024
I’ve written here before about Donald Glut’s The New Dinosaur Dictionary and the looooong shadow it cast over my adolescence. That book introduced me to a lot of artists I’d never heard of. The Dinosaur Renaissance was named two months before I was born, so I grew up with a mix of old school paleoart from the 1960s and before, and newer restorations by the likes of Bob Bakker, Greg Paul, William Stout, and — fatefully — Mark Hallett. Among the older artists that I first encountered in The New Dinosaur Dictionary was Neave Parker. Parker was active in the middle of the 20th century, painting dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals for the British Natural History Museum, the Illustrated London News, and books by Edwin Colbert and W.E. Swinton (see this page at the old Love in the Time of Chasmosaurs, and this almost comically ungenerous piece at the NHMUK).
Parker’s work was oddly evocative for me. It’s true that little of it holds up today in terms of anatomical accuracy, but the execution really worked for me — especially at the small scale and relatively low resolution (by modern standards) of the reproductions in The New Dinosaur Dictionary, which compressed the brush strokes into invisibility, lending the work a near-photographic crispness. Combined with Parker’s penchant for bright light and stark shadows, the work had a documentary-like air of reality, like I could step into the scenes and squint up at the sun.
I realize this is a highly personal take, and you may feel completely differently about Parker’s work. I’m not describing my objective assessment of his work in 2024, but its subjective effect on me in the early 1980s. I imprinted on Parker’s vision of the past, as I did on the work of William Stout and Mark Hallett and the rest. Specifically, I internalized from Parker’s work that when I stepped out of the time machine, the Mesozoic would be sun-drenched, and there would be palm trees.
This is Brian Engh’s painting of the hadrosaur Ornatops (McDonald et al. 2021) on display at the Western Science Center in Hemet, California. It’s phenomenal, but like almost all pieces by my favorite artists, I prefer the original pencil sketch, for reasons I explained back when. Here’s my print of it, awaiting a frame:
This resonates for me on so many levels. The sun, the shadows, the (paleobotanically correct) palm trees, the sense that I could step through and run my hands over the animal’s skin and feel each bump and wrinkle. The sheer technical virtuosity on display. Perhaps most of all, the way that it collapses all the time between 1984 and 2024, letting me play chrononaut both in the Cretaceous and in my own life, a gangly kid in my dad’s recliner, The New Dinosaur Dictionary open in my lap, plummeting down the rabbit hole. And that is why this goofy horse-faced no-vertebral-pneumaticity-havin’ hadrosaur is, in fact, my favorite piece of paleoart ever.
Brian Engh recently launched his new website for Living Relic Productions, and there’s a store where you can buy his art. Both Ornatops pieces are there, the color painting because it was one of the first things he put up as a test article, and the pencil sketch because I requested it and he accommodated me (thanks, fam!). He also has some sweet stickers, so you can class up the joint with sauropods. Go have fun!
References
- Glut, D.F. 1982. The New Dinosaur Dictionary. Citadel Press, 288pp.
- McDonald AT, Wolfe DG, Freedman Fowler EA, Gates TA. 2021. A new brachylophosaurin (Dinosauria: Hadrosauridae) from the Upper Cretaceous Menefee Formation of New Mexico. PeerJ 9:e11084 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11084




































